Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 38 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 32 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Compassionate727. I want to make sure this is still on your radar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and it's very nearly done. There's no reason I shouldn't finish it tomorrow, if not tonight. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

{{Done}}. I fear I'm going to ruffle some feathers with that, but I do believe it both the correct outcome and the most inoffensive one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

...why do you think the most inoffensive option is to re-close the original RFC to Option 1? What's your evidence that was the consensus of that original RFC? Loki (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Undone per WP:BADNAC#2 by another user. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 99 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 97 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 97 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 49 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 48 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC: Wikipedia reliability section

(Initiated 40 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 38 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 37 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

(Initiated 35 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter_manager#RfC about the status of this page

(Initiated 34 days ago on 6 July 2024) Discussion is fairly simple but as this is a policy discussion it should likely receive uninvolved closure. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 33 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 33 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Post

(Initiated 32 days ago on 8 July 2024) Discussion has mostly died down in recent days. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty clear SNOW close to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Didn't need a formal closure, but  Done anyway. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 31 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hosni_Mubarak#Rfc_for_lede_image_for_Hosni_Mubarak

(Initiated 30 days ago on 10 July 2024) This is ready to close. Nemov (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

(Initiated 30 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	3	31	34
TfD	0	0	6	1	7
MfD	0	0	5	1	6
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	75	25	100
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

(Initiated 254 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 77 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 74 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 72 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 62 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 33 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under Extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (46 out of 8216 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Wikipedia talk:…/talk 2024-08-09 23:34 indefinite create LTA target Ad Orientem Wikipedia talk:… 2024-08-09 23:19 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: LTA Ad Orientem 1999 East Timorese crisis 2024-08-09 23:18 2025-05-14 00:00 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Category link if exists 2024-08-09 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3481 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Taxila Business School 2024-08-09 17:05 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers Draft:Sabit Yeasin 2024-08-09 16:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Hahaha 2024-08-09 16:10 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Israel Olympic football team 2024-08-09 15:16 2024-11-09 15:16 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Israeli incursions in Tulkarm 2024-08-09 14:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato MrBeast 2024-08-09 14:01 2024-11-09 14:01 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Draft:Battle of Height 383 2024-08-09 04:51 indefinite edit,move persistent readdition of page to categories no matter how many times it's removed on WP:DRAFTNOCAT grounds, by an editor who's already been told to stop it Bearcat Lipetsk air base 2024-08-09 04:35 2024-09-09 04:34 edit move protection was not needed here Red-tailed hawk Hawkesbury, Ontario 2024-08-09 00:37 2024-08-16 00:37 edit,move Persistent vandalism Anachronist Baalveer 2024-08-09 00:14 2024-11-09 00:14 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Disruption resumed as soon as the prior protection lifted. Anachronist Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Piermark 2024-08-08 20:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie Special military operation 2024-08-08 18:19 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR Muboshgu Template:Proper name 2024-08-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2518 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Election box gain with party link no swing 2024-08-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Disestablishment category in country by decade/core 2024-08-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2586 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Palestine at the 2024 Summer Olympics 2024-08-08 12:46 2024-09-08 12:46 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Kursk 2024-08-08 12:39 2025-02-08 12:39 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato User talk:194.28.84.109 2024-08-08 08:08 2024-11-08 08:08 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot PhonePe 2024-08-07 22:02 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry, block evasion and WP:UPE The Wordsmith Steve Shapiro 2024-08-07 21:43 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: WP:UPE target - approved draft required Ponyo Sudzha 2024-08-07 18:17 2024-08-14 18:17 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Less Unless Hollywood Creative Alliance 2024-08-07 17:33 2024-08-21 17:33 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Discussed at WP:ANI Cullen328 Misandry 2024-08-07 17:28 indefinite edit Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/GG -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Buuhoodle 2024-08-07 14:51 2026-08-07 14:51 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Case Oh 2024-08-07 12:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Muhammad Hassaan 2024-08-07 11:59 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Titan Cameraman 2024-08-07 10:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Talk:Gaza genocide 2024-08-06 22:57 2024-08-13 22:57 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion 2024-08-06 20:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato The Day Britain Stopped 2024-08-06 19:44 2025-08-06 19:44 edit Persistent sock puppetry Isabelle Belato User talk:RickinBaltimore 2024-08-06 18:19 indefinite move Persistent vandalism RickinBaltimore Khade 2024-08-06 16:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Bokad 2024-08-06 16:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Popere 2024-08-06 16:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Thorat 2024-08-06 16:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Dharala 2024-08-06 16:03 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Steps (pop group) 2024-08-06 13:09 2024-09-06 13:09 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Ramciel 2024-08-06 12:52 2024-09-06 12:52 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Indigenous peoples of Mexico 2024-08-06 12:21 2025-08-06 12:21 edit Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Administrators' noticeboard/4 2024-08-06 11:39 2025-08-06 11:39 create Repeatedly recreated Yamla User talk:Magnolia677/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk 2024-08-06 11:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Yamla Dheyaa al-Din Saad 2024-08-06 06:36 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated ST47

Content translator tool creating nonsense pages

• See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review

Machine translation gadget

There is currently a gadget called GoogleTrans which allows the straight dropping of google translate into the content translation tool. (See here). I just did a test, and I was able to produce a machine translated article into english without leaving wikipedia using this gadget. Pinging the creator of the gadget: @Endo999:. I do not think this gadget should be present on the English wikipedia, and certainly not when it seems to explicitly endorse machine translations. Fortunately, it doesn't get around the edit filter, but it still sends a terrible message. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't remember about that gadget; I surely can make good use of it. That's the kind of tools that may be invaluable time savers in the hands of us who know how to use them, making the difference between translating a stub right now when you first stumble upon it (thanks to the kick-start of having part of the work already done), or leaving it for another day (and never coming back to it).

Given that the CTX tool has been restricted to experienced editors, and that the GoogleTrans gadget needs to be explicitly activated, the combination of the two won't be at the hands unexperienced newbies in the way that created the current backlog. The GoogleTrans doesn't insert translated content into text fields, it merely shows the translation in a pop-up; so I don't agree that it "explicitly endorses machine translations". Any editor with your experience should know better than copy-paste machine translated text unedited into an article. Diego (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I am the creator of the GoogleTrans gadget and it does do Machine Translation Under The HTML Markup when used in the Content Translation system. I have used this to translate 226 articles from the frwiki to the enwiki and got all of them reviewed okay. The Machine Translation is a starting point. You still have to manually change each and every sentence to get the grammar and meaning right. It's not very sensible to ban it because, without human followup, it produces a bad article. The point is that it is a tool to quicken the translation of easy to medium difficulty articles, especially for good language pairs like English-French. Wikipedia, itself, uses both Apertium and Yandex translation engines to do machine translation and these have been used to good effect in the Catalan and Spanish wikipedias. GoogleTrans does the same thing as Apertium in the Content Translation system, except it uses Google Translate, which most people feel is a better translation engine. As Diego says this needs to be explicitly turned on, so it tends to restrict usage to competent editors. To stress the point, Machine Translation, as done by GoogleTrans gadget, is a starting point, it is not the end product. Human intervention is required to massage the MT into decent destination language text and grammar, but Machine Translation can help start the translation quite a bit. Wikipedia feels that Machine Translation is worth doing, because it has it as a feature (using both Yandex and Apertium machine translation engines) Endo999 (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Except that we have a policy against machine translation on en.wikipedia, because the requirements for correcting its output are far higher than users tend to realise; in fact it is easier and faster to translate from scratch than to spend the necessary time and effort comparing the original with the translation to find the errors. Hence the whole long discussion above and the agreement that machine translations can be deleted as such. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no policy against Machine Translation on the enwiki. That would have to be posted on the Content Translation blog, and it isn't. I've done 226 of these articles successfully and I can tell you there is more editing for non text issues, like links around dates coming from the frwiki, editing getting references right, manual changing of TAGS because their parameter headings are in the origin language. The actual translation work postprocessing, when polished up by a person competent in the destination language is far less than you say. But style differences between the wikis take more of the editors time. Endo999 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The policy is at WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, and has been in force for a decade. ‑ Iridescent 19:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The policy is against unedited machine translation. It doesn't apply to using machine translation as a starting point to be cleaned up by hand. Diego (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

MACHINETRANSLATION isn't a policy. It isn't even a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I have never claimed that Machine Translation first drafts are good enough for articles on the enwiki. They aren't, but responsible use of Machine Translation, as a first draft, that is then worked on to become readable and accurate in the destination language is quite okay and even helpful. Endo999 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The consensus is pretty clear that unless you are translating at a professional level, machine translation is a trap. It looks good at first glance, but often introduces bad and difficult to detect errors, such as missed negations or cultural differences. Even if a human caught 9 out of 10 of these errors, the translation would be grossly unacceptable and inaccurate. I'd request that this gadget be disabled, or at minimum, de-integrated from the content translation tool. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Well. I'm pretty far from being a fan of machine translations, but it's always been possible to copy/paste from Google Translate. Anyone autoconfirmed can do that without going to all the trouble of finding and enabling this gadget. The problem is fundamentally behavioural rather than technological. The specific problem behaviour is putting incomprehensible or misleading information in the mainspace. Over-reliance on machine translation is a cause of this, but we can't prevent or disable machine translation entirely, and there's not much point trying. I think the position we should adopt is that it is okay to use machine-aided translations provided you don't put them in the mainspace until they've been thoroughly checked by someone who reads the source language and writes the target language fluently. I suggest the approach we take to Endo999's tool is to add some warnings and instructions rather than try to disable it.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget that the use of Machine Translation in the Content Translation system is expanding all the time, and I'm am pretty much the only regular user of my GoogleTrans gadget for translation purposes. Why is the gadget being singled out? Yandex machine translation is being turned on by the Content Translation people all the time for various languages, like Ukranian and Russian. The Catalan and Spanish wikipedias are at the forefront of machine translation for article creation and they are not being flamed like this. I reiterate that the majority of edits per my frwiki-to-enwiki articles are over differences in the frwiki for an article than for articles in the enwiki. The treatment of dates and athletic times is one such difference. You need to do postediting after the document has been published in order to please the editors of the destination wiki. This usually has nothing to do with the translated text but is actually the treatment of links, the treatment of dates, the removal of underlines in links, the adding of categories, the transfer of infoboxes, the addition of references (the fiwiki is particularly good for references of track and field athletes), and other wiki standards (that are different from the origin wiki). There's always going to be some postediting of translated articles because of these nontranslation specific items. It's just inherent in wiki to wiki article movement. Endo999 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't care about what happens on other wikipedia language versions, basically. Some are happy to have 99% bot-created articles, some hate bot-created articles. Some are happy with machine-translated articles, some don't. It may be true that "the use of Machine Translation in the Content Translation system is expanding all the time", but at enwiki, such a recent "expansion" started all this as the results were mostly dreadful. "Why is the gadget being singled out? Yandex machine translation is being turned on by the Content Translation people all the time for various languages, like Ukranian and Russian." Your gadget is in use on enwiki, what gadgets they use on ruwiki or the like is of no concern to us. We "single out" tools in use on enwiki, since this is an enwiki-only discussion. And this discussion is not about the long list of more cosmetic things you give at the end (or else I would start a rant about your many faux-bluelinks to frwiki articles in enwiki articles, a practice I truly dislike), it is (mostly) about quality of translation, comprehensability and accuracy. Yours are a lot better than most articles created with ContentTranslation, luckily. Fram (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Endo999: I just happened to check Odette Ducas, one of your translations from French. You had Lille piped to read "Little". This is a good illustration of how easy it is to miss errors, and it's not fair, in fact counterproductive, to encourage machine-based translation and depend on other editors to do the necessary painstaking checking. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that error (Lille translated at Little). I had seen and corrected that problem in a later article on a french female track athlete from Lille, but didn't correct the earlier translated article. Don't forget that Wikipedia is about ordinary people creating Wikipedia articles and through the ARGUS (many eyes) phenonmenon having many people correct articles so they become good articles. This is one example of that. Wikipedia is not about translation being restricted to language experts or simply experts for article creation. Your argument does tend towards that line of thought. Endo999 (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it does (for one thing, all you can know of my level of expertise is what I demonstrate). The wiki method is about trusting the wisdom of the crowd: this tool hoodwinks people. It's led you to make a silly error you wouldn't have otherwise made, and it's led to at least one eager new editor being indeffed on en.wikipedia. It rests on condescending assumptions that the editing community can't be left to decide what to work on, in what order. (Not to mention the assumptions about how other Wikipedias must be delighted to get imported content just because.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I'ld like to retract my compliment about Endo999's use of his translation tool. I have just speedy deleted his machine translation of Fatima Yvelain, which was poorly written (machine translation) and a serious BLP violation. Fram (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Almost everyone of the articles I have translated, using the GoogleTrans gadget, has already been reviewed by other editors and passed. I can only translate the existing French, which is sometimes not well written. In Fatima Yvelain's case I transferred over all the sources from the frwiki article. Can you tell me which reference didn't work out. You've deleted the article, without the ordinary seven day deletion period, so you deleted the article without any challenges. Are you and a few other reviewers systematically going through every article I have translated looking for things to criticize? Endo999 (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

That's how Wikipedia rolls; it's the easiest way to demonstrate supposed incompetence, and since incompetence on the part of the creator reflects on the tool, it is therefore the easiest way in which to get the tool removed (along with phrases such as "I'd like to retract my compliment", which I hate as much as Fram hates faux-bluelinks). Simples. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Having just checked the article for myself, if it was really "reviewed by other editors and passed" it reflects just as badly on those other editors as it does on you, given that it contained an entire paragraph of grossly libellous comments sourced entirely to an alleged reference which is on a completely unrelated topic and doesn't mention the subject once. (The fr-wikipedia article still contains the same paragraph, complete with fake reference.) Checking the review log for the page in question, I see no evidence that the claim that anyone else reviewed it is actually true. ‑ Iridescent 15:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I realise this isn't a vote, but I agree with Tazerdadog that having such a tool easily available is sending the wrong message. It needs to be restricted to experienced users, with plenty of warnings around it. Deb (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You are all panicking. There's nothing wrong with using the GoogleTrans gadget with the Content Translation system if the appropriate editing happens alongside it. The ordinary review process can uncover articles that are not translated well enought. I'm being punished for showing ingenuity here. Punishing innovation is a modern trait I find. Endo999 (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No, our reveiw processes are not adequate for this. Both the problems with translated articles, and the unrelated but similar problems with tool created articles (now discussed at WP:ANI show the problems we have in detecting articles which superficially look allright (certainly when made by editors with already some edits) but which are severely deficient nevertheless, and in both cases the problems were worse because tools made the mass creation of low quality articles much easier. While this is the responsability of the editors, not the tools, it makes sense to dismiss tools which encourage such creations. Fram (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Fram per "We don't care about what happens on other wikipedia language versions" please speak only for yourself. Some of us care deeply what happens in other language version of Wikipedia. User:Endo999 tool is not a real big issue. It does appear that the Fatima Yvelain needs to have its references checked / improved before translation. And of course the big thing with translation is to end up with good content you need to start with good content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

We, on enwiki, don't care about what happens at other language versions: such discussions belong either at that specific language or at a general site (Wikimedia). These may involve the same people of course. 19:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Do people feel that a RFC on this topic would be appropriate/helpful? The discussion seems to have fixated on minute analyses of Endo999's editing, which is not the point. The discussion should be on whether the presence of the gadget is an implicit endorsement of machine translated materials, and whether its continued presence sends the wrong message. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I believe an RfC would be helpful assuming it is well prepared.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The GoogleTrans gadget has been running on the enwiki for the last 7 years and has 29,000 people who load the gadget when they sign into Wikipedia. It's quite a successful gadget and certainly, wiki to wiki translators have concentrated on the gadget because while they may know English (when they are translating articles between the enwiki and their home wikis) they like to get the translation of a word every once in a while. Endo999 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on this matter seems to have mostly died down, but I was unaware of this discussion until now and I feel the need to speak up on behalf of translation tools. I don't believe the tool being discussed here is the one I am using, since *it* does not provide a machine translation into english. However. I do put english into French based on the machine translation. I repeat, *based on*. Many of my edits to date have been translation and cleanup after translation, so I am probably close to an ideal use case. The tool, Yandex.Translate, appeared on my French wikipedia account and I do find it useful, although it produces text that needs to be gone over 4-5 times, as, yes, it sometimes creates inappropriate wikilinks, often in the case where a word can mean a couple of different things and the tool picks the wrong one. And it consistently translates word by word. I have submitted a feature request for implementation of some basic rules -- for example in German the verb is always the last word in the sentence and in French the word order is almost always "dress blue" not "blue dress". But there are many many MANY articles with word order problems on Wikipedia; it's just usually more subtle that that when the originating editor was human but not a native English speaker. So it's a little like fixing up the stilted unreferenced prose of someone who can't write but yea verily does know MUCH more about the topic than I do. And has produced a set of ideas, possibly inelegantly expressed, I would not have conceived of. The inelegant writing is why we have all this text in a *wiki*

For the record, I agree that machine-translated text is an anathema and have spent way too many hours rescuing articles from its weirdnesses, such as "altar" coming through as "furnace branch" in Notre-Dame de la Garde. BUT. Used properly, machine translation is useful. For one thing it is often correct about the translation for specific obscure words. I deeply appreciated this when, for example, I was doing English into French on a bio of a marauding Ottoman corsair who, at one point or another, invaded most of the Mediterranean. I am an English speaker who was educated in French and has spent years operating in French, but the equivalent terms for galleon, caravel, Papal States, apse and nave, for example, not to mention Crusader castles and Aegean islands, weren't at the tip of my tongue. Its suggestions needed to be verified, but so do Google Search results. I could look these words up, sure, and do anyway, but Yandex gives my carpal tendons a break, in that I can do one thing at a time, ie translate a bit of text like "he said" then check to make sure that wikilink is correct, move down to the next paragraph and do some other simple task like correcting word order while I mull why it is that the suggested translation sounds awkward, walk away and come back... All of this is possible without the tool, but more difficult, and takes much longer. I have translated more articles in the past month, at least to a 0.95 version, that I had in the entire previous several years I've been editing wikipedia. Since the tool suggests articles that exist on one wikipedia but not the other, I am also embarking on translations I otherwise would not, because of length or sheer number of lookups needed to refresh my memory on French names for 16th-century Turkish or Albanian settlements or for product differentiation or demand curve or whatever. Or simply because while the topic may be important it's fundamentally tedious and needs to be taken in small doses, like some of the stuff I've been doing with French jurisprudence and which is carefully labeled, btw, as a translation in progress on those published articles that are still approaching completion.

I agree that such tools should not be available to people who don't have the vocabulary to use them. I don't really have suggestions as to what the criteria should be, but there is a good use for them. They -- or at least this tool -- do however make it possible to publish a fully-formed article, which reduces the odds of cranky people doing a speedy delete while you are pondering French template syntax for {{cn}} or whatever. This has happened to me. The tool is all still kinda beta and the algorithm does ignore special characters, which I hope they remedy soon. (In other words ê becomes e and ç becomes c etc.) Also, template syntax differs from one wiki to another so infoboxes and references often error out when the article is first published. Rule of thumb, possibly: don't publish until you can spend the hour or so chasing this sort of thing down down. And the second draft is usually still a bit stilted and in need of an edit for idiom. But the flip side of that is that until you do publish, the tool keeps your work safe from cranky people and in one place, as opposed to having to reinvent the version management wheel or wonder whether the draft is in Documents or on the desktop. Some people complain within 3 minutes of publication that the article has no references without taking the time to realize that the article is a translation of text that has no references. As the other editor said above, translation tools aren't magic and won't provide a reference that isn't there or fix a slightly editorial or GUIDEBOOK tang to language -- this needs to come next as a separate step. When references are present the results are uneven, but I understand that this issue *is* on the other hand on the to-do list. Anyway, these are my thoughts on the subject; as you can see I have thunk quite a few of them and incidentally have reported more than one bug. But we are all better off if people like me do have these tools, assuming that there is value in French wikipedia finding out about trade theory and ottoman naval campaigns, and English wikipedia learning about the French court system. Elinruby (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles created by block-evading sock using the WMF translation tool

My attention was drawn at a site I should not link to and therefore will not name (however, the thread title is "The WMF gives volunteers another 100K articles to check") to the fact that Duckduckstop created several articles using the WMF translation tool. They were blocked on 5 April as a sock of a blocked user, and their edits are thus revertable. I checked one translated article as a test, John of Neumarkt, and I've seen worse, but it is clearly based on a machine translation and contains at least one inaccurate and potentially misleading passage: "Auch in Olmütz hielt sich Johannes nur selten auf" does not mean "Also in Olomouc, John held only rarely"; it means he rarely spent any time there, but a reader might either not understand that or think it meant he rarely claimed the title. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review contains thousands of pages, the vast majority still to be checked. Only a few of us are working there. I feel guilty having taken a few days off to write 2 new articles. I haven't looked through Duckduckstop's page creations to see what proportion were created with the translation tool, but that one has not been substantially edited by anyone else. I suggest that in this emergency situation, it and others that fall into both categories—translation tool, and no substantial improvements by other editors—be deleted under the provision for creations by a blocked/banned user. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I have had a look today at that list, but haven't really been posting comments since as far as I could see nobody else has been there in several days. I do not know what happened with duckduckstop but as to the articles on the list

- I do not understand why an article about a French general who invaded several countries under Napoleon is nominated for deletion as far as I can tell solely on based on authorship? Do we not trust the content because of the person who wrote it? Can someone explain this to me? I glanced at the article quickly and the English seems fine. This is a serious question; I don't get it. Also, why did we delete Genocide in Guatemala? It was already redlinked when I noticed it, but unless the article was truly astonishing bad, I would have made an effort to clean that one up. Personally. Considering that some of the stuff that's been on the "cleanup after translation" list the past few years --- we have had articles on individual addresses in Paris. We have lists of say, songs on a 1990s album in Indonesian, sheriffs of individual municipalities in Wales (one list per century), and government hierarchies in well, pretty much everywhere.

- I have a suggestion: The person who decides that we need a set of articles for each madrasa in Tunis, water tower in Holland or mountain in Corsica is responsible for finishing the work on the articles in the set to a certain standard. Which can be quite low, incidentally. I have no objection to some of the association football and track and field articles that are being nominated for deletion. They may not be sparking entralling prose but they are there and tell you, should you want to know, who that person is. Similarly the articles about figures in the literature of Quebec, while only placeholders, do contain information and are preferable to nothing. Although I don't see machine translation as the huge problem some people apparently do, the translation tool also does need work. It might be nice if it sent articles to user space by default, and the articles could then be published from there there after polishing. Elinruby (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Guatemalan genocide was redirected, not deleted, for being a very poor translation, resulting in sentences like this (one sentence!): "The perpetración of systematic massacres in Guatemala arose of the prolonged civil war of this country centroamericano, where the violence against the citizenship, native mayas of the rural communities of the country in his majority, has defined in level extensivo like genocide -of agreement to the Commission for the Esclarecimiento Historical- according to the crimes continued against the minoritary group maya ixil settled between 1981 and 1983 in the northern demarcation of the department of The Quiché, in the oil region of the north Transversal Band, with the implication of extermination in front of the low demographic density of the etnia -since it #finish to begin to populate the region hardly from the decade of 1960- and the migration forced of complete communities to the border region in search of asylum in Chiapas, Mexico , desarraigadas by the persecution; in addition to becoming like procedure of tactical State of earth arrasada, tortures, disappearances, «poles of development» -euphemism for fields of concentration- and recurrent outrages against the women and girls ixiles, many of them dying by this cause, crimes of lesa humanity against of all the international orders of Human rights." Fram (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh. That's not unusual. But see there *is* an article, which was my primary concern. I should have checked before using it as an example. Here is the point I was trying to make. Since apparently I didn't, let me spell it out. -- I have put in a considerable amount of time on the "cleanup after translation" list so yes, I absolutely agree that horrible machine translations exist. I have cleaned many of them up. But. Many of the articles we keep are extremely trivial. Many get deleted that seem somewhat important, actually, just not to the particular person who AfD's them. I have seen articles on US topics get kept because of a link to Zazzle. (!) Perhaps my POV is warped by the current mess I am trying to straighten out in the articles on the French court system, but it seems to me that the english wiki is rather dismissive of other cultures. (Cour d'assises != Assizes, just saying; this is what we call a cognate.) That is all; just something that has been bothering me. Elinruby (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The interim period ends today

But most articles have not been reviewed--it will apparently take many months. Of the ones still on the list that I have reviewed, I am able to find at least one-third which are worth rescuing and which I am able to rescue. We need a long continuation.If this is not agreed here, we will need to discuss it on WP:ANB. I would call the discussion "Emergency postponement of CSD X2" DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

My understanding was that we were still working out how to begin the vaccination process. I'm happy if we simply moved to draft space instead of deleting at the end of the two weeks, but I'm not sure if that would address your concern. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall, Elinruby, Cryptic, No such user, Atlantic306, DGG, Acer, Graeme Bartlett, Mortee, Xaosflux, HyperGaruda, Ymblanter, BrightR, and Tazerdadog:

I call "reltime" on the section title! ;-) But seriously, it does end in a few days, and although I've been active in pushing to stick with the current date (June 6) to finalize this, so I almost hate to say this, but I'd like to ask for a short postponement, for good cause. This is due to two different things that have happened in the last few days, that materially change the picture, imho:

• CXT Overwrites - this issue about CXT clobbering good articles of long-standing, was raised some time ago, and languished, but has been revived recently, and we now (finally!) have the list of overwrites we were looking for in order to attack this problem: around 200 of them. All that remains to completely solve this for good, is to go through the list, and if the entry also appears in WP:CXT/PTR, strike it. See WP:CXT/PTR/Clobbers for details.
• Asian language review - this was stalled for lack of skilled translator/proofreaders in these and other languages. In response to a suggestion by Elinruby, I made an overture a few days ago about starting a recruitment effort. Since time is so short, rather than wait for a response, I went ahead and started one at WP:CXT/PTR/By language. In just three days this has started to bear fruit, with editors working on articles in Gujarati, Hindi, Hungarian, Farsi, Romanian and Arabic; with over 50 or 60 analyzed. I'm ready to ramp up the recruitment effort on Turkish, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, and more European languages (hopefully with the help of others here) but this does need some time as it's only got started literally in the last few days.

A postponement would give us the time to save all the clobbers, and make a significant dent in the articles from Asian and other languages for which we don't have a lot of expertise. Mathglot (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Notes

My understanding is that the clobbers have all been taken care of. This leaves the Asian language articles. I'm sure that if someone with the needed language skills comes along in the future, admins would be more than happy to mass-undelete the drafts so that they could be reviewed. However, I don't see a reason to postpone in the hope that this will occur. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Clobbers *are* taken care of, because we (two of us) have been taking care of them. Asian (and other) languages have plenty of translators td.hat could take care of them, it's not a matter of "hoping" for anything in the future, they exist now, so all we have to do is continue the effort begun only a few (5) days ago here. Going forward, this should be even more efficient, now we have the results of Cryptic's queries 19218 and 19243 created only today, and wikified here: WT:CXT/PTR/By language. We have editors working on Gujarati, Hindi, Bengali, Arabic, Romanian, and Hungarian, with more in the pipeline. This is a ton of progress in five days, and I wish it had been thought of a month ago, but it wasn't, and we are where we are. A postponement will simply allow ongoing evaluations by editors recruited less than a week ago and are delivering fast results, to continue instead of being cut off, and additional languages to be handled. Go look at WP:CXT/PTR/By language to see what has been accomplished so far, and at what speed. @Cryptic and Elinruby:. Mathglot (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Still need to recruit de, bg and ru. Also still very distracted by real life -- I have had one parent die and another go into hospice in the course of this project, and we have still gotten all this done, so it's not like we are dragging this out into never-never land. A majority of these articles are rescuable, esp as we bring in new editors who are not burned out by re-arranging the word order of the sentences for the 10,000 time. I think the really stellar articles have all been flagged now, but we have still found some very recently and I have said this before. Beyond the really stellar though are the many many not-bad articles and the more mediocre ones that are nonetheless easier to fix than to do over.I am in favor of an extension, personally, though as we all know I would not have started this at all if it were up to me. Many of the really bad articles were already at PNT.

I will be flying almost all day today but will check into wikipedia tonight. Elinruby (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm involved in many other things, and get here as I can, and each time I do, I find more than can and should be rescued. There are whole classes of articles, like those of small towns or sports stadiums, which have merely been assumed to be of secondary importance and not actually looked at. If we delete now, we will be judging article by the title. It is very tempting to easily remove all the junk by removing everything, but that;'s the opposite of sensibler ,and the opposite of WP:PRESERVE/ DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I found a couple today that kind of amazed me, they were so good. But let's play out the chinese fire drill. I'm afraid we're going to find out that we've all done a huge amount of work to delete 30 articles that need to be deleted and 350 whose authors will will not contribute again. Anyway. I have not touched stadiums, personally, because I suspect they will be deleted for notability so why? Ditto all these people with Olympic gold medals because I already have plenty to do without getting involved with articles that are certain to be deleted, not to mention all the argentinian actresses and whatnot.... grumble. Gonna go recruit some chinese and norwegians, because the articles are just going into some other namespace we can still send links to right? Elinruby (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The plan is to draftify the articles prior to deletion, but I think deletion can be postponed basically indefinitely once they are draftified Tazerdadog (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: I'd like to be sure of that. This is why you lose editors, wikipedia... anyway. Am cranky at the moment. Let me get done what I can with this and then I'll have some things to say. Hopefully some intelligent and civil things. Are we really getting articles from PootisHeavy still? Elinruby (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Fixing pings like you just did doesn't work. Pings only work if you sign your post in the same edit and do nothing but add content. Pppery 02:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: The second part statement I made above is a departure from the established consensus as I understand it. The plan which achieved consensus was to draftify, hold in draft for just long enough to check for massive clerical errors, and then delete. I floated the above statement to try to gain consensus to hold the articles in draft space for longer (or indefinitely). While it is important to get potential BLP violations and gross inaccuracies out of mainspace in a timely manner, i don't think it is nearly so important to delete the drafts, especially if salvageable to good articles are regularly being pulled out of them. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: Thanks for the suggestion. I think that would help limit the potential for damage and it would alleviate some of my concerns. My assessment differs widely from what I keep reading on this board, but, hey. If anyone cares I would say that 10% of these articles are stellar and very advanced and sophisticated translations. Don't need a thing. Another 10% are full or partial translations, quite correct, of articles that do not meet en.wiki standards for references or tone but do faithfully reflect the translated article. Many of these are extremely boring unless you are doing nitty-gritty research into something like energy policy in Equatorial Guinea, but they then become important... About another 5% I cannot read at all and let's say another 10% are heavy going and require referencing one or more equivalent articles in other languages. Say 5% if anyone ever gets around to dealing with PootisHeavy. The rest are... sloppy english but accurate, unclear but wikilinked, or some other intermediate or mixed level. This has not, in my opinion, been a good use of my time and I have stopped doing any translations, personally, until we get some sanity here. The whole process, it seems to me, simultaneously assumes that translation is easy and also that it is of no value. If wikipedia does not value translation then -- argh. It just makes me to see a good organization eat its own foot this way, is all. Off to see if I can catch us a nepali speaker ;) Elinruby (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: No Nepali speakers needed, there are no Nepali articles in the batch, afaict. Also, Pootis stopped translating following a March 23 addition to his talk page, currently at #53 on the page.

@Tazerdadog: Whatever kind of draft/quarantine/hyperspace button you press, I plan to carry on with some of the Asian and other languages recruitment which we only recently got started on (which is going great, btw, and we could use some more help over at there if anyone wants to volunteer). I'll want to modify the editor recruitment template so that it can blue-link articles in whatever new location they reside in, so hopefully it will be a nice, systematic mapping of some sort so a dumb template can easily be coded to figure out the new location, given the old one. Just wanted to mention that, so that you can keep it in mind when you come up with the move schema. Naturally, if it's just a move to Draft namespace, then it will be an easy fix to the template.

There is one article in Nepali. I have not invited anyone for it yet, though I did do some of the less populated languages like latvian, indonesian and polish. I have several answers (da, es, pt as I recall) and most articles passed. I will put translated templates and strike those articles shortly. And yes, I just now struck one today. Anything about 3-d modeling is notable imho and I will work on it as long as I can read it at all. Also some of the bad translations about historical documents may be fixable given the response we are getting. If either of you gets enough help/time there are quite a few es/pt/de articles that I did that I believe to be correct but cannot myself certify in terms of the translated template Elinruby (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: I withdraw my aspersions on the section title name. This offer valid for twenty-four hours. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not understandd what you mean by this. I assume you mean you are withdrawing the attempt to start mass deletions immediately. If not, please let me know--for I will then proceed to do what I can to prevent them--and , if possible to try to change policy so that no X- speedy criteria can ever again be suggested. The more of these translations I look at, them ore I find that should be rescued. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for re-close of an old RfC (and closure of a disruptive RfC)

I would like to request a review of the closure of this RfC regarding the page Paul Singer (businessman). It was discussed with the closer here.

The previous RfC for this same issue (12/10/15) can be found here where consensus was established six months prior to the RfC in question. Between the two RfCs, the closer had created a number of discussions (possibly in violation of WP:FORUMSHOP) here: [1] [2] [3] [4]. These discussions failed to garner much attention and mostly reinforced the 12/10/15 consensus.

It must be noted that the RfC in question is rather old (29/04/16) and editors protested the closure since it was closed by the same editor who opened both the RfC itself and all other discussions, and was not necessarily reflective of consensus which does appear to reinforce that set out in the 12/10/15 RfC.

The improper close of the RfC would normally not be an issue, however, yet another RfC has opened, claiming that the last discussion was "inconclusive" and we must therefore have another discussion.

I would argue that this has all been incredibly disruptive considering the huge number of editors involved (36) in the prior 8 discussions from a 16/07/14 RfC to the 29/04/16 RfC is plenty of discussion for something which editors have considered relatively uncontroversial - 23 have been in favour of the current consensus and 6 against, with 7 somewhere in between. Furthermore, consensus has often not been respected in the rare points of calm between discussion, with some of the "6 against" editors making against-consensus edits and reversions.

This is a messy situation, but to conclude, I would like to request the evaluation of the close here and the closure of the current RfC, considering the arguements made by other editors at Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#RfC is Nonsense. Thanks. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue is bifurcated in the prior RfCs. There was a limited consensus that a company could be called a "vulture fund" but no consensus that a person should be described as a "vulture capitalist" in the lead of a BLP. My own position has always been that specific pejorative terms should only be used as opinions ascribed to the persons holding the opinions, and that use of pejoratives about individuals should very rarely be allowed at all. To that end, I suggest that reversing prior closes is inapt, and the claims made that the prior RfCs support calling a living person a "vulture" are incorrect. The company can have cites of opinions that it is a "vulture fund" cited and used as opinions, but the use of that pejorative as a statement of fact about a living person falls under WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The current RfC has 6 editors specifically noting that the use of the pejorative in the lead about a person is wrong, 1 says the person is absolutely a "vulture capitalist", 1 asserts that every RfC supports calling the person a "vulture" and one says we should not have any more RfCs - that the issue is settled and we should call the living person a "vulture capitalist" in the lead on that basis. I rather that the current 6 to 3 opposition to use of the term in the lead indicates a substantial disagreement with the assertions made here, and the request that a close be overturned out of process. Collect (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There has been no RfC to discuss whether someone should be called a vulture. I myself have said in past discussions that doing so, especially in WP's voice, would be contrary to what this encyclopaedia is about. Please do not mis-represent my views - it's things like that which have made these constant ongoing RfCs so toxic. My view is that Singer is most notable (WP:DUE) for running a vulture fund - and there are indeed countless sources (WP:RS) which confirm this and thus this fact should be made clear in the lede. Claiming that mentioning his company in an article equates to WP calling someone a vulture is nonsense and not a new arguement - this is the same line those same editors took over and over again in these discussions to no avail. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that I specify the issue at hand is with regard to using the pejorative with regard to the single living person in the lead. A number of sources have branded him a "vulture capitalist" as distinct from his role at EMC, which has been called a vulture fund.. The two catenated uses of the pejorative are different here - ne is with regard to how some have categorized the fund, the other as a personal pejorative in the lead about the person. Do you see that distinction? Especially when the single sentence uses the term "vulture" twice? Collect (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You also failed to mention 2 more editors who had been in favour of using the term vulture fund in the lede but refused to partake in this particular discussion since they have made it clear that there have already been to many. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Again - the word "vulture" is used twice now in a single sentence in the lead - once with regard to opinions held about the fund (for which the prior RfC found the use of the opinion as opinion about the fund was allowable), and the second, the problematic one, with regard to the use of a pejorative about a living person in the lead of the BLP. Collect (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I am the creator of the most recent RfC. Frankly SegataSanshiro1 forced this RfC to happen in the first place by refusing to engage in talk page discussion on the vulture point. I would like to request that anyone participating in this discussion carefully read Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, and then refer directly to each of SegataSanshiro1's actions leading up to this RfC, and his actions in this one as well. Whatever SegataSanshiro may personally believe, a slur in a lead is Always A Very Big Deal, and not something to be brushed under the rug. As WP:Biographies of living people says, "we must get it right." It seems clear to me that several parties want to freeze an ongoing discussion at a point they find satisfying. Yvarta (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have been involved in these ongoing discussions for quite some time now. As I've stated before, using a pejorative to describe an individual on a BLP is unacceptable, especially in the lead. That being said, the previous RfC was closed once discussion went stale. There were ample opportunities and there was more than enough time to provide arguments. Once users agreed upon a version, which limited use of the term "vulture", the user who closed the RfC made the edits in question but was reverted and the term was included an additional three times.

SegataSanshiro1's antics on Singer's page has gotten out of control and his motive on the page is clear. Now that consensus on the newest RfC is shifting highly in favor of removing the slur from the lead, SegataSanshiro1 is grasping at straws to get the previous RfC reviewed. If SegataSanshiro1 had an issue with how the previous RfC was closed, why didn't he follow through with an secondary discussion after this one went stagnant? After realizing consensus is shifting, not in his favor, he wants to call this new productive RfC "disruptive". Also, after the last RfC was closed, an admin came in and suggested a new RfC so do not throw out WP:FORUMSHOPPING accusations. Meatsgains (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Meatsgains, consensus is not shifting as you cannot establish consensus in a discussion which half of the editors can't even take seriously. You have been at the heart of this whole drama. Every time there was an RfC or discussion and consensus was established to use the term, you actively went about making against-consensus edits and other highly disruptive behaviour (which myself and other editors have called you out on time and time again) such as misrepresenting the results of other discussions, claiming sources weren't reliable when they were and even making up terminology like "distressed securities funds" to avoid using actual terminology. You are the only editor who has been involved in every single one of these discussions - very possessive behaviour all in all and along with the other things, you should have been sanctioned and barred from editing on that page.

Still, you continue to misrepresent what happened. There were five editors (myself included) who have said that this RfC is daft. If that were not the case, I wouldn't have opened this discussion on the noticeboard. I'm not going to let you make me lose it again, so please stop referring to me - I want absolutely nothing to do with you, and I know I shouldn't be addressing editors directly, but I really want to make that absolutely clear. Something hypothetical you might want to think about though:

After you've rolled the dice so many times trying to prevent WP:RS from an article and failed miserably, let's say that now after 8 or so attempts at getting your way you finally do. How seriously do you think other editors would take that consensus? Would they simply carry on doing as they wished to the page regardless as you have? Would they simply call another RfC in three months time and pretend the others never happened as you have? I very much doubt I'll stick around after this because I'm sick of this page, but I have a feeling you will, and if you do and you carry on acting as you have, you will be doing this for years. Please don't answer me. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have weighed in on this on multiple occasions and will do my best to promptly summarize my opinion on the topic. The original dispute over the use of the term vulture has been over the derogatory nature of the term on vulture fund’s page. Subsequent discussions have taken place regarding the general use of the term, however the scope of the debate later concentrated on the term’s use in a BLP, specifically Paul Singer’s page. Some editors, whom I will not name, act as if they wp:own the article and have done everything in their power to keep vulture fund and vulture capitalist in the article. Some users have actually made the argument that "vulture" is not derogatory whatsoever (one even argued that it should be taken as a compliment. No reasonable and neutral arbitrator could disagree with the fact that “vulture fund” is a slur, invented by people who are deeply opposed to their entirely legal investments. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverted 1 edit by Collect (talk): You're hardly the person to close this RfC... is a splendid example of grotesque snark. I did not "close the RfC" and that snark is ill-suited for rational discussion. In addition, I left in the "vulture" opinion about EMC, and note that the lead is supposed to be in summary style. I am concerned that this sort of snark is poisonous to any discussion, and ask that any editor who feels such personal attacks should be used should get the aitch away from here. Collect (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Collect, it's quite understandable that a number of editors are very much on edge considering this has been discussed to death and the conduct of a couple of editors in particular. I think what Nomoskedasticity meant by that remark is that you were making edits about something which was being discussed... Were you not one of those supporting an RfC after all?

From my own personal perspective, I think mentioning his main business area is running a culture fund, then including other references to him specifically in some sort of criticism section would be ideal. That and removing references to philanthropy from the lede as per WP:UNDUE. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: first of all I wish to state my astonishment at not being pinged when I was directly involved with one of the RfCs called into question. SegataSanshiro1's guerilla antics are indeed widespread and grave. I do not care about user behaviour at this stage, however, merely the state of Singer's biography. Said RfC was indeed improperly closed by myself, after which I requested admin intervention to reopen it (or closed by an uninvolved user - note I did so per WP:BOLD and because a determination was indeed agreed upon). This request was speedily rejected by KrakatoaKatie together with its corresponding ANI post, so I think it's safe to assume there is no interest in rekindling old fires. Attempts at mediation about this issue also failed. Regarding consensus, I counted at least 7 new voices in the current discussion, all offering interesting new insights (DGG, Collect, Elinruby, FuriouslySerene, Snow_Rise, Chris Hallquist, and Yvarta); there is strong indication at least some parties are willing to compromise. Some are under the impression consensus is a simple vote tally. I call into question this vehement ownership of the Paul Singer article. Every time any editor makes a serious attempt at a copy edit (no matter how minor), a concerted effort by the same bunch of editors reverses all possible changes. Just look at the edit history. Serious and pragmatic comments aimed at stemming this dreadlock are conveniently brushed aside, such as DGG's - "It's appropriate to use it in the article, since there is good sourcing, but it is not appropriate to use it in the lede. Ledes should be relatively neutral". If civil discussion cannot come about and admin action is required, so be it, but it does set a sad precedent. We had originally copy edited the lede back in October, trimming the use of "vulture" down to a single mention. This was of course then reverted maniacally even though discussion had concluded in that precise path. I don't see why a reasonable review of each instance of the word's use cannot take place. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Focus, this wasn't intended to be "guerilla antics" - we had actually discussed a re-close prior to this and you were involved, together with a number of other editors who I did not ping since I figured they would not want to be dragged into this again - I take it you're a page watcher anyway and I mentioned this discussion on the talk page. I also never had a problem with you being WP:BOLD and closing the discussion (in fact if I recall correctly, me and other editors were all for it), what myself and other editors had a problem with was the closing remarks, in particular "the RfC question was not unequivocally answered" when in reality it had, for the nth time that it is appropriate to use this particular word in this particular article - that's beyond discussion at this point. To this day, I agree with the path of compromise we embarked on, what I did not agree with was the sheer amount of forums this was taken to and the manner in which the discussion was closed. To be honest, that close made me question your good faith and took away any desire on my part to be collaborative.

The issue with these discussions is that they're never clear, we're never discussing on a point by point basis since one or two editors (should be fairly obvious who) take these discussions as an attempt to remove all mention of the terminology, digging in their heels until we're back in 2014 again discussing whether we should censor it entirely (again, always the same editors). All the while, creating serious NPOV issues by removing statements backed up by RS and adding in things which are UNDUE in an attempt to whitewash. If that stops, then I'm sure normal discussion could ensue and general anger levels could be drastically reduced along with the tedium. I have already said that I'm of the opinion that "vulture capitalist" should be discussed, but that's hardly going to happen if we still have editors claiming a vulture fund is not a thing, and the very presence of the term (what Singer is most notable for, if I may add) equates to Wikipedia calling a living person a vulture. That's not new, that's not productive and you're as aware of that as I am. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• It was a middle of the road close. . There is a distinction between someone being personally a vulture, which implies that he acts in that manner in all his activities or is of that personality type, and running a fund that shares some similar characteristics and goes by the common name of vulture fund. We cannot avoid using the full term, because even those sources that endorse the profession use it as a matter of course. But we can try to avodi personalizing things that don't need personalizing, especially things that some people are likely to consider highly negative. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

And to the point - any BLP which stresses the use of "vulture" seventeen times is likely to be perceivable as making a point in itself. I just do not understand the concept that name-calling is something Wikipedia should actively pursue, and that editors who even remove a single use from the lead are somehow evil here. Argh. Collect (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't appear 17 times. I only see 6 mentions in the article itself and one of them was actually about an antisemitic cartoon - the rest are mentions in references. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That's INCREDIBLY misleading. Most of those are references, hence more reason to include it. Of the 6 ACTUAL uses, none of them are in WP's voice. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@SegataSanshiro1: You keep claiming that "Singer is most notable for" his "vulture fund". This is your own opinion. Do a google news search and tell us how many pages you have to dig through before coming across a page that uses the slur? This is a false assumption, which you have consistently done throughout this dispute. Meatsgains (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop pinging me. This isn't my own opinion and vulture fund is not a slur, it's the name of a type of fund that buys debt at discount prices and attempts to sue for 100% payment. As much as you pretend it isn't, you should remember this since you were involved in multiple discussions where you pretended that there was consensus that it was a slur when there wasn't - you were called out on it multiple times: [5] [6]. You also made a no-consensus page move from vulture fund to "distressed securities fund" despite there being no sources to validate such naming and in clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME - you should also remember this since there were two discussions, both on the talk page and at WP:W2W which undid that rather stealthy move and established rather firmly that vulture funds are indeed a thing and that is indeed what they are called, while Singer's EMC is one of the most prolific. Why have you consistently misrepresented information and lied to other editors? There's plenty more examples where you have been called out on doing this, want me to give more? Meatsgains, you are the only editor (along with Comatmebro, actually) who has been involved in every discussion to do with Singer, vulture funds and Elliott Management Corporation and consistently used some very dodgy tactics to get your way, ranging from ignoring consensus and making edits regardless to protecting all these pages like a hawk (or vulture, more appropriately?) and claiming sources aren't reliable based on your own opinions. I'm still shocked you're still around and you haven't been sanctioned. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"This isn't my own opinion and vulture fund is not a slur" - Yes it is and yes it is. Also, do not dilute this discussion with attacking me. Meatsgains (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, DGG; that's a fair representation of my basic thoughts as well. As I just posted on the Singer talk page, we're trying to discuss the use of "vulture" as a descriptor of a human being. "Vulture" is as such a charged word in the sense that we're liable to annex this valued meaning to a word that is used in the context of a business endeavour. Handling a vulture fund is not the same as BEING a vulture. I am utterly amazed people fail to see that. The previous close was precisely that, a "middle of the road close". The "vulture fund" practices are thoroughly discussed throughout the article in the context of what quality sources have to say about the matter. Using the term through a personal angle by making a de facto generalisation in an article's lede is another story, and I believe we were making some progress back in October in this regard. I would very much like to see us return to that stage and come up with a neutral and balanced solution. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree that handling a vulture fund does not equate to being a vulture - that's the main flawed premise that has been holding this back. I still disagree that the close was "middle of the road", since using vulture terminology does not violate NPOV (the question raised in the RfC) since it is WP:DUE - only a tiny, tiny number of people have said that all reference to vultures should be gone from the article. The Samsung affair and other criticism (such as "vulture capitalist") needs to go in a criticism section rather than the lede - Singer has received enough criticism from multiple sources to warrant one. Vulture fund, on the other hand, should remain firmly in the lede - that's what he's known for and what a large chunk of the article is about. I know you have argued that he has other investments, but that's akin to leaving out the Iraq war in Tony Blair's page. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yet again you are wildly, amazingly off topic. There is already an RfC discussing this issue, in case you forgot, and a talk page to discuss general improvements. This discussion, SegataSanshiro, you started to determine if the RfC creations are inappropriate. As you seem to have forgotten, I would like to remind you that you reverted my lead change on the grounds that I needed to first discuss, and now you are trying to shut that very discussion down - that, or apparently force it to stagnate by repeating the same arguments while ignoring the arguments of others. As far as I am concerned, you specifically continue to stonewall and disrupt a natural consensus building process. You are either nearing either an epiphany (i.e. that this is not a battle you are trying to win), or nearing a topic ban. Yvarta (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Not me specifically. There have been five editors (including me) who have questioned the validity of this RfC. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully I haven’t given the impression I think those other four are guilty of actively stonewalling. If so, I apologize for being thoughtless and rude. Yvarta (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am not opposed to having an administrator re-close a previous RFC if the stated consensus was incorrect (I was the one who suggested coming to AN on the Singer talk page as SegatSanshiro continues to question it), just for the sake of clarity and any subsequent discussions. I do not support closing the current RFC though. I don't see it as disruptive as opinion is clearly divided and the issue is contentious, the previous RfC was over 4 months ago and the closing and consensus is disputed, so getting new editors involved to seek consensus should be a good thing (I only joined this discussion thanks to this most recent RfC). As for my opinion about the underlying issue, I've already posted to the RfC and it may not be relevant here, but I believe that mainstream reliable sources do not refer to Singer as a "vulture." He is called a hedge fund manager by these sources. Therefore the term vulture should only be used when it is ascribed to a specific person or entity (i.e., his critics). My reading of the current RfC and previous ones is that most editors agree with that position. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I have never edited this article and am in this because the RfC bot asked me to give my opinion. The person who started the RfC however has repeatedly told me I am off-topic when I try to explain the BLP policy. As best I can tell however the person's argument is that the appellation is inappropriate because Singer is a living person, and they appear to be ready to repeat this argument indefinitely. I would also like to mention that while I personally believe that "vulture capitalist" is a specialized bit of vocabulary that is not particularly pejorative, the current wording does not use it in wikipedia's voice either, which many of the comments on this seem to assume. It says he has been called a vulture capitalist and provides no less than nine sources for the statement. I believe we should remove the weasel wording and explicitly quote one or more people. I would agree with the idea expressed at one point of balancing out concerns about due weight, assuming that is what they are, by adding other details of his business dealings. However as far as I can tell there are no such details; Singer seems to be a specialist in this type of transaction, and to have been for decades. Elinruby (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Explaining BLP policy is not off topic - however, long accusations of COI (without basis) and facts focused on Singer's details are very off topic to this particular RfC, as I've pointed out that many businessmen have similar, nigh identical press coverage concerning the "vulture" phrase. If you would like to start another RfC on a different nuance or topic, you are welcomed to. Yvarta (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh. The heart of my point is that Singer is a public figure and therefore under WP:PUBLICFIGURE it matters very much whether the statement is true. As for my COI concerns, well, normally we don't comment on editors but your actions do suggest one in my opinion, yes. You are very concerned, astonishingly concerned, with the PR of this billionaire, shrug. I didn't actually start with that assumption, mind; I just told you it was ok to be a paid editor if you declared yourself as such. But you say you are not, so. AGF. You *still* never ever answer any other editors questions, and dismiss them as irrelevant unless they support your desired outcome. Elinruby (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Anyone look at the nominator's (i.e. Yvarta's) edit history? Yvarta, this looks like it was not your first account. Who were you editing as prior to this account? NickCT (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to ask any questions about my experience on my talk page/email. My editing history relates to personal details of my life, and so I haven't shared that here/in the RfC. Yvarta (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Feyli

this article already exists in Wikipedia but a user made this. both of them are one, but when i use propose deletion, he deletes the tag. here and here --– Hossein Iran « talk » 14:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This does indeed seem to be a pretty clear WP:POVFORK, but I'm not sure that it qualifies for speedy deletion; the article has been up for more than four months and thus may not qualify under the "recently created" criteria of A10. Perhaps you could try AfD; I don't anticipate it would be a hard sell. It's worth noting, though, that both articles have substantial issues that need to be addressed just as much as this redundancy. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there's a bigger issue here. The second article (Feyli Lurs) reads like an essay (and I tagged it as such). Now, the first article (Feyli Kurds) does contain a lot of sources, but...a lot of the article's text is taken word-for-word from said sources. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin deletions in deletion log

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

---

I assume I'm missing a very simple answer here, but how is a non-admin deleting articles? See here here and here?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Ponyo, See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Entries showing up in deletion log and #For people wondering about non-admins having deletion logs... - NQ (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you (yet again!) NQ. As I hit "save" I realized I should be checking VPT.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

White space vandal?

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

---

Lately 189.69.192.178 has been adding 'white space' to several articles, these last few days. Those additions aren't improving articles. The individual has done this week before, with a slightly different IP address. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I've reached out to the user in question, and tried to talk to them / warn them about it - since no one else did, I also notified them for you. SQL^{Query me!} 16:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Some of these don't look like whitespace changes.... [7] [8]. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 16:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is bigger then I expected :( GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Of this user's 35 edits, all but 2 are adding whitespace and nothing else - removing part of the infobox and the protection information here and changing the PC expiry date here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see vandalism, at least not what I sampled. I see they are new and attempted to change page protection templates so they could edit (ignorance of how it works) and I see adding line spaces above and below elements in what would seem to be an effort to make it "look better" in their eyes. These aren't really helpful, but they aren't vandalism. They are more akin to just a newb editor tweaking around. The one instance of deleting part of the infobox may have been accidental and isn't part of a pattern. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem, but they need assistence, not the ban hammer as I see nothing nefarious here. My suggestion is to stop using the word "vandalism", assume some good faith and offer to help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think there is a pattern. Last week, GoodDay reported a similar IP address, 200.148.2.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), for doing the same thing. That IP had previously been blocked by Materialscientist for blanking: [9], [10], [11]. It looks to me like this is the same user, both from the geolocation data and behavior (blanking mixed with pointless whitespace). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • What blanking? Please provide a diff. There is some similarity in white space edits and geolocation as well as overlap in articles, but no one has explained why this IP is doing is so disruptive. This is why I said we need to try dialog first. If we can have dialog and convince them to stop, that is better than playing whack-a-mole with anonymous IPs each week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP has returned & is continuing his 'experiments'. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Samtar's edit filter not working

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

---

@Samtar: And they return. --Marvellous Spider-Man 12:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

And then they were stopped. Adjustment made. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Admin Eyes Needed on American Politcs

More flouting the letter and spirit of ARBAP2. Please see [12] and talk. POV editors have learned that there's little risk that the DS will be enforced. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Jobas

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

---

File:Christian distribution update.png

edit war

edit war

edit war

edit war

Recently, I have been patrolling the edit activity of a user, Jobas, who I have discovered to have filled many articles about religion demographics (Growth of religion, Christian population growth, Christians, and possibly others) with a mix of (apparently)reliable and unreliable (tabloids and blogs) sources. He has often interpreted the (apparently)reliable sources in a way that distorts what they actually say, or has used references to support claims that aren't actually contained in the sources. His agenda is clearly to distort reality in order to support the religious ideology he claims to be affiliated with.

Originally I added problem tags to the articles, or tried to cleanse them from the unsupported claims and unreliable sources per various policies (WP:NEWSORG, WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOCRYSTAL), but I was reverted. I also tried to discuss with Jobas himself about the poor quality of his edits, with no results. You can read the major discussion HERE.

At the same time, investigating the editing history of Jobas I have discovered that on Wikimedia Commons he has been blocked for 3 days in May 2014 and for 1 month in January 2016 for sockpuppetry, edit wars and vandalism (he manipulated the data contained in religion maps). You can find the maps here to the right, with linked the pertinent edit war histories. Here you find the dozens of sockpuppets he created on Wikimedia Commons.

More recently, while not responding to my request to restore the maps on Wikimedia Commons to their original versions, he has been engaged in what I would define a "strange" edit activity: tens of edits in "Wikipedia:Feature picture candidates" entries consisting in the addition, removal, addition again and removal again and addition again, etc., of commas, dots and hyphens (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I think the only reasonable explanation to this behavior is that he is trying to "bury" the chronology of the latest discussions which reveal the problematic and unfair nature of his editing.

I expect further investigation of Jobas' behavior and help in cleaning up articles affected by his editing.--151.82.71.159 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Bringing up issues from Wikimedia Commons back to 2012 (Sockpuppets with no contributions) or from 2014 (edit warning with blocked user!), which is totally irrelevant here since this English Wikipeida project not Wikimedia Commons. You'r claim are fales i was not blocked for (manipulated the data contained in religion maps) and sockpuppetry, It was for edit war with the blocked user -we still talk about 2014-, who refuse to disscuse (that was in 2014 in Wikimedia Commons, not even here). and I hope that you don't have connection with this IP (The UAE troll, whith hundreds of differen IPàs) who always try to harrasment and smear me (you using the same langugse and accusation) here an example, of an issue from 2012 you try to push it in every place.

The user who was in edit war with me in Wikimedia Commons back to 2014 was blocked for sockpuppetry and vandalism, he made many wrong changes and he didn't want to disscuse it which led to edit war, For example that his version (from 2014) that this IP support and he want it back: He removed the UK (59.5%), Norway (72.9%), Canada (67.2%), Germany (61%), Republic of Macedonia 65%, Greenland (85%), Guyana (57%),Ethiopia (62.8%), Cameroon (70%), Tanzania (61.4%) and Ghana (71.2%), etec from the mape even according to the national census -In case they have- and other sources, these countries still had Christian majority - So who's manipulated the data contained in religion maps-. Even in the case of France there is no official census of religion in France, and estimates are based on surveys only. while United States Department of State determined that about 45% of French are Christians, according to CSA (2012) 56% of french are christians, and according to Institut français d'opinion publique in 2011 about 65% of French are Christians, while CIA World Factbook (2015 est.) determined that 63-66% of French are Christians, Pew Research Center (2010) determined that 63% of French are Christians, and Eurobarometer (2012) determined that 58% of French are Christians. So how I manipulated the data contained in religion maps, and since when these sources are unreliable (tabloids and blogs) sources.

By the way as we can see on page history, user:Elcobbola Reverted to the original version which was before the edit war began, the same for this map. So the last edits in these two mapes are done by user:Коваленко Кирилл who revert to the original version (05:57, 27 March 2014 before edit war began), and user:Leftcry and admain Elcobbola who reverted the edit of B88 5010 (so the mape back to the orginal version 14:16, 13 May 2014). Unless If you consider the edit of User:Ich Pilot and his sockpuppetry, Khny and B88~commonswiki and B88 5010 and etec "original version", that mean you are the blocked user and you trying to make it back again -since these versions that this IP support been reverted by the admians-. Your insistence to revert the mapes to the User:Ich Pilot and his sockpuppetry version of the mape is telling a lot, since it is not the "original version", and admain Elcobbola and user:Коваленко Кирилл revert the mapes to the "original version", which you call it manipulated by me, while as we can see in page history here, and here that the current mapes are the original version, which is the version before - the edit war- between my edit and the User:Ich Pilot edit (that you support and want it back!). - we still talk about the edit war in 2014, that you aware about it-

In talk page of Growth ofreligion, user: Kautilya3 who came as Uninvolved editor and he cited Jobas is correct that the original sources of information are reputable research organizations and, so, considered reliable., and Actually, Jobas is right again, Reliability is indeed decided based on what recognition they receive from other reliable sources. If they Pew results don't agree with national census results, then we have to mention both, The article Christian and Growth of religion is mostly sourced by the Pew Research Center studies, if you have issue with that source, then try to find a reliable source - till now you didn't find one!- consider Pew Research Center studies as unreliable, so you can bring it in Wikipedia:RSN, But till now the source is consider reliable in this project and it is widely used here. the article Christianity by country (which sourced by Pew, Eurobarometer and national censuses) in the case of counties as Russia and Ukraine (that this IP mention before) are sourced by both, Pew results and ARENA (In Russia casa) and Razumkov Centre from 2006 (in Ukraine case), While in case of Belarus (that this IP mention before) there is only one source mention which is the census 2011 (Pew is not even mentioned), Other countries are sourced by national census and in some cases by Pew. So you'r cliams that i been favoring the Pew data in these articles are false.

Again about the map, Just a small note there is no official census of religion in Russia, and estimates are based on surveys only. In August 2012, ARENA determined that about 46.8% of Russians are Christians (including Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and non-denominational), which is slightly less than an absolute 50%+ majority. However, later that year the Levada Center determined that 76% of Russians are Christians, and in June 2013 the Public Opinion Foundation determined that 65% of Russians are Christians. These findings are in line with Pew's 2010 survey, which determined that 73.6% of Russians are Christians, with VTSIOM's 2010 survey (~77% Christian), and with Ipsos MORI's 2011 survey (69%). and as user: Kautilya3 cited That is what WP:NPOV tells us to do. If there is some other reliable source that discusses the disparity and gives us more information, then we can use that. We can't make up our own judgement as to who is right. We should not regard ourselves as experts here.

I found the word recently interesting, in the Christianity by country: Revision history from the last 50 edit of that page i only had 6 edits (3 of them were reverted vandalism), Christian: Revision history, from the last 50 edit in that page, i had only 8 edits (most are back to 1 December 2015), While sure i have more editing in the article Growth of religion. and in my last 1000 edit i had very few edit's in religions demographic related artciles, or activity in articles about religion demographics. So are you stalking me? or you are the blocked user in Wikimedia Commons who want his version of the mapes to back. and your investigating of my editing history on Wikimedia Commons specifically, tells a lot.

Last note i was so respectable with you, while you called me liar and faker, so!. And I always edit in "Wikipedia:Feature picture candidates" in that way, since you stalking my edits in every project here, i assume you notice that, so don't take it to a different place to smear me and stop throwing accusations and going to other user pages to smear me.--Jobas (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor Xenophrenic's mass-scale disruption of Wikipedia: ban proposal

Editor Xenophrenic is blatantly disrupting Wikipedia.

For just a brief glimpse of his history before I even get to my issues with him:

Edit warring noticeboard listings made of him: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]

General noticeboard listings made of him: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]

Even ones he himself has listed where he reports others having made personal complaints of him: [42], [43], [44]

Fulfilled and proposed topic bans: [45], [46]

Likely-found sockpuppetry with the former accounts also having colorful block logs: [47], [48]

His talk page history is also colorful, even though he habitually deletes any detailed criticisms and instead keeps neutral talks from as far as 2014.

Pretty much anyone who has to deal with him eventually finds themselves making a noticeboard report about him. Yet he's an expert at talking his way out of them. Most of his blocks have come from outside of reports.

The following perfectly summarizes what I have to face when I deal with him:

At User_talk:EdJohnston#Re:_Result_of_your_complaint_at_WP:AN3, where RockyMtnGuy's opinion on two matters is relevant and on the second he sort of doesn't agree with me, Xenophrenic twice represents this as what OoflyoO said:

Well, if we need a consensus, I prefer the reasoning and edits of RockyMtnGuy.... — [49][50]

but what OoflyoO wrote was

Well, if we need a consensus, I prefer the reasoning and edits of RockyMtnGuy (talk) and the unregistered editor 93.106.50.229 (talk) over those of Xenophrenic Does that help? — [51][52]

This kind of arguing is extremely common from Xenophrenic. It's blatant if anyone bothers to parse through his lengthy posts, but most don't. I'll return to another thing he wrote here shortly after introducing where I began with him.

I met him after I tried to introduce a short bit to Genocide in history about the spread of smallpox being similar to that of syphilis, the diseases likely having been exchanged in Columbian Exchange: [53]. I believe it's very relevant to the paragraph of the disease exchange. However, this isn't even the crux of the matter at that article. I noticed that Xenophrenic had been edit warring at that page for long before me and continued on even after me. The specific case he warred over was even sillier than removal of the syphilis mention. It's a fringe case of smallpox having been tried to infect a warring native tribe in 1763 with two blankets. The sources Xenophrenic cites themselves state that it wasn't likely, or particularly effective. I'm quoting two of his main sources used here. Anyone who bothers to research the matter even a bit will find out that smallpox spread across the Americas over two hundred years earlier. He also forces it to be at the beginning of the section about Americas, even though American West is written about near the end. Like I have written before and what he calls a personal attack, it seems he's trying to force it as the singular cause of the smallpox epidemic among natives thus confirming it as a genocide. Even though his main sources state likely not particularly effective.

Then among other articles about the matter we especially continued with the syphilis matter at History of syphilis, which was linked to at another article and I noticed had Xenophrenic editing it as well. CatPath had tried to clean up his fringe studies cited by no one. Xenophrenic had come back and edited his stuff back in. I then went in and tried to clean it up as well. Compare the section/listing about the Columbian theory in my edit: [54] versus the current by him. The current version of that listing is a mess and very notable statistics have been removed, replaced by fringe cases not peer-reviewed. I'll note here that I made a mistake in that edit by accidentally removing one unrelated criticism sentence of the modified theory I'm not even concerned with, as it began with "However," like one another sentence. He's pushing a fringe opinion at this article and completely disregarding any and all Wikipedia rules.

Now he even aims to remove mentions of smallpox as one of the reasons for depopulation of the natives. RockyMntGuy had written that smallpox wasn't genocide. I incorrectly wrote his opinion as that smallpox doesn't belong at the article of genocides, which is something he didn't write. There is a clear reason for it being there as it majorly explains the depopulation unexplainable by pretty much anything else as there were too few Spaniards to have caused the kind of loss of life that happened. Pretty much all literature agrees with this view, but many just sideline it to focus on the crimes of the Spaniards. None seem to disagree.

So what Xenophrenic writes next at Ed's talk is just strange:

But, s/he now contends that smallpox shouldn't be mentioned in Genocide articles either. If that is the position Etsy wishes to stick with, it should be a simple matter for me to craft an RfC asking if the smallpox content (and its reliable sources) is appropriate for, and within the scope of, these genocide articles. Sound like a plan? — [55]

I hadn't written anything like that. And sure, let's have an RfC about that matter, but it's plain what literally everybody else will think. This isn't even any of the two fringe matters we dealt with before, this is basic knowledge. But again this is him just misrepresenting after misrepresenting. His use of sources like I have mentioned incredibly odd, with his own main sources disagreeing with him. It's been proved that he keeps edit warring after been blocked multiple times and warned for it just recently, provingly constantly lies and pushes untruths in his edits and use of sources.

I took a look into his recent edit history and this is the kind of edit common to him: [56], which should be reverted by someone. We even have a separate article just for the subject of that section. The matters I edited pale in comparison to sheer number of problematic editing I found from him, and I consider it much more important to cease his disruption of this site. Etsybetsy (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Etsybetsy (talk · contribs) It is too soon for an account created on 29 August 2016 to make pronouncements about other editors. Why not try asking on the article talk page why your edits were reverted? There is also WP:HELPDESK for how-to questions, and where quick opinions regarding the suitability of an edit would be available. Established editors who monitor controversial topics end up in disputes with many enthusiasts over the years—previous complaints are not a useful indication of what should happen regarding the current issue. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That has absolutely no relevance and there is no such rule that I'm aware of. I'm not a new editor as visible from the contribution history of my IP. This editor is the sole reason I had to create an account. You also didn't even take a look at the evidence presented. Etsybetsy (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's drive is to get new editors. The way to it isn't to state that a new editor can do absolutely nothing, even if mounds of evidence were to be presented. Etsybetsy (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This really belongs at WP:ANI. Before we get too into it here, I strongly suggest this discussion be closed and the OP's complaint be copied and pasted over at ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

See below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't a ban proposal appropriate here? It's about many, repeating incidents too. Etsybetsy (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I could be wrong here but I have always seen ANI as the forum where disputes and policy/guideline infractions are dealt with excepting those specifically covered by other noticeboards. Yet I have to admit it seems like this noticeboard has slowly been turned into a sort of second ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I was wrong This is the correct forum for BAN discussions. Almost all other disputes etc. belong at ANI or one of the other forums. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Etsybetsy - you are in a content dispute, someone disagrees with you, deal with it. You don't get to dredge up every bad thing the other editor has ever done to try and get a ban instead of having to pursue consensus. You may notice that most of what you've posted is ancient (in Wikipedia time scales) - Xenophrenic has managed to go nearly three years with only one block for edit warring. Regarding the content dispute itself - no admin cares what you think is the right version of the article, nor should they. Content disputes are handled by dispute resolution and consensus, processes in which admins have no special authority. No one is going to block Xeno over stuff he did five years ago, no one is going to block him because they like your edits better than his. Unless Xeno is somehow breaking policy in this content dispute, which you have not shown, nothing is going to happen to him. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

He was blocked for edit-warring a little over a month ago, warned about it very recently and yet still he's back at it again? I also showed you the red quotes where he blatantly and very hurtfully misquotes people, the way he misquotes sources by ignoring the bits in them which say otherwise and his overall neglect towards most rules? Etsybetsy (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

He did not quote you, his paraphrased you, which is very different. He did not misquote sources, he misinterpreted them (assuming you are correct that he is wrong). Most likely Xeno has a very different point of view from yourself. At worst it would appear he is simply wrong about something. None of these things are blockable offenses. His reverting activity on the named articles has been minimal before he went to the talk page. This is how things are supposed to work: Bold, revert, discuss. If Xeno is so obviously wrong about what these sources say, then your proposed changes will have no trouble prevailing in dispute resolution. There is no need to rush to a conclusion. You have done nothing to show that Xeno is being malicious, or has violated any policies since his last block. Regarding the edit warring: Yes, he was blocked a month ago, I noticed. So what? That doesn't forbid him from getting into new content disputes, and absent an editing restriction it doesn't forbid him from making reverts. If you plan to stick around Wikipedia, you are going to encounter people who disagree with you. You are going to encounter people who you think are wrong. If you cant handle being in disputes with them, it would be best if you simply disengaged. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You call him stating that I want smallpox mentions removed from the article a "paraphrasal"? And he did sure as can be fully quote OoflyoO with the quote mark. He purposefully, twice, clearly posited and untruthed that OoflyoO had opposed me even though OoflyoO, as clear as can be in many different posts, opposed Xenophrenic and supported me. You know what rule that breaks? WP:Don't lie. And he did even quote a source wrong and stated the source criticized another which it didn't. He also ignored when his main sources doubt the smallpox blankets in clear terms: that it wasn't likely or not particularly effective. Is that "misinterpretation"? His revert actions stand against 4 editors in total, with the syphilis editor added. The only reason he hasn't racked it up massively is because I actually tried following the rules and didn't just revert his revert. Other editors similarly have just given up against his edit warring. Is continuing to edit war with him what I should have done per your description of Bold, revert, discuss?

Notice that I haven't removed any of his edits other than shortening a department title from 13 words to 3 and stopping a WP:FORK which had both of our edits at Columbian exchange. I add critical sources after his bits. His first reaction to any of my edit is to just wipe it off, even in the cases where I provide more sources than he does. Talking to him is incredibly fruitful and a good way to spend an afternoon. He'll just break WP:Don't lie. And I have stuck around Wikipedia for a long time and when I see something disruptive I report it. Etsybetsy (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

On and on it goes

He's at it once again at the very recent article I pointed above and haven't touched myself. Someone noticed the edit was problematic and reverted it: [57]. Xenophrenic then just returned and reverted that edit: [58]. His style of editing is just removal of entire paragraphs and reverting when someone returns even a bit. After the bold edit gets reverted, there should be no more reverts from his end which he doesn't seem to understand — however at this point I'd say he understands perfectly and just doesn't care. Any talk with him is absolutely pointless. No one has even been able to approach a compromise with him across the multiple articles he's edit-warring at. Etsybetsy (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible canvassing

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

---

User:Etsybetsy sent me an email with the following message:

"There is something that may interest you at the administrators' noticeboard, regarding your report[59]"

I suspect that I was chosen because I had previously criticized Xenophrenic, which would seem to violate WP:CANVASSING. For the record, I have no opinion on the current case because I haven't looked into the relevant history, and I do not think a content dispute I had with Xenophrenic in January 2013 is relevant. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not good. Etsybetsy, who else did you email? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Are we required to reveal who we emailed or is email considered private communication? And if it is considered private communication, has Guy Macon received permission from Etsybetsy to pass the information along that is being disclosed here? Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You are not required to reveal but see WP:STEALTH. And you do not need permission to reveal the contents of unsolicited emails sent to you. On Wikipedia, there's the outing policy to consider but that's not a factor here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi NeilN. Where do you find support in policy or guideline language for "you do not need permission to reveal the contents of unsolicited emails sent to you"? Also WP:STEALTH refers to "a group of editors", something we have not established here. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:EMAILABUSE covers this: You should not post the email itself on the wiki without permission (although you can describe briefly in summary what it contains or shows). They didn't post the email 'itself'; they did 'describe briefly' its contents. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the thrust of WP:EMAILABUSE are instances of abuse or harassment. Bus stop (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

And- "an objectionable email". _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me turn this around. Where in policy does it say you need to have permission (as contrary to the "real world")? And my question was trying to establish the extent of the canvassing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

We don't have policy for everything, thank goodness. Bus stop (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

So Guy Macon did nothing wrong, either according to Wikipedia policy or real world standards. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. But I'm not sure a discussion of "real world standards" is a viable possibility. Bus stop (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Your disagreement is not rooted in policy and is not shared by the many editors (including admins) who publicly ask problematic users to stop emailing them because whatever issue they have isn't going to be solved by email. I'm not saying personal details in emails should be copied here and not to use common sense, but Guy didn't do the former and followed the latter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

My disagreement is partial. I initially raised questions. That is not, strictly speaking, disagreement. As the conversation rolled along you introduced the concept of "real world standards". I disagree over whether "real world standards" approve of or disapprove of the initial posting by Guy Macon. But obviously "real world standards" are various. We can agree to disagree about "real world standards" and how they may apply here. Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It has always been acceptable to post a generalization of an email. The real concern isn't privacy, it is copyright, if you ask Legal@ here. NeilN is correct, you are very mistaken. It isn't about our opinions, we are both telling you what the general practice is, and THAT is what consensus is. Policy is nothing more than than a written version of that consensus for your convenience. ie: consensus/practice trumps written policy every time. What Guy did was fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Which brings us back to the original question: Etsybetsy, who else did you email? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

As has already been established here, Etsybetsy does not have to reveal who else they have emailed (if anyone else). There may be an applicable question as to whether a "group of editors" has been emailed. Language pertaining to that is found at WP:STEALTH. They may not have emailed anyone else. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Which policy guideline, is not confined solely to emailing a 'group.' _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

But it is "group" that is emphasized. Bus stop (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No; just because it ends talking about a group does not men it began by doing so: "the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors". Plural, not collective. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

And it has not been established that any other editors have been notified. Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you keep arguing that it shouldn't be established! _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I am arguing nothing of the sort. I am saying let us not jump to conclusions. Bus stop (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You questioned, pejoratively, whether "we [are] required to reveal who we emailed" when asked. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong about this but we don't find in policy or guidelines that we should disclose who we may have emailed. Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

To barge in apropos of nothing, I certainly don't believe anyone is obligated to talk about their e-mail tendencies, but I for one would draw a negative inference in a situation like this if the person refused to answer. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Etsybetsy may volunteer to respond. It would be in their favor if they did. No one is forcing them to do so. Not sure why you're wikilawyering over this. An editor was probably canvassed. We (or I) want to know who else was approached. It may be no one else was. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I did send it, and I figured it out you'd probably point out me having sent it. But isn't your report pertinent to the matter at hand? I didn't tell you to do anything, I just told you there might be something of interest and only a person who had dealt with Xenophrenic would know whether he has learned his lessons or is this just a repeat. For example of someone I thought contacting: Johnuniq had dealt with Xenophrenic before, but he already responded here. I don't think anyone who knows Xenophrenic and has discussed him isn't somehow culpable to criticizing him? I also have to state I weren't familiar with WP:STEALTH before and thought it was just best to email directly. Etsybetsy (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The canvassing was legitimate if Etsy contacted all editors involved in the 2013 dispute, as Etsy alleges the same misconduct (not content) dispute as alleged in 2013, which, however, was not proved then. Then, and now, Xeno was accused of intentionally (or with blatent disregard of the English language) misinterpreting sources and Wikipedia editors' comments.

If Etsy is quoting Wikipedia correctly, then the misinterpretation is clear and intentional. (I'm on my smartphone, and find it difficult to pull up the relevant pages.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There were no other editors besides the closing admin involved in the linked dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

And on the article talk page, there was one other currently active editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Just so anyone knows: I didn't contact Arthur. Etsybetsy (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned about the lack of a precise answer. How many people were emailed? Did they get essentially the same message I got? How was I selected? Was it because I had reported Xenophrenic to ANI in 2013? How many other editors who had reported Xenophrenic over the years were contacted? Were any editors who supported Xenophrenic in any of these disputes contacted or just those who opposed him?

BTW, regarding our original content dispute, later events showed that Xenophrenic was right an I was wrong. In 2012 Mitt Romney predicted "President Obama sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China at the cost of American jobs" but as of 2016, 96.7 percent of Jeeps sold in the U.S were assembled in the U.S. with near the top (70 percent) North American parts content. I updated the page in question. [60] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I also contacted editor CatPath on his talk earlier but he didn't respond and I thought talk page messages are ineffective so I contacted people directly. Second one I contacted directly was before and one who had participated at our talks, RockyMntGuy. Other than that it was truly frankly what two other editors? Jobas was the one who had filed the very recent report of Xenophrenic? If you look at the diffs above none of those editors have emails available or they are no longer editing. I got tired because not even RockyMntGuy showed up. So as much as you make this seem like a shadowy tactic it was an idiot at work really. Etsybetsy (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well now he did... Etsybetsy (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I found it useful that Etsybetsy emailed me, because I don't monitor things that closely and don't have a lot of interest in this subject. I have a lot of knowledge of North American Indians because I used to work in the Land Department of a Canadian oil company . In Canada, there are serious issues involved, because in 1763, the year of the alleged genocide attempt, George III put a stop to the French and Indian Wars by giving the French King Guadeloupe in exchange for Canada (which at that time was worth more money than Canada), and settled with the Indians by making a royal edict that American settlers should stop taking land away from the Indians and pay for it instead. The American settlers disagreed, one of the causes of the revolt in 1776.

Before making any edits, I made a comment on the talk page:

Genocide by smallpox exposed blankets? Urban myth or documented fact?

This story of native people being killed by exposure to smallpox exposed blankets seems to pop up in relation to a lot of early explorers, but it has a few problems: 1) The germ theory of disease wasn't generally accepted until the 1880s. So how would colonists prior to that time have thought of using germs to kill natives? They didn't know what caused smallpox.

2) It wouldn't have worked anyway. Smallpox can't generally be spread by infected blankets.

I mentioned it because I had been doing a little research into biological warfare. Don't do this at home because weird things happen. If you mention biological warfare and smallpox in the same sentence on Wikipedia, Homeland Security will be reading your posts. Hi guys, how are things going, caught any terrorists lately? Unfortunately, my proposed edits met considerable push-back from Xenophrenic because it didn't fit into his world view, and he reject everything I proposed. Later, another author brought up the matter of syphilis because it is an example of a disease that made the return trip from the Americas and killed millions of people in Europe, which I agreed with. This didn't fit into Xenophrenic's world view either, so he has been repeatedly deleting it and things like it from the article. Apparently he thinks he "owns" this article. This is a common problem on Wikipedia because some editors think they have ownership of articles and can control everything that is said about them. I am getting sick of it and think it should stop.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I MOVE TO CLOSE THIS SECTION. The answer above seems reasonable, and I think this was just a good-faith attempt to do the right thing. Could someone uninvolved please close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Request ban for User:PoetryFan

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive932#Disruptive editing by PoetryFan I recently documented the erratic, disruptive, and aggressive behavior of the new single-purpose account User:PoetryFan. No action was taken. Now, PoetryFan has left me a very nice apology, and 2 minutes later deliberately falsified the vote of an opposing editor! This editor's behavior goes beyond WP:NOTHERE, and at this point I don't see how WP:GOODFAITH can be assumed. I am requesting a ban. In addition to PoetryFan, I will notify @Mooseandbruce1, @Bonadea, @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and @Alicb who commented on the previous notice. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support ban as proposer. Phil wink (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I would certainly like to see an explanation for that edit from PoetryFan (indeed, both those linked edits, acually, as they seem to have unstruck a !vote too). However, I also note that they haven't edited since 23;49 yesterday night. Any explanation forthcoming wil, I expect, be phenomonally imaginative- but should still be heared here on its merits. However, if a consensus appears within this discussion prior to that occurring, as there seems to be prima facie evidence of malpractice, I will not speak against it. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

So far, PoetryFan seems to be a more-or-less once-a-week editor, so we should probably not expect a response for several days. Phil wink (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think you are right. So- _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize that they had tried to misrepresent my comment on that article for deletion. This is offtopic, but does anyone know how long these have to remain open for an administrator takes action? Alicb (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Alicb: I'd say it was very on topic in the context of an editor under scrutiny who may not edit again before this thread is automaticaly archived by the bot... which is what will happen. Admin advice, please? _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I meant about the WP:AFD discussion. It's been active for a week or two with barely any discussion and it was relisted recently with no discussion. I really don't think that anyone other than this one guy argues that the RCC is unnotable or a hoax and I'm concerned that it's going to be outstanding for a month or more. Alicb (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that! Well, since it was non-controversial, open nearly three weeks, and 100% in against the nominator, I closed it as keep. This thread, however, is still in danger of being held to ransom by his absence- I thought that's what you meant. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Yeah I think that we can keep discussing this here and hopefully the user in question will drop by with a reason shortly. I am not really sure if there is any policy basis for why this user thought that they could just change other people's comments like that though but I agree with the above that it will be interesting and fair to give them a chance to clarify. Alicb (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support ban. No longer possible to assume good faith on their part (not that it was particularly easy when they first appeared). —Psychonaut (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Useless articles created in other namespaces

Template:Robert Nicholas "The Christians Guide To The Bible",

Wikipedia:CITENEWS, Template:Kunzang Dorji, Template:Indian Metro Rail News

Wikipedia:Poutingpretty, Wikipedia:Jeremy Schacht

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron and Bryce Dessner New innocent user, but someone should have fixed this,

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Musicianguides,Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/musicianguides,

New page patrollers patrols articles, who patrols pages created, starting from, Wikipedia:_____ and Template:______ Template:Nareek,

Template:Web kaynağı, Template:Mitu. Is there any list of unpatrolled templates and unpatrolled Wikipedia:... pages, like we have a page full of unpatrolled articles? --Marvellous Spider-Man 07:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Newpage patrolling isn't being done enough in the mainspace. In other namespaces, it only gets done very, very infrequently. You can patrol pages per namespace at Special:NewPages (the older and IMO better patrolling tool), e.g. by using this for the Wikipedia namespace only. Fram (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes I can see the option now. But, we see only those pages which were created within one month? What about those unpatrolled template created in June, Unpatrolled category pages created in July 2016? I mean unpatrolled templates, categories, wikipedia and other namespace pages created more than one month ago? Marvellous Spider-Man 08:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That's what Special:NewPagesFeed is for. Graham87 10:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No, you only get the "article" and "user" namespace as options there, not the other namespaces, which is what the OP asks for (and one of the reasons I don't like NewPagesFeed). There doesn't seem to be an option to see unpatrolled, older pages in other namespaces. Fram (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If there is no option to see unpatrolled templates/Wikipedia:___ pages created more than one month ago, then it has to be rectified. And does anyone has any idea, how many unpatrolled Wikipedia/Template/category/Portal/Book/Module are there in Wikipedia? Marvellous Spider-Man 11:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Updating

Template:Alexis Lyonne, Template:WHY?, Template:Harold Descalzo Bantigui, Template:Jakeism, Template:Chris Murphy. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, myself and MusikAnimal have attempted to create a quarry query which will help here - the query times out due to the size of the logging tables. I'm now working on a fumbled together ps script which may help, and I'll let you know if I get anywhere with it -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Their favorite target is template namespace. 5% target Wikipedia namespace. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Bit of a backlog at CAT:CSD

Any admins who would like to have a bash at it, welcomed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Verbal and Psychological Abuse of a female editor by Jytdog

I have been editing for approximately 10 months. I consider myself a newbie still. I recently made an edit using a bare URL. I've been on WP for just under 1 year, and am still learning. I honestly did not realise this was not the way to cite a website. For this one error, Jytdog verbally abused me by saying "waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage." I am a mature aged woman and am greatly offended. I do not need to be exposed to this filthy language and abuse for no reason. I thought WP was trying to keep female editors not scare them away with foul mouthed abuse!Charlotte135 (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the language isn't great. Jytdog should moderate his comments a bit.

Disagree that this is abusive, and that being female has one mamafreaking thing to do with it. I'm a mature woman as well and if this is the worst you find, you're very fortunate. I'm not suggesting it's okay to talk like that. I am suggesting that abuse isn't one salty word. The woman admins here regularly get rape threats, Charlotte135, so your claim that this is psychological abuse is somewhat offensive to me. Katie^talk 14:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Link to the offending remarks to provide some context. Also of relevance is this discussion at the edit warring noticeboard regarding the filing editors conduct at that article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I note that in that discussion User:Lizzius also expresses concerns about Charlotte135's editing behavior in general. She's a female editor. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Can we just agree that the comment was WP:BITEy and rather uncivil and ask Jytdog to be more careful on both fronts? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we can, and I believe that's what I said. But hysterical claims of psychological abuse to woman editors cause more harm than good, and that's an important point to make. Katie^talk 15:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Filing editor has form for that. I wondered why the username seemed familiar. Turns out I have commented before. So feel free to consider my comments coming from an involved perspective but Charlotte135 appears to have issues related to their gender and gender issues in general. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Worth noting that this report was filed by Charlotte135 15 minutes after they were reported for edit-warring... but seven hours after the event. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This was when I logged in intending to post it here Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and saw the other already made. I still followed through with this post here at ANI. I just want an apology for Jytdog saying "waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage." Is that too much to ask? It seems pretty uncivil at best. And sorry as a woman, I really do not expect to be treated like that.Charlotte135 (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but as a man, I really would not expect to be treated like that, either. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right, no-one does! Not even a dog.Charlotte135 (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Just putting this out there, because apparently it needs to be said: being disparaged while being a minority is not the same thing as being disparaged for being a minority. Confounding the two is at best petty and distracting, and at worse a crass insult women specifically, and minorities generally. TimothyJosephWood 16:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Lets look at the text added by Charlotte. They added the text "Pesticide self poisoning is the most common form of completed suicides worldwide, with around 30% of global suicides are due to pesticide self-poisoning, most of which occur in rural agricultural areas in low- and middle-income countries." The second half of the content was copied and pasted verbatim from the source in question "around 30% of global suicides ... low- and middle-income countries."[61] The first part was simply made up by the editor in question supposedly based of a source they had not used as a reference.[62] Charlotte was previously banned from the topic area of gender issues[63]. They are once again causing disruption in this area per here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That's entirely incorrect Doc James regarding my cut and paste. I did not copy and paste anything! My comments related to you and Flyer22reborn communicating off Wikipedia to form consensus, but then you denied it when Flyer22reborn said you both were. I just thought that undermined the consensus building process, that's all and would be better if you talk on WP rather than in secret. I was topic banned because of my interactions with Flyer22reborn, nothing more. And it was 2 way. I also requested a permanent 2 way interaction ban with Flyer22reborn. I am sorry I proved you wrong on the suicide talk page despite your experience on WP, but please don't use your credibility here at WPO to falsely discredit me because you are angry. That is not fair. I posted here because your friend Jytdog said waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage Jytdog is currently fighting numerous other reportings for edit warring and abuse, and has just been reinstated after a permanent ban from Wikipedia for COI as you know Doc James. His abuse needs to stop. I just want an apology. Is that too much to ask?Charlotte135 (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please provide difs for "but then you denied" or cross it out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Doc James, I am confused. I asked you directly. Flyer22reborn said you were communicating off Wikipedia not me, and you said she posted on the talk. I will find the diffs. For the record, were you then?Charlotte135 (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• yep I lost it in that dif which is where I inappropriately expressed my frustration: "waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage" Yep.

That said, Charlotte is crazy-making, kind of concern-trolling the Talk page with claims that content isn't "right" in one way or another without actually citing a source supporting her "concern" or offering a concrete proposal - this is pretty much what fills the whole Talk:Suicide page. Examples: (dif, dif, dif, dif etc etc) and when directly asked what ref she is talking about or what content she would actually prefer (for example here, here, here, here etc) the issue just squishes away into some new angle for "questioning" or she just keeps repeating the question or claim.

Then she jumps to the article (a Good Article) and makes a trashy edit like this (updating only the lead, using a bareURL for a ref already cited many times in the article, bit of copy/paste going on as Doc James mentioned). I reverted and went ahead and started to add the content she wanted (two diffs when I realized that the bareURL (bad enough) was already a named ref and expressed my frustration with that dif... but what I allowed to push me over the edge was that she had actually reverted, restoring the trashy edit. When I realized that she had done that and my work fixing it had been lost... yes, I lost it. That is the offending dif, which immediately follows the one I just provided.

the intricacy and persistence of her vague concern trolling in combination with this kind of sloppy editing is very frustrating and yes is a huge waste of time. She had Doc James pinned down for hours trying to address her "concerns" - time he could have spent making a zillion edits to build the encyclopedia. I don't know what Charlotte's deal is but the same thing unfolded at Domestic violence a few months ago (one example: see Talk:Domestic_violence/Archive_6#For_NPOV_sake) where she drove other editors up the wall making vague claims not supported by sources.

I did not personally attack Charlotte. I did not say "You are a waste of time" or "You &^%&*%*(&%" . I described her behavior and how I felt about it. But it was definitely unCIVIL and entirely my fault that I lost my temper and expressed my frustration. I am sorry for that, to everybody. In addition to offending Charlotte it led to this additional drama which is taking up yet more time. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: For the record, I was clear what I talked to Doc James about, and why I did. I stated to Charlotte135, "When I see what I consider a problem with an article, I am very likely to comment on the matter. I have no desire to interact with you. If I did, I would not have alerted Doc James to an edit of yours he recently reverted at the Suicide attempt article. That edit you made was problematic because intending to commit suicide is not the same thing as trying to commit suicide. Instead of interacting with you by reverting you at that article, I contacted Doc James to review the edit."

The edit by Charlotte135 was wrong; it needed fixing, and I did not want to make the revert given my tempestuous history with Charlotte135. Yes, I could have commented on the article talk page about the matter, but that likely would have led to more animosity between me and Charlotte135.

As for Jytdog... Yes, he has a temper. I have also been known to be hotheaded (for a few years), and have been taking different approaches to make sure that I don't lost my cool. As a number of editors have stated, it is somewhat understandable for editors to be temperamental after editing so many controversial topics and encountering so many disruptive editors along the way. Regardless, Jytdog is a solid editor and Wikipedia is better off with him here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Diffs from Talk:Suicide and Suicide Highlighting Editing Issues with Charlotte135

Alright, User:Charlotte135 has asked for specific diffs, so I’ve attempted to distill much of the chaos from the Talk:Suicide page below:

1. Charlotte135’s edits were obviously related to gender

• [[64]] First change to exclude "… are four times more common in females than in males."
• [[65]] this one is kind of funny to me because she changes the section she has primarily edited throughout this whole exchange from “sex” to “gender”. Obviously her edits were relevant to gender.
• [[66]] Changes "generally" to "overwhelmingly" with regards to completed suicide rate ("overwhelmingly" higher in men than in women). There is accompanying talk page dialogue for this one, but Charlotte135 doesn’t name any specific sources for this change and we will cover that elsewhere. This is here just to establish that the bulk of her significant edits to this article/talk page have been about gender.
• [[67]] Brings up gender differences in suicide as represented by popular press.

And the list goes on. As I said above, all of her major edits to the article in question and the talk page have been related to gender in one way or another.

a.'Charlotte had the same “difficulty” picking out the gender relevance of her edits (or that is, avoiding articles which would fall under her topic ban from gender related edits) when she was on a topic ban. The banning administrator made that abundantly clear here'. [[68]]

2. Charlotte135 engages in tendentious editing regarding statistics of the gendered difference in suicide attempts and completed suicides. She repeatedly questions the reliability of the sources presented in the article without specifically remarking on content or alternative sourcing.

a.) Charlotte’s vague requests for changes to the article’s reference to gendered statistics that lack specificity regarding sourcing or content but demand attention from other editors (there are accompanying main space edits that have to be frequently reverted by other editors to prevent Charlotte’s strange bias towards these statistics from being reflected in the article).

• [[69]] Charlotte135 questions sources on talk without giving a specific source to frame conversation.
• [[70]] Essentialy same question, asks Doc James for an answer after he has given one.
• [[71]] Same
• [[72]] Asks for "compromise" on wording (after deleting a portion of Doc James response on talk page), again citing unnamed reliable sources. It becomes clear as this progresses on that “compromise” means “agree with me though I provide no sourcing to support my alternatives” to Charlotte135.
• [[73]] Another claim that the majority of reliable sources don't agree with the article, with absolutely no mention of those sources.
• [[74]] Does not supply sources, simply says the entire article should reference global statistics (even though this specific sentence is prefaced with "in the western world". Note that Charlotte once again mischaracterizes what Doc James actually said, which is here. [[75]], and was also stated elsewhere on talk and in edit summaries)
• [[76]] Charlotte135 again claiming inconsistency in the sourcing without providing specific content changes or alternative sourcing.
• [[77]] Says sources will be provided that refute "false" statistics regarding female suicide attempt rates (no secondary sources are ever added).

It goes on and on… It really does.

b.) For the few sources Charlotte135 provided, there was confusion regarding primary vs. secondary sourcing and even an attempt to draw conclusions from a sheet of raw data used by another source differently than that source interpreted it.

• [[78]]
• [[79]] Once again mentioning reliable sources with no actual cite of those sources, this accompanied changes to the articles that inserted primary sources to refute or discredit secondary ones

c.) Charlotte135 refuses to accept alternative viewpoints from other editors who do present valid sourcing. Charlotte 135 also interprets other editors growing weary with the constant sourcing demands (see above) as “compromising” with her. (Very much WP:IDHT)

• [[80]] Doc James says "we have a few sources" clearly referring to what has been referenced in the article already. This will later be misconstrued as Doc James agreeing with Charlotte.
• [[81]] An editor introduces sources on talk page that agree with statistics regarding female attempts at suicide.
• [[82]] Essentially tells another editor (whom had a similar run-in with Charlotte at Domestic Violence) that their opinion isn't welcome on talk page. Misprepresents Doc James as "agreeing" with her representation after all of the above exchanges.

• [[83]] Off-Topic, very much dismissing the points that were raised and instead choosing to focus on contributors.
• [[84]] Refers to everything that has happened on talk page as a "compromise".
• [[85]] This reads very much to me as my way or the highway.

3. Other editors asked countless times to provide specific content changes Charlotte wanted with appropriate sourcing. All went unanswered (in fact, many of Charlotte’s answers were highlighted in the diffs above and can be summarized with “The current sources are wrong” without any further detail)

• [[86]]
• [[87]]
• [[88]]
• [[89]]
• [[90]]

It’s worth noting that these weren’t separate requests for separate issues raised by Charlotte135. They all flowed from her disagreement with the statistics used to describe the gender differences in suicide, and growing frustration from the other editors involved that Charlotte wasn’t providing any specific detail.

I have saved many of the diffs from the article and talk page if anyone would like any further evidence. I’m honestly not sure if this is too much or too little. It’s also worth noting that I didn’t include anything from Talk:Domestic_Violence or the diff’s that garnered Charlotte her previous topic ban. Lizzius (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Holy formatting. TimothyJosephWood 18:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh no! I hope it's not hard to read. If so, please feel free to change it. Lizzius (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

holy cow that was a lot of work gathering those diffs. don't sweat the formatting; thanks for doing the work, Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes! Consider yourself barnstarred, Lizzius, great work! _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply from Charlotte135

How is any of that related to any controversy in gender topics???This is statistics!! Not gender. Is there something I'm missing in this equation. I'm a statistician and health researcher! I'm also a middle aged woman! Where is the controversy? How is that controversial.

Could anyone answer that question? Anyone?? How is that controversial? What did I do wrong. Any talk page discussion could be diffed like that. Could anyone, anyone at all, list here any evidence in the form of diffs, how my above edits deserve a 1 year topic ban??? What exactly have I done?? I will need these responses, or lack thereof, when I appeal at the arbitration committee. This is classic bullying of another female editor, being driven away from Wikipedia.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This was about Jytdog verbally abusing a female editor by saying waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage.

Instead someone just diffs a conversation on a talk page??? Where is the controversy? Anyone? What have I done wrong?? Anyone?? Anyone at all!!!Charlotte135 (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban of User:Charlotte135

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

---

I would like to propose a one year topic ban of Charlotte135 from all things sex / gender related. Issues include

• Copy and pasting from sources [91]
• Misrepresenting sources [92]
• Edit warring [93] while claiming they made no reverts
• WP:IDHT and WP:CLUE [94]/(here they are calling secondary sources primary)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Doc James, your post at edit warring has been discredited. I clearly showed you that I did not cut and paste on my talk page discussion. And I was factually correct at the suicide talk page, as your sources were proved invalid, and I have proposed we simply go back to our compromised consensus, established a week ago and use the WHO source. Its as good as it gets as far as sources go. I will take it to the arbitration committee to prove these 3 points, if needed. I realize you are angry at me right now Doc James for proving you factually wrong on the suicide article, and that you have great influence here, but you proposing this ban on no grounds, is incredibly unfair and against everything WP stands for.Charlotte135 (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte135, how has the edit warring report been discredited? I ask because I was leaning towards a block there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to take a back seat, but I was considering the same, as edit warring doesn't seem to be the only problem here. EdJohnson has already given her a clear warning on her talk page as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm inclining towards Support on this proposal, not solely because of the issues reported but but because of the general attitude indicated by subsequent discussions. The suggestion of WP:IDHT is actually far more troublesome than just edit-warring, or even the referencing problems, because IDHT indicates that whatever problems arise in the future, this same scenario will be played out- time and time over again. In one afternoon, how many editors have we now got tied up over the same editor at two different noticeboards and a talk page? This needs to stop, now. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

None of the above diffs point to abuses in sex/gender related articles? Am I missing something? All of the diffs point to infractions a newer editor might incur and with a little patience and help can be improved on. This looks familiar, an attempt to create a boomerang comes to mind. Does this thread serve to side track the real issues and the focus on Jytdog? A one year topic ban, proposed by an admin, with the above diffs as proof of mistakes in the sex/gender related articles is surprising to say the least.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

The editor's problematic edits with suicide related articles have all pertained to gender related statistics, and gender differences in suicide/suicidal behavior. The editor also had a topic ban from gender related articles (which expired a few months ago) after a dispute with almost identical editing practices called into question. I believe someone else has already linked to the relevant pages. This isn't the first time many of these issues have been raised with her, and the talk pages for both Suicide and Domestic Violence (when Charlotte135 was active there) are riddled with pages of this type of editing. I tend to agree with many above that Charlotte135's editing is a distraction, and in the interest of the encyclopedia (but also the interest of keeping Charlotte135 around to perhaps improve her skills as you mention above) would favor a longer topic ban from gender related subjects broadly construed over an outright block. Lizzius (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to be sure that the editor is very clear about exactly why she is being sanctioned, if she is. Diffs must be very specific to the sanction because supposedly Wikipedia is not punitive and the sanction should be educational rather than a punishment.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

• Thank you Littleolive oil for asking the same questions I had. That said, I tend to SUPPORT as there does seem to be a clear pattern. This is separate from the edit warring, I would note. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per my previous links/comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• support if you review their talk page they have been disruptive on gender issues pretty much since they arrived, advocating a men's rights position. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Can someone provide diffs here over the past few months as evidence of anything I have done or how in any possible way this is over gender. I work as a statistician and researcher and hold natural interest in these areas. The simple matter over wording at the suicide article had already been solved through a compromised consensus and everyone moved on to other articles. I have only ever had problems at WP with one editor who suddenly showed up at the article. I had been avoiding this editor at all costs. This editor insisted the wording must be suicide attempts. The literature simply uses the term suicide behaviors, not suicide attempts. That was only point. Nothing to do with gender! I wanted our articles top reflect that fact, and what the WHO states even. That was it. Nothing else. How has this become about gender! My response to this editor was here in this diff [95]Charlotte135 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As a kind hearted and fair editor noted above, "Diffs must be very specific to the sanction" Can someone provide these diffs please. I don't understand, and am quite upset over this. I'm sorry that as a mature aged woman, I may be different to a man as far as my emotional reaction to all of this, but I am. I this is very unfair and obviously seems like a punishment, particularly with no evidence, and the fact that Doc James is involved should not matter. Again, could someone please provide me with diffs that are specific to any proposed sanction. Thank you very much.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

So, can someone please just provide diffs here over the past few months as evidence of anything I have done or how in any possible way this is over gender and diffs that are very specific to any proposed sanction? I am completely confused here and think I've been entangled in some gender issue going on at Wikipedia. As far as my own editing on the suicide article all I can do is present this diff again showing my attitude. [96]. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Neither your age nor gender is a factor nor justification here, even if you insist on bringing it up. We have no way of verifying if you are an 80 year old woman or 14 year old boy, so claims are meaningless; only actions matter. We don't discriminate based on age or gender anyway. Also: Editors may consider any time range when considering behavior, although it is typically less than a year, so they aren't limited to just a few months. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support That Suicide talk page is awful. So many times simply asked to provide wording and a source to back it up yet instead endless circles. Confusion about primary and secondary sources as well. Perhaps if this was the first time it would be understandable but the past ANI's say otherwise. The hyperbolic header to this report doesn't help either. I was supportive of a longer TB back when the Domestic Violence conflict came to ANI and this hasn't changed my mind. Capeo (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there any evidence at all, any evidence any diffs showing how this is related in any way to gender? Any evidence? Any diffs showing how in any way this is related to gender? If not, why the sanctions???Charlotte135 (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there any evidence at all, any evidence any diffs showing how this is related in any way to gender? Any evidence? Any diffs showing how in any way this is related to gender? If not, why the sanctions???Charlotte135 (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• I came to this dispute via the commotion I saw on Charlotte135's talk page, which I think I had on my watchlist from a prior incident (topic ban discussion perhaps). First off, I really don't like how this went down. There are worse sins, for instance, than putting a bare URL between ref tags (at least she's providing a reference) and Jytdog's response was inappropriate and disproportionate. I also take exception to Doc James's actions: slapping a "warning" template on the editor [97] over 6 hours after her last revert, then opening an AN3 report less than a minute later. Furthermore, one of the four reverts he reported there wasn't a revert but an initial introduction of new text. The evidence he provides at the top of this section isn't stellar either: the link he gives as evidence of the copyright violation has her apologizing for forgetting to use quotations on the part she didn't paraphrase.

  That said, I can understand why Jytdog was so quick to fly off the handle and why Doc James seems eager to have Charlotte135 blocked or topic banned. She has been a tremendous waste of time for many productive editors, engaging in endless circular arguments while refusing to ever get the point, and pursuing what appears to be a personal vendetta against Flyer22. I came to this conclusion after spending way too much time reading Talk:Domestic_violence/Archive_6#For_NPOV_sake. I had to stop about 2/3 of the way through before my brain turned to mush. (@Charlotte135, that link is definitely gender-related.) So call it what you will: Disruptive, Tendentious, CIR, or Randy; I Support a broad and lengthy topic ban of User:Charlotte135. ~Awilley (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

But I haven't been anywhere near the domestic violence article or any gender topics Awilley?? So I ask again, Is there any evidence at all, any evidence any diffs showing how this is related in any way to gender? Any evidence? Any diffs showing how in any way this is related to gender? If not, why the sanctions???' Still nothing has been presented. I will need to show this fact, when appealing to the arbitration committee for the lifting of any sanctions falsely placed on me, based on gender topics, when clearly there is no evidence and I have not been involved in any gender topics. So please, if anyone has ANY evidence or diffs at all which supports a sanction based on gender please provide them here. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

When the Arbitration Committee consider my appeal against gender based sanctions placed on me they will need to have clear evidence and diffs as to how?? Which gender articles?? What have had to do with gender?? I will take my appeal as far as is possible. I genuinely have no idea why sanctions are proposed. If Doc James had given me more than one minute to cool off after his warning he would have done so. Not even 90 seconds and he reported me here because we were both edit warring. But as far as a year sanction!@!!! being applied under gamergate what evidence is there? Administrators in the past have confirmed I have nothing to these gender based articles!! Any evidence?? Here is your chance Anyone> Anyone at all, to show evidence and diffs justifying a one year sanction on gender???Charlotte135 (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It is no secret that Jytdog and Doc James are also friends here. But is there any action on Jytdog foul mouthed filthy verbally abuse on a public forum such as WP, by saying to me as a mature aged woman and for no good reason waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbageCharlotte135 (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is a dif from Sept 1st,2016[98] were you change "sex" to "gender" and here is a dif from Sept 2nd[99] were you adjust the wording to no longer reflect either common usage or the references that follow in the context of sex related difference in attempted suicide rates. Also you have brought up gender/sex multiple times in this threat including the opening heading and the opening text all the while denying that you have commented on sex/gender.

With respect to reverts, I agree there is some variation is counting practicings and agree that three reverts in 24 hours is also a reasonable conclusion. That you arrive at "I did not even revert once" however is concerning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those diffs seem ban worthy. - Bilby (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This was only a reply to Charlotte's Q regarding evidence that she has been involved in gender / sex related disputes since the prior "domestic violence" issues. Their claim in bold above was "I have not been involved in any gender topics" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I find our interpretation of "broadly construed" to often be a bit too broadly construed. - Bilby (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I should note that I am also a bit disappointed in myself for using a November 2015 discussion as evidence in a September 2016 topic ban discussion. That said, having now read a couple sections at Talk:Suicide I believe little has changed since November. She's still repeating the same arguments verbatim (copy-paste almost) without convincing anybody, still dodging making specific content proposals, still going after people personally, and still frustrating lots of good content editors. As an example of the copy-paste thing, try a Ctrl+F on this page with the following words: "Is there any evidence at all, any evidence any diffs showing how this is related in any way to gender? Any evidence? Any diffs showing how in any way this is related to gender? If not, why the sanctions???" ~Awilley (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Doc James, and anyone else, I stand by my comment that I have not been involved in gender / sex related disputes since the prior "domestic violence" issues. It's true. Me asking you Doc James, whether we should change sex to gender is straightforward. I was puzzled by your reply, to be honest. I had been looking at our other suicide related articles, and there are many, and they all use "gender" rather than sex. So I thought it sensible for consistency to change it to gender. You said no. I said okay. Nothing more.

As you know Doc James, our dispute has been over the wording of suicide attempts compared with non fatal suicide behaviors used by the the WHO, nothing to do with gender/sex controversies. These two diffs, show my point. [100] [101] We were about to seek resolution and you pounced on me and reported me here. I also asked if we could again perhaps compromise as I was attempting to seek consensus and end our dispute. Point is I have not been involved in sex/gender disputes for months. I also have tried as a relatively newbie, to work with the community and am again asking if anyone has any evidence in the form of diffs relating to gender/sex disputes please present it. If not, please accord me the same punishment or warning, any other person here would want to be served if they were fairly new to Wikipedia, and in my shoes, rather than topic banning me for a year from topics I have clearly, and voluntarily, chosen to stay away from for months.Charlotte135 (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Due to Charlotte's constant complaining, I decided to back to her first edits, which are less than a year ago. Same thing as now, and early on I see article talk page badgering of editors. Topic ban is surely the answer, and site ban if she can't comply. Otherwise it will end up a drama fest at Arb where the same outcome is likely. We don't need to even concern ourselves with previous Arb cases, there is plenty of evidence of simple disruptive behavior in a given topic area, ie: gender. I'm tired of seeing her repeat the same thing over and over, and would ask she refrain. We all see it the first time, you are bordering on badgering us when you keep repeating yourself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. As I keep saying, I have had nothing to do with gender/sex controversies for months and months and months, and no-one, but no-one has shown any evidence or reasoning to the contrary. In fact people desperately keep going back to a year ago. How would others like their past history continually dragged up. So new Question Dennis Brown. Are you saying I have not got the right to appeal at the arbitration committee?Charlotte135 (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

And please don't be so uncivil and disrespectful Dennis Brown by saying when I do, it will be a "drama fest" There actually are very formal protocols that apply to all of us and all of us are accorded the same rights as any other editor. I will present an extremely tight, well argued appeal, with diffs, believe me. And I should have the right to do so. Please don't undermine that process by adding such language in a further attempt to taint by good character and good editing on WP. Thank you. Look forward to your brief reply on my above question.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course I will comply with a sanctioned topic ban Dennis Brown. How disrespectful. No need to further threaten me before I even have a chance, as Doc James did by warning me and then within 1 minute, report me here. Hopefully the ARB committee can look at these type of things objectively, and fairly, if I provide an extremely well structure appeal with lots and lots of diffs. Thank you again for your time.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please then go ahead and topic ban me Dennis Brown, with detailed reasons as always, and part of our protocol here at WP. I can assure you I will comply. I can assure you also, if i have a right to appeal to the Arb Committee I will. However I have nothing more to say at this place here, where anything goes! That way this thread can be closed, and so I need not repeat myself. No actual evidence was ever provided for a 1 year topic ban, apart from reverting back to my history. That's fine. Please close.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention Dennis Brown, if possible, would you please tell me before closing, what admins did about Doc James's friend Jytdog, verbally abusing a female editor by saying on a public forum (that children can read) waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage

As a fair and decent editor stated in a comment above: "This looks familiar, an attempt to create a boomerang comes to mind. Does this thread serve to side track the real issues and the focus on Jytdog?" As I said Dennis Brown, I will comply fully with a topic ban but would just appreciate a response on Jytdog's filthy and unnecessary abuse to a female editor. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support a one year topic ban of Charlotte135 from all things sex / gender related as proposed by Doc. In all of my 10 years here she takes the cake when it comes to editors that can about drive a person nuts. Gandydancer (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Gandydancer you are still hanging on to our dispute 11 months ago. And like everyone else, have presented no recent evidence in the way of diffs. Don't you remember 4 months ago when I contacted you on your talk page offering an olive branch? Charlotte135 (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it's here... and it will be interesting to see how many editors- as I have done- find dificulty in finding the 'olive branch' little other than a cover for continuing self-justification. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Numbers 1 to 100

There is an RFC saying if the articles 1 to 100 should be about numbers instead of years. It is getting a lot of support. Can an administrator please close the RFC, move 1 to 1 AD, 1 (number) to 1, 2 to 2 AD, 2 (number) to 2, ..., 100 to 100 AD, and 100 (number) to 100? Thanks. Timo3 13:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

What fun! Two hundred page moves?!?! In any case, it will stay open for thirty days, which has not yet been reached. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

On a side note most non-religious entities now use "CE" (common era) instead of "AD" (Anno Domini) given the latter's overtly religious connotations. But if you do use AD, the letters precede the year number, not follow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

FTR, that's not what MOS:ERA says about AD – "1 AD" should be fine. (And, as an aside, this is one "non-religious" person who thinks that this whole CE/BCE thing is complete nonsense...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• @JFG: "There is consensus that, if the change is approved, year articles should be titled '1 (year)', not 'AD 1', '1 CE' or similar." Where? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Checking this, the manual of style puts no preference on AD vs. CE vs. anything else. BC years are titled #### BC, so for the sake of consistency I'd imagine ## AD would make more sense. Anyway... Someguy1221 (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @Timo3: I essentially requested that the closer of the RfC be aware that any move of the pages needs to wait for appropriate dab/nav templates (mentioned in a subsection there) or the moves will invalidate the hatnotes and other links (incorrectly) assumed by the templates on these pages. I also believe I've mentioned this to a reasonable extent at the RfC. Moves, if there is consensus, should be planned for these pages which have been at their locations since 2001. To minimize link breakage in terms of dab, please wait. Also, the RfC still has over a week to go. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: There were good arguments and local consensus in favor of the "42 (year)" format at Talk:1#Requested move 5 August 2016, but the followup RFC is getting a lot more participation, so the question remains open for debate. When formulating the RFC, I did not want the AD/CE/year considerations to interfere with the decision to make numbers primary for terms "1"…"100". If this decision gets consensus support, then we can debate the title of the year articles in a subsequent discussion while technical preparations for the moves get underway. — JFG ^talk 09:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

More eyes on Cape Spear

Can some more admins (and anyone else who feels so inclined) add Cape Spear to their watchlist? This has become the venue-of-choice for a self-appointed "Wikipedia performance artist", who posts self-promotion about himself to the page and then documents how long it takes to remove it, as an artwork that explores what Wikipedia deems worthy of inclusion as an "open-source" encyclopedia; see Talk:Cape Spear#Persistent article vandalism for his explanation of why he's doing this; the "artwork" itself composed of all the warnings he receives is at www.duanelinklater.com/index.php?/recent/this-morning-in-cape-spear (currently blacklisted so can't link direct). This has been going on intermittently since at least 2011 and probably earlier. Because I've done a couple of the reverts, someone will no doubt start screaming WP:INVOLVED if I enact any protection (he uses a different account or IP each time, so blocking isn't a realistic option), and it seems faintly ridiculous to protect a page this obscure just to pander to a single crank. With any luck, if there are enough eyes on it that his edits never stick for more than a few seconds, he may get bored enough to go find a new hobby. ‑ Iridescent 18:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't an easier option to warn User:Jghampton that if he does that again he'll be blocked? No IP's have been adding the original vandalism since last October, but Jghampton has added the meta-content about the vandalism 3 times since last December. I'll leave a note on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I doubt warnings will be any use, since the whole point of doing this is to provoke warnings which he can add to his website; if you look at the history, each time he's warned he pops up a few months later under a fresh account or IP. (Although I assume you've at least now earned yourself a mention in User:Jghampton/Books/CapeSpear.) ‑ Iridescent 18:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah; you're suggesting Jghampton and the IPs are the same person? I took the change in content to mean a change in author. Plus Jghampton has edited other stuff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I doubt they're the same person, but I assume they're connected. Given the last post on the talkpage, I'd guess Jghampton is connected to the gallery at which this was exhibited, but I doubt one could ever know for sure. ‑ Iridescent 18:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Watchlisted. I've been to Cape Spear, too, but I can resist the temptation to make a "wily enfolding of postconceptual structure, postcolonial critique and post-Internet art" about my visit by adding it to WP. If this nuisance persists, I would consider long-term semi-protection. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure review on unseen character talk page: "Request For Comments - examples that Wikipedia editors don't believe qualify"

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

---

This is a request to review the closing of the Request For Comments - examples that Wikipedia editors don't believe qualify. I discussed this with the editor who closed the RfC here: User talk:Mmyers1976. This request is to consider whether the RFC was closed properly, using the correct procedures to end an RfC or not.

The RfC was posted and ended by the same editor. This editor was inextricably involved through previous experience in the discussion, which is not allowed according to “WP:RFCEND”, where it is specified that only an “uninvolved editor” can formally close an the RfC. This is a procedural issue that the closing editor may not have been aware of, but it is a substantial procedural error.

In the reason given for ending the RfC (as posted in the box on the talk page), the closing editor claims that the arguments in the RfC by the other editors are “based on Original Research.” This is not only not true, and hasn’t been discussed, but it doesn’t make sense, because “Original Research" is a WP term with a specific meaning: “Original Research” can only, by definition, be found in an article — never on a talk page. And of course, if found, it should be deleted from the article. The criteria for judging something to be an instance of Original Research would be a consideration of the “citations” and of the “reliable sources”, etc. Citations and Reliable Sources are not required or expected on “talk pages”. (See WP:OR) In this way the the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion, and the closer of the RfC interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I think the RfC should be reopened to allow for any new contributions, like the one mentioned above, and then an uninvolved editor should be allowed to end the RfC. Handthrown (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Response - WP:RFCEND states: "There are several ways that RfCs end: 1. The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly)." and " If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable." Six participants (Doniago, DP, SummerPhDv2.0, FoCuSandLeArN, Isaidnoway, and myself) agreed that the examples were well-sourced and significant, and should be included, it was WP:SNOW. Handthrown was the only exception, and as more than one person tried to explain to her, her arguments ran afoul of the No Original Research policy. As more than one editor tried to tell Handthrown, she was failing or refusing to get the point. Her tendentious repetition of the same arguments over and over again even after six other editors had not agreed with her, and her multiple attempts to include off-topic issues into the RfC had been persistently disruptive throughout the RfC. Six experienced editors with well-reasoned arguments against one editor (who has only been on Wikipedia a little over a month and is making arguments in favor of violating policy) is an obvious consensus. Everyone else agreed, the RfC was 28 days old and no one, not even Handthrown, had posted anything new to it for seven days, Wikipedia is not a suicide pact, there was no reason to keep the RfC open just because she and she alone had not had her way, so informally closing, as I did, was completely appropriate. Now, because the RfC didn't go her way, she is attempting to Forum Shop here.

Her complaint about "original research" is due to her lack of understanding of the arguments made in the RFC, and of Wikipedia policy in general. The RfC focused on two characters that multiple reliable sources had called "unseen characters", and asked if they were to be included. Handthrown opposed inclusion of the characters because in her opinion they did not meet the conditions of a general definition of "unseen character" found in the lead. Multiple editors attempted exhaustively to explain to her that her attempting to use a separate definition to disqualify these characters as "unseen" even when reliable sources had declared they are unseen characters would be a violation of the No Original Research policy, but she never understood this, and obviously still does not understand this based on her comments here. SummerPhD's !vote in the RfC survey echoes this concern about opposition being based on OR:

*Favor They are WP:V and the arguments against are all WP:OR.

This boils down to nothing more than an extremely inexperienced editor (Handthrown) not understanding policies, procedure or guidelines, as well as failing or refusing to get the point, and tendentiously thinking that an RFC where consensus was obviously against her should be kept open so that she could continue using it as a battleground, and then coming here to forum shop when she didn't get the result she liked. She should be advised to stop disrupting Wikipedia to try to make a point. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• It is not forum shopping to post here, in fact it is the correct venue to post this type of query. The comments against handthrown above are out of order and not relevant as to whether this was a good close or not. Generally I dislike it when editors close their own RFCs, as it inevitably leads to this. Saying that I don't see how it could have been closed any other way so I endorse the current close. AIRcorn (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the endorsement, but I must say Handthrown established the relevance of my comments when she brought up the Original Research issue. And as you say, you don't see how the RFC could have been closed any other way, then what was the point in protesting the closure? Context is the key here, Handthrown was extremely combative in the discussions on the page, at one point calling my use of a source in the lead "fraud" (DP repudiated this accusation, and that's only one of many, many examples). So when a person who has been that combative comes here to protest the closure of an RfC that objectively could not have been closed with any other result, it is reasonable to suspect it is really about trying to reargue a content issue where consensus did not go her way. Mmyers1976 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I read through most of that discussion before commenting so feel I have some idea on the context. Nothing I read there suggested anything more than a relatively standard content dispute where one editor was outnumbered. In fact it was a lot more civil than many similar situations. This is not the place to rehash the RFC, which both you and Handthrown are guilty of. That is easy to do in these circumstances and pretty minor in the general scheme of things. There is however a stark contrast between the tone of Handthrowns request (a perfectly legitimate one considering you closed a rfc you were heavily involved in) and your response to it. You are throwing around some pretty heavy essays (at least one of which is completely incorrect) without much in the way of diffs to back them up AIRcorn (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Reverse closure even though there was no possible other conclusion by a closer, but the author of the RFC should not have closed it, and it should be reopened to permit a neutral close. This issue has been contentious long enough that the close ought to be with perfect correctness, not merely good enough. I don't know why this issue has been so contentious for so long, but it has been, and the closer wasn't uninvolved, and the RFC ought to be reopened, to be closed by a completely uninvolved closer. Coming here is not forum shopping, because this is the proper venue to challenge an RFC close. Reverse closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Mmyers states that they closed the RFC informally. The closure looks like a formal closure. In view of its history of contentiousness, there should have been and still should be a formal closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• CommentThough after rereading WP:RFCEND I still contest the assertion that my closing was anywhere expressly prohibited, for the sake of argument, let's say for now it was. Both Aircorn and Robert McClenon agree there was no other possible conclusion by a closer than the one I reached, but McClenon wants it reopened so it can be formally closed. This calls to mind WP:SNOWBALL, which states "for example, if an article is speedily deleted for the wrong reason (not one of those listed in the criteria for speedy deletion), but doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving deletion through the normal article deletion process, there's no sense in resurrecting it and forcing everyone to go through the motions of deleting it yet again." Mmyers1976 (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If, however, the RFC is to be reopened for the purpose of a formal close, then perhaps this time during the brief time it is open it could get some direct administrator attention to guard against the WP:LISTEN violations that disrupted it the first time?Mmyers1976 (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• UPDATE - In the spirit of compromise, I will reopen the RfC, and list it for formal closure, but for the love of Saint Pete, could someone PLEASE attend to closing it in a timely manner? Robert McClenon said, this issue has been contentious for a long time, and to that I would add we have a consensus on the RfC, it's time to finally put it to bed. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Thank you for compromising. I have listed the RFC as needing closure, and I agree it should be closed promptly. I would close it, but my close might be challenged as involved due to my past involvement with the issue at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I think that it might be helpful for the closer to have a mop. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Help with Templates

1. I need to link the audio for the IPA ə in this template: {{Pashto_IPA_chart/table_vowels_with_audio}} with Mid_central_vowel
2. I need to make this template smaller: {{Pashto_IPA_chart_vowels_with_audio}}

Can someone please assist me, Thank You

I have asked this question at the other place but to no avail :( Adjutor101 (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A Discussion at ANI Needs Closing by an Admin

There is a rather lengthy discussion at ANI that needs closing by an uninvolved Admin before it gets archived. Thanks! (Full Disclosure: I am an involved party.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't going to bring this up, but now that someone else has, SPECIFICO has accused me of wrongdoing,[102][103] and not for the first time. If his complaints are legit, I would very much welcome someone uninvolved telling me "you went a little too far that time, Guy. Please don't do that" so I can correct my behavior. If his complaints are bogus, I would like him to leave me alone. To me, it looks like SPECIFICO has shown multiple recent examples with multiple editors of trying to turn good-faith disagreements and content disputes into accusations of misbehavior, but of course I am almost certainly biased and thus cannot trust my own judgement on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Termination of Mythdon's editing restrictions

This thread serves to notify the AN crowd that, per this thread which was archived before a formal closure was enacted, the topic ban applied to User:Mythdon upon his unblock in 2012 is hereby rescinded. The remedies imposed by ArbCom in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong are not affected by this decision. Deryck C. 06:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2016: Announcement

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The arbitrators overseeing this will be DeltaQuad and Opabinia regalis. This year, the usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process.

The Committee is bound by a Wikimedia Foundation policy that only those editors who have passed an RfA or equivalent process may be appointed, therefore only administrators may be considered. The Committee encourages interested administrators to apply, and invites holders of one tool to apply for the other.

The timeline shall be as follows:

• 9th September: Request for candidates to apply.
• 23:59 UTC, 20th September: Candidate submissions close, vetting begins.
• 21st September: The Arbitration Committee and current Functionaries will vet the candidates.
• 23rd September: Vetting ends, successful candidates contacted by the 26th September.
• 26th September: Candidates published on-wiki, community feedback invited.
• 23:59 UTC, 8th October: Community comments end.
• By 19th October: Appointed candidates announced

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this

I think this should be given equal prominence with the original notice: apparently the WMF don't believe that after all... _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Mason

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Mason (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Can someone else take a look at this AfD? Some of the comments appear to me as grossly inappropriate for a deletion discussion. I've opted to close the current discussion and to recommend a re-do, consequently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That's more than inappropriate, those comments should have been removed as blatant vandalism/trolling. Good call on the no consensus, obviously there wasn't any consensus there other than some nasty racist comments. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the nominator, TheGracefulSlick, has a history with the creator of the article, CrazyAces489 (blocked). I wonder how much these comments are based on the subject himself or an extension of on-wiki conflict. Personally, I'd consider a bold redirect to the fraternity page. There might be a [weak] case for WP:BIO, but since the most prominent coverage is negative, then as much as I hate to do what the IPs advocated for, a redirect might be the best approach for this BLP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Rhododendrites allow me to explain the situation. CrazyAces, who wrote all those racist comments, is actually far from racist toward black people. If anything, he is a black supremacist, who despises anyone who is not black or does not share his same philosophy. By closing the Afd, you did exactly what he wanted, which was to trick you with grossly racist comments. Do what you will from here on out (a redirect is a good idea), but hopefully this made your decision a little easier.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: Thanks for the background. I didn't do the close btw, and I partly agree that it probably might've been better to block/revdel (the comments are still accessible btw) than to close. However, closing in order to immediately stop the violations (which are the sort that do deserve precedence), so that remedies could before resuming, seems reasonable. The comments do look like they're intended to disrupt rather than to actually get the article deleted. Whether it's the article creator, and whether the person's motivations are along the lines of a false flag I don't know (it can always be added to the SPI). For the purposes of what to do with regard to another AfD and the article, I went ahead and boldly redirected it to the fraternity page. Assuming it's not controversial (among non-blocked editors), that would seem to be that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, TheGracefulSlick, I wasn't insinuating any impropriety on your part. Just curious about backstory. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Requiring direction.

Several discussions have been held at Doctor Who (series 9)'s talk page, over the span of many months, and there is a solid consensus. However, one editor constantly refuses to let it go, and continues to create new discussions, forcing RfC's on them, when s/he is literally the only editor to hold this particular view. This has gone on for long enough. Where is the best place to file a report against this user? It's basically turned into a form of harassment now. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Could we please have an early close to Talk:Murder of Seth Rich#RFC: Should the WikiLeaks reward be mentioned in the article?

Thirty editors have commented, it has been four days since the last !vote, there is a two to one consensus in the responses, yet the side that is in the minority insists[104][105] that after thirty days the closing admin will override the` majority on BLP grounds. Could be please have an uninvolved administrator make a ruling one way or the other on the BLP question and close the RfC? Thanks!

I will be posting a link to this section at the BLP noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon, is there a reason it needs to be closed early? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The murder of Seth Rich has become an issue in the current US election cycle, with comments by DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hillary Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and various other politicians on both sides. There are also a lot of conspiracy theories posted about it in the usual places. Those who have been working on the page all agree to not mention the conspiracy theories, but we are also leaving out important (meaning covered in depth by multiple reliable sources) basic facts about the case. Furthermore, it looks really silly to have a reference section with citations to articles in reliable sources titled

• "WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward for help finding Omaha native Seth Rich's killer", (Omaha World-Herald)
• "WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward over murder of Democrat staffer Seth Rich". (The Daily Telegraph)
• "WikiLeaks offers reward for help finding DNC staffer's killer", (Washington Post)

in an article that does not mention Wikileaks. Also, we have a clear consensus at the RfC, and it isn't being followed. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: thanks for explaining. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• The above mischaracterizes what I wrote on Talk page which is for example here: "I'll be interested to see what an experienced admin does at the closing. Many of the !votes don't grapple with BLP and will probably be discounted. Decisions in WP are not made by raw tally but by reviewing policy-based arguments. But we'll see. "

Guy is kind of losing it over this issue. See this edit note and the edit made under it, and this comment and its edit note. See also the post here at AN, here. This all seems problematic with regard to the DSes on BLP and American politics. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy's description above about who reverted, is also just wrong. User:Herostratus who reverted Guy's addition of the content here (same dif provided by Guy above), actually !voted to include the content (see here). Per the edit note, Herostratus' reversion was purely on the grounds of waiting to see what happened in the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Jtdogs arguments have already been addressed by another editor on the article talk page[106] I have nothing to add to that excellent analysis. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Jtdogs is correct, I reverted purely on procedural grounds. I hope the material i reverted ends up being included! But not until someone has said "I read the BLP rule, took a walk, read the rule again, considered precedent, considered the underlying spirit of the rule, considered our duty to be informative, considered that after all the main player here is actually dead, and so forth, and here's my ruling: _______________". Not until then. That being said, I don't have an opinion on early close, if someone wants to do it: I think the basic arguments have been laid out. Herostratus (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Voting

Hello, despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy, there is currently a vote going on at the Donald Trump talk page pertaining to Trump's photo. It would be great if an admin could guide the discussion there so that we can reach consensus in a way that isn't at odds with Wikipedia policy. Thanks! Prcc27🌍 (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

OP is correct. After ten days of heated debate, I started this voting as the quickest and easiest path to a consensus on a very subjective photo selection. By my count, 27 editors, many with upwards of four years experience, have voted so far, thereby implicitly endorsing this method. A few dissenters aim to deny them that decision, insisting that we must continue the debate that has changed no one's mind to date. Continue for how long? I have no idea what would satisfy the dissenters, or what they hope to accomplish by spending that additional time on it. The OP, for one, objects to the fact that the field was narrowed to two choices before they had a chance to argue for their preference image, which is not one of those two. Sorry, that happens. My feeling is that 27 editors ought to be allowed to choose the method of reaching a decision on an infobox photo, without a lot of minority interference. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Mandruss: Umm... I "!voted" there too, but that doesn't mean I think my !vote should determine consensus without the strength of my argument being considered first. The other people that voted there didn't necessarily endorse your method either, they might have just went along with it. Some might have gotten the impression that you were the page's owner. Plus, many of them might not have realized that voting is outside of the convention of wikipedia. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I generally dislike and avoid strong words like "absurd", but I'll make an exception for you, sir. I made what was effectively a proposal by starting that voting, and the proposal was overwhelmingly accepted. It could have gone the other way and my proposal could have failed, and everybody understands that except you. So any mention of the word "own" is absolutely absurd. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe I was the one who originally suggested the poll. [107], [108] [109] Although I'm not the "page admin" (obviously) I use my admin tools to keep things on track there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. Apparently we independently reached the same conclusion at roughly the same time. So we have at least one admin who doesn't believe a mortal Wikipedia sin is being committed here. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I already notified Prcc27🌍 about NeilN's suggestion here, but it was ignored. I don't think he cares and is just trying to impeede the process. Chase (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• @CCamp2013: Their suggestion isn't wikipedia policy yet is it? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27: No, however, nothing we did was against policy. If you would have read the content of what I referred you to or you read the talk page of Donald Trump to the full extent, then you would know that we had an extensive conversation about the photo in two seperate talk pages. These discussion were not coming to a conclusion on anything except which two pictures to narrow it down to. Picture C and Picture E. Also, that the consensus based on the best arguements is purely subjective and can't be acheieved at all because everyone's opinions are equal when dealing with a picture. As stated many times, by non-Admins and by Admins. By policy Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion you can see that polling is something you shouldn't do in substitute of discussion. That's exactly right, but we didn't substitute polling for discussion. Discussion was had, extensive discussion. It also states that most decision are based from consensus, not on votes. So saying that we are going agaisnt policy is false. If wikipedia wanted to restrict decisions based on votes, they would say all decisions. Chase (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The essay has this section which is helpful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The whole and sole basis for the dissent is that discussion is required to present opposing arguments and make a determination as to which arguments are strongest. That is true, when there is an objective way to evaluate arguments, such as policy or guideline. I tried to explain on that talk page why that doesn't work in this situation, and I feel I made the case, but that was ignored by this OP. So here it is, and I can't do this with a diff because it is the sum of multiple edits that are not consecutive in the page history.
@Prcc27: we have to go with the photo that has the strongest arguments. Fine, and who makes that determination? Don't say that we make it together, collectively. I think I and those who agree with me have the strongest arguments. You think you and those who agree with you have the strongest arguments. You can say you have the strongest arguments because you pointed to Wikipedia standards not to use dark or blurry photos, and my response is that my preference photo is not dark or blurry. To my mind, I have defeated your claim that you have the strongest arguments. We can debate this to the end of time and neither of us will change our position. Seriously, how often have you seen someone reverse their position in a Wikipedia debate? I've seen it happen about five times in over three years, and three of those cases were me changing my mind. So how is this disagreement resolved without a closer? Such a closer would have to very subjectively decide whether my photo is dark or blurry, and being an admin does not make one more qualified than anyone else to make such judgments. Admins are experts in Wikipedia p&g, not photo evaluation. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is that photo evaluation is entirely subject to human differences in perception, perspective, and aesthetic taste, and never mind the differences in computer displays. One editor sees "dark and blurry", another editor does not, both acting in good faith. One editor gives more positive weight to the fact that the photo has a flag, another editor gives more negative weight to the fact that the microphone is obscuring the subject's necktie. One editor sees a "forced" smile, another sees a kindly-looking grandfather who doesn't always deliver the best-looking smile in the world. None of these dozens of factors are unimportant simply because they are not mentioned in guideline, but we each have a different opinion as to how much weight to attach to each of them. We might as well be debating whether jazz music is better than R&B. Note that each vote is followed by an argument, which may or may not sway other voting. We have simply elected to skip the unresolvable back-and-forth "my argument is stronger", "no mine is and here's why", "no mine is and here's why yours isn't" - ad nauseam et infinitum. I call that good sense, and 26 others agree with me. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

"26 others agree with me"

As was pointed out to you already by Prcc27, voting in the weighted run-off is not necessarily agreeing with you that voting is better or preferable over consensus in this case (or any case). Personally, I'm concerned that you are setting a bad precedent with this vote. Because, as I pointed out to you at the vote discussion, when the 10 days are up (your parameter set when the vote was instituted) there will not be consensus, there will be a vote tally. And, regardless of the reasons for the vote - whether they be yours or others - a vote does not nor should it ever replace consensus. Yes, the discussion(s) of the images has been alternately tedious, tendentious, irritating, immature, and necessary, but it is what consensus building is made of. Consensus is what makes community, voting has the potential to divide and tear it asunder. That's my opinion, anyway.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Until I see concrete evidence otherwise, I'm assuming that most of those 26 would have at least emitted a weak peep in objection if they had any (even if they did so in the comments following their vote). As a group, Wikipedia editors aren't known for their shyness, and especially those who contribute at Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. I think that's far more reasonable than the alternative. Your argument attempts to place an unreasonable burden of proof on me, essentially saying that I can't claim support without conducting a comprehensive survey of all participants. No, I'm not accepting that or conceding that point. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You aren't getting any challenge in regard to burden of proof from me. I'm merely stating my opinion based on what I feel and what I'm seeing in the comments at the talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion (not the vote, but the discussion) with {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}. Uninvolved admin, unclose it if you wish, but please don't remove my rationale. Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

CFD Speedy is backlogged

WP:CFDS is backlogged. Please someone please deal with it? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Fexlajahd gaming the system?

I've noticed Fexlajahd making dummy edits in his sandbox in order to become autoconfirmed and extended confirmed. After he reaches the 500 edits needed to become extended confirmed, he immediately stops making test edits. Pinging Sro23 in this case because he has warned him about this before. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 23:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I will be topic banning them from WP:ARBPIA articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)