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. 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 three 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 and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"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.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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 should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use 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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

(Initiated 15 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page. starship.paint (RUN) 14:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 131 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 128 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 78 days ago on 12 February 2024)

Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions

(Initiated 61 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: enacting X3

(Initiated 54 days ago on 7 March 2024) SilverLocust 💬 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I came here to add this discussion here. There have been no new comments for over a fortnight. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Question for other folks at CR: does my single comment in this discussion suggesting an edit to the RfC statement for clarity preclude me from closing this discussion as involved? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1)

(Initiated 48 days ago on 14 March 2024) It's been about two weeks, since the RFC tag expired. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 46 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus

(Initiated 46 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

(Initiated 41 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

A note for the closing editor... an inexperienced editor attempted to close this discussion and didn't really address the arguments. There's been some edit warring over the close, but it should be resolved by an experienced, uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That discussion has only been going for two weeks and closing the RfC will not preclude editors from coming to a consensus on whether or not to remove the categorization entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 32 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 32 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 23 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	23	0	23
TfD	0	0	5	0	5
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	0	9	0	9
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)

(Initiated 116 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.

(Initiated 116 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

(Initiated 110 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 107 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Now has been open for three months. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 98 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 92 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 92 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 85 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 78 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 65 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Afrophobia#Requested_move_4_March_2024

(Initiated 58 days ago on 4 March 2024) – Requested move open nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Novogrudok#Navahrudak_is_the_right_transliteration_from_the_native_languge_of_Belarus

(Initiated 56 days ago on 6 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024_Haitian_jailbreak#Requested_move_8_March_2024

(Initiated 54 days ago on 8 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Alexander,_Prince_of_Schaumburg-Lippe#Requested_move_10_March_2024

(Initiated 52 days ago on 10 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2018–2019_Gaza_border_protests#Requested_move_24_March_2024

(Initiated 38 days ago on 24 March 2024) – Requested move open for over a month, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 14 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (19 out of 7641 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Brizyy (Singer) 2024-05-01 14:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Randykitty 2023 in Israel 2024-05-01 14:50 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA Ymblanter Cliff Cash 2024-05-01 11:14 indefinite move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip 2024-05-01 06:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Johnuniq Thomas Kaplan 2024-04-30 20:37 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Moneytrees Nothing 2024-04-30 18:18 indefinite edit,move Persistent vandalism: Something: upgrade to WP:ECP due to disruption from multiple confirmed accounts El C 2024 Israeli protests 2024-04-30 18:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case École Des Navigateurs 2024-04-30 03:14 2024-05-07 03:14 create Repeatedly recreated Liz L'histoire juridique des paris sportifs au Canada 2024-04-30 02:50 2024-05-07 02:50 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Island Rail Corridor 2024-04-30 02:47 2024-07-30 02:47 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Lil' Cory 2024-04-30 02:23 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Michael D. Aeschliman 2024-04-29 06:44 2024-05-13 06:44 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy Anachronist Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia 2024-04-29 03:24 indefinite edit,move Drop prot Pppery White Colombians 2024-04-29 03:17 2024-05-20 03:17 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: straight to WP:ECP due to involvement also of several confirmed accounts El C Government of Iran 2024-04-28 20:25 2025-04-28 20:25 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/IRP ToBeFree Draft:The Car Accident Lawyer Group 2024-04-28 08:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Jimfbleak Battle of Ajmer 2024-04-28 06:42 2024-05-05 06:42 move Don't move an article being discussed at an AFD discussion Liz Khymani James 2024-04-27 21:35 2025-04-27 21:35 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Minouche Shafik 2024-04-27 18:35 indefinite edit,move oops, accidentally full-protected Daniel Case

Request narrowing of ban

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

---

I would request the narrowing of the ban that was imposed on me, so that it would include only high schools. This is the only place where I fell amiss of the community, on three issues: poverty-related background, religious post-nominals, and spiritual activities. I came into the dispute thinking that policy and guidelines controlled content questions, and that administrators would judge the merits of the arguments in the end. It was only at the end of the dispute that I learned that content issues were settled by a vote. I fully accept this now, and I will be wiser in defending or letting go of my edits in the future.

Failing this request, could I receive permission to merge my deleted material below onto the ten websites listed, with possibly new references. In these cases I was going by the principle that institutes should be moved to a separate article when they take excessive space in the university article. And when reviewers accepted these articles (and many more) I thought that they found the institutes notable in themselves. In the future I have the benefit of what I learned from the 34 proposed deletions of my articles this year.

Here to Regis University; here to Fairfield University; here to Boboto College; here to Creighton University; here to Hekima University College; here to St. Xavier's College, Palayamkottai; here to Thiruvalluvar University; here to St. Xavier's College, Jaipur; here to Catholic Church in South Africa; here to Immaculate Conception Church (New Orleans). Jzsj (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This editor wasted enormous amounts of volunteer time due to their stubborn refusal to accept consensus and our well-established guidelines. He mentions a small example above: he persisted with his notion that adminstrators adjudicate content disputes despite being told that is not the case repeatedly, and he continues to confuse consensus with a "vote". The worst disruption was in connection with Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School only because he chose to dig in his heels there. I lack confidence that he will not begin disrupting other articles about educational institutions if the topic ban is narrowed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Rather than being "told ... repeatedly" that administrators do not interfere in content disputes, this issue was muddled by repeated suggestions that I appeal to administrators, and it was generally the same few people who tried backing up their insistence with general references that were not specific or probative. I thought that this would end up in some form of mediation where an administrator would look at all the evidence and see that the three issues involved were religious issues and there was nothing specific that favored those who opposed me. The focus never seemed to me to be on the issues but on a few who opposed me producing the votes, and that is what I thought an impartial administrator would see after looking over all the evidence. Also, please explain what you mean by "the worst disruption"; that seems misleading to me since it is the three issues at Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School (which I listed at the top here) that were the topic of the whole discussion. Jzsj (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose-Unconvincing.∯WBG^converse 03:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Can you be more specific? What part of what I say do you need me to support from the pages referenced above? Jzsj (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose User is already blocked twice for violating his topic ban regarding education and schools. And he has already got a narrowing for his ban, as he is allowed to enter the discussion when school-articles he created are nominated for deletion. It is clear that Jzsj completely missed the message of the ban. The Banner talk 18:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• ... or as he works on dozens of articles he might inadvertently edit one that pertains to the school ban, broadly construed. Jzsj (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Your edit on Margaret Mary Vojtko is in fact another violation of your ban. If in doubt, do not edit. But it starts to look that you just ignore the topic ban and chance your luck. The Banner talk 13:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (Non-administrator comment) There is more than 200k of discussion directly related to this editor's threads at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School/Archive 2. It was probably the single largest time suck I've been involved in at Wikipedia. And even in this relatively short thread requesting loosening of the topic ban I already see traces of some of the same problematic behaviour (walls of text, pointing the finger at others, and requesting that those not agreeing with him explain things repeatedly or in more and more detail). As with Cullen, I am not confident that loosening of the topic ban would not result in resumed disruption. Meters (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Jzsj, per WP:OFFER, the earliest you could have asked this, had your behavior been impeccable, would have been September 7. Due to your blocks, that is now December 3, 2018. You've not been properly informed of the standard offer. Now you have. Suggest you withdraw this as premature. John from Idegon (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'll let this play itself out. I'm not in this for myself and once I know the rules I try to stay within them. But there was a lot of misdirection in the NDCR dispute, as per my opening statement and followup, with those agreeing with me much less committed than those who opposed me. When I redid the list at the Catholics portal I found only about ten active, most all turning their interest to antiquities, expressing frustration with efforts at more recent issues. I rather do what good I can on more current articles, within the processes that are in effect, and then let my conscience be the judge. Jzsj (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Cyberpower678 pinged as blocking administrator. This is amazing. The OP comes here, denying blame in the fiasco that got him blocked, still pointing fingers, deflecting blame for his blocks...this is approaching NOTHERE. When informed if the usual way of handling appeals of indef topic bans, he chooses to continue to ABF, IDHT, and BATTLE, the exact things that got him TB in the first place. All while asking to have his ban restrictions lowered. Again, just amazing chutzpah. Cyberpower (or any uninvolved admin), I'm asking you to close this with a clear explanation of OFFER, and due to what has clearly been exhibited in this thread, a date of January 10, 2019 as first date of appeal. Or should we start an indef block discussion instead (per CIR/NOTHERE)? Jzsj, at some point you are going to have to show you understand that the problem is you. John from Idegon (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I wish this topic ban was not needed and I would like to see Jzsj keep contributing to traditionally underrepresented topics. If Jzsj were to show a pattern of making constructive contributions that cite independent and reliable sources, I would support lifting the topic ban. However, as this this AfD shows, Jzsj has not demonstrated such a pattern of constructive contributions, so I'm forced to continue supporting the topic ban. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Apologies

Hi all,

I have been working up some suggestions for the policy and associated advice on apologies in dispute resolution. I am not an Admin, so I am wondering how in practice you handle the issue. Would any of you be able to reply to the two specific questions below?

• WP:CIVIL states that an apology can not be demanded. Are there any occasions in practice when such a demand does get made and have to be met? For example if an editor is required to withdraw a direct legal or personal threat, can – or should – their retraction ever be required to include a sincere apology?
• There must surely be times when a sincere apology, following an escalated incident, would reduce the level of sanctions likely to be imposed. A request for such an apology might inevitably carry the implied threat of worse sanctions if it were refused. Would that count as a "demand"? How is such a situation best handled?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• By definition, there is no such thing as a forced sincere apology. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I've seen many many instances where people were told "you should apologize". I am always a little wary of these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like it when people are told to apologize. A forced (or requested) apology shows only that someone is intelligent enough to realize an empty apology will serve their goals better than egotistical stubbornness. I may be more cynical than the typical admin, but you can at least count on the fact that I won't harass you to get an insincere apology. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all for dealing with my first question. May I repeat the second one, which does not yet seem to have been answered:

• There must be times when a sincere apology, following an escalated incident, would reduce the level of sanctions likely to be imposed. A request for such an apology might inevitably carry the implied threat of worse sanctions if it were refused. Would that count as a "demand" or just a harmless suggestion? How is such a situation best handled?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• It depends in part on who is asking for or suggesting an apology. Coming from an un-involved admin, a request or suggestion for an apology will always be in the shadow of sanctions that can be applied by an admin. An involved admin should never resort to, or threaten to invoke admin powers, overtly or by implication. A non-admin cannot impose sanctions (although the community can), so a non-admin requesting or suggesting an apology should not normally imply the threat of sanctions. - Donald Albury 18:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It is a demand, backed up with a threat (the worse sanctions). I think that an apology forced with a threat isn't really a sincere apology and thus my wary comment from before would apply here as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) In some situations reminding someone that an apology is an option can lead to a deescalation. Some people think apologies are a sign of weakness (those people are, to me, idiots); while others may be so involved in the conflict that they do not realize that a simple acknowledgement they acted improperly can pretty much end a problem; others have never learned appropriate behavior. 'Reminding' them that an apology is valued in our community can sometimes lead them to genuinely considering the option for the first time in a particular conflict.
  A 'reminder' an apology is appropriate is also a socialization/teaching strategy — just like when the 'aunts' remind one of proper etiquette should one slip up at a gathering. Norms are enculturated in polite society through gentle reminders of what one has temporarily forgotten. A regrettable aspect of the hugely diverse population we have is not only did many not have the benefit of 'aunts', a cultural analogue or some other indoctrination into what we generaly consider 'proper' behavior, some are just jerks. Often the response to a gentle reminder can provide some insight into which is the case. Some may even learn better conflict management skills who otherwise would not have. This helps the project because an associated issue is that those who do not know to make apologies very often do not know how to genuinely accept apologies.
  To address your question more directly, I suggest reminders should generally come from someone either uninvolved or at least not in opposition to the one being reminded. A neutral interlocutor may also do so as part of their role facilitating resolution, although that role does not often exist (but it should) in Wikipedia disputes. The reminder should be couched politely but the appropriateness/expectation of an apology in the situation should be expressed in definite terms. As far as its effect on sanctions, that is up to the sanctioning administrator or community consensus. Just like in any other circumstance the underlying offence, mitigation and perceived sincerity will weigh in the final outcome. A reminder is not a request and should never be expressly linked with a future outcome – in fact, the reminder should not be coming from someone who has any particular control over the outcome.
  There … That's my pontification for the day … Whew … . Jbh ^Talk 20:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency general sanctions and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol

Universa Blockchain Protocol was deleted with the speedy deletion rationale "Covert advertising. Page-level sanction under WP:GS/Crypto." The speedy deletion is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol.

This noticeboard implemented general sanctions for blockchain and cryptocurrencies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive298#General sanctions proposal.

There is disagreement about whether Wikipedia:Deletion review is the correct venue. The speedy deleting admin recommended a speedy close, writing, "wrong venue. General sanctions must be appealed at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard". The DRV nominator disagrees, writing, "WP:GS/Crypto doesn’t enable any sanction like “deleting a page”, at all." I'm posting this here to notify the WP:AN community of the DRV discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

There has been some discussion at DRV and WT:CSD, with some there asserting that WP:AN (here) is the proper place for the discussion. Discussion here so far has not started. It should, so here goes:

There is no challenge Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies (shortcut WP:GS/Crypto). This is a matter of proper documentation, and there is no criticism of volunteers working to help protect the enclopedia from blockchain and cryptocurrency spam.

There was a misinterpreation of the scope of of sanctions, where interpreted to authorise speedy deletion of new Blockchain and cryptocurrency articles. The general sanction did not, per se, authorise a new deletion process. The speedy deletions as logged and as recorded at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies#Log of notifications should be read as (additionally) "Per WP:CSD#G11"

In future, deletions of similar spammy blockchain and cryptocurrency are to usually be done as CSD#G11 deletions, where the G11 criterion is met. If not G11 eligible, deletion may proceed per another speedy deletion criterion or via the AfD or PROD processes. On deletion, the summary should cite the policy authorising the deletion, usually "WP:CSD#G11".

Associated points to note:

* WP:AN does not have standing to enact new speedy deletion criteria without notifying WT:CSD and documenting the result with consensus at WP:CSD

* All deletion activities are reviewable at WP:DRV.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC) @TonyBallioni, MER-C, and Primefac:

I’m not further participating in this mess, but I strongly object to the idea that WT:CSD has any special place, and I would actively discourage anyone who wants to have a serious discussion about changes to the CSD criteria from ever raising it there: while I respect many of the regulars there, it is easily the second most inclusionist place on Wikipedia after WP:ARS, and there are much more neutral places to get the community’s view on various policies. Community consensus is best sought at places like AN and VPP. The former being the correct place for authorization and review of general sanctions, and the latter being the best place for any policy proposal. Also, pinging @MER-C and Primefac: as I only saw this because my name was in the edit summary. Finally, I endorse MER-C’s deletion as being within reasonable admin discretion, and maintain that AN is the correct place for a review. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Toni, thanks for fixing the pings. You have a funny unexpected view of WT:CSD, I would characterise it differently, as a place where the regulars want things done "properly", sometimes at the expense of getting things done that need doing, it's a place where longer term views predominate. The special thing about CSD is that it is the documentation page for all speedy deletion criteria. A proposal to modify speedy deletion should minimally be advertised at WT:CSD, even if the discussion is held elsewhere. The notion that a deletion review may always be held at DRV does not prevent a simultaneous review at AN. The two location would naturally consider the same matter from different angles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

My point on WT:CSD is that it is at best a good place to check understanding of what the most conservative reading of WP:CSD is, but that discussions that aren’t advertised elsewhere there typically aren’t reflective of community practice or consensus, and that for anything but tweaks to existing criteria, there are other places that get much more attention than WT:CSD that are more reflective of how the community as a whole feels, and that it has no special status beyond that of any policy talk: it’s a place where discussions can take place, but other forums also exist. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I agree. Propose a new CSD anywhere, but post a note at WT:CSD to invite the WT:CSD regulars. You make interesting points that could be used to improve Wikipedia:Publicising discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• The threshold question is really whether WP:GS/Crypto authorizes Speedy Deletion as a sanction subject to General Sanction appeal rules. While there is a catchall provision for misc sanctions of editors, I don't think its reasonable to interpret that as extending to Speedy Deletion. I would suggest we try to limit ourselves to discussing this part of the dispute, and not get into a bigger debate about deletion policy. Monty₈₄₅ 05:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • These were authorized as standard discretionary sanctions equivalent to ARBIPA: that means that WP:AC/DS is the description of what was authorized. Page level sanctions are included in standard discretionary sanctions, and protections are routinely used as a part of them (check WP:AELOG). If someone were to appeal a page protection here separately the consensus would likely be "Primefac was just copying the template from another GS page, which was a bit out of date. That doesn't bind administrators since it isn't actually the policy page that describes what standard discretionary sanctions are."
    That being said, the question of the deletion is unique because we have never had discretionary sanctions authorized to deal with the issue of promotionalism in the past. The community authorized these sanctions precisely because of the issue of promo editing in this area, and I think MER-C's take that the authorization included more latitude on speedy deletion in the area was reasonable given the circumstances. Basically, we now have DS authorized for a field where most of the disruption is coming from accounts that are not long-term users who DS are normally designed to deal with.
    In terms of this particular case, I think the best way forward would be for MER-C to mark deletions as G11, but also mark them as being subject to the special appeal provisions under the GS if he thinks they qualify. That would both satisfy the point of GS of giving admins more discretion (AN would likely be more open to some G11s than DRV), while also rooting his actions in the CSD policy. I think this is an acceptable way of splitting the baby. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    • WP:AC/DS does not address deletion of pages as an enforcement action that admins can take. The discussion that authorized GS in this area did not address deletions. As far as I can tell, nothing authorized these deletions beyond the vague phrase "or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." I'm happy to work with you. If the current CSD criteria aren't sufficient to address this topic area, we can expand them. We could alternatively have the discussion on whether deletion is explicitly authorized under GS. But we can't go around having admins delete pages with no apparent community authorization. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
      • This discussion is about whether it is authorized under DS. I think MER-C was acting in a way he reasonably thought was authorized and in line with the routine use of protections under the section quoted. The solution is simple: mark them as G11 if they qualify and also under the GS appeal procedures. It’s an easy compromise that is in line with the intent of the community in authorizing DS. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
        • I'd very much prefer to get community consensus behind something like this. The problem with speedy deleting things is that non-admins can't follow what happened. To make that work well, we expect a great deal of consistency with the rules-as-written out of our admins. And CSD is written in a way that most deletions are pretty black-and-white (G11 being one of the most prone to grey). A process that has a single admin deleting an article and then has what comes down to only admins reviewing it is a pretty big change from what has ever been done here (at least in the last 10+ years). I think it's a big enough change it needs to be discussed (at an RfC) rather than just "assumed into being". Hobit (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

To slightly rehash what I've said over at the DRV:

1. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion details the circumstances in which an administrator may delete a page without discussion. Whilst it is not exhaustive, modifying it requires a consensus.
2. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies does not in any event authorise page deletions, so a theoretical claim that the consensus to enact those general sanctions counts as a consensus to add a new virtual CSD would not hold up.
3. Wikipedia:Deletion review is absolutely the place where we review deletions. The clue is in the name.
4. Any attempt to oust DRV as the place where a deletion can be reviewed would require a good consensus at a properly-advertised discussion.
5. WP:AC/DS does not apply to this matter at all, as the general sanctions in this case originate from the community and not from the Arbitration Committee.

Deleting cryptocurrency articles that qualify for G11, using G11, is fine. Declaring that some discussion held open for less than five days with fewer than 20 supporters (a) authorises widespread page deletion and (b) ousts DRV of jurisdiction to review that is not.

I will be reviewing all articles deleted under this clause and DRVing any that do not meet another deletion criterion. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• • A higher level issue is that Arb Com doesn't deal with content matters. Accordingly, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions has no authority over content. Deletion of mainspace page is a content decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    • And Deletion Review has no authority over Discretionary Sanctions, either -- they certainly don't have the power to declare ArbCom has no jurisdiction, either. Maybe, I dunno, ArbCom should have a say in what their decisions cover? --Calton | Talk 01:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Asked at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Can_ArbCom_authorise_arbitrary_deletion_of_articles?. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Stifle, at 09:43, 16 July 2018 you said you would review all articles deleted under this clause. What about the userpages and draftspace drafts? It is fair enough to write them all off as valid WP:CSD#G11 deletions?

For reference, the deletions recorded at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies#Page level sanctions are:

1. Payment21 deleted as undisclosed native advertising (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mar11). MER-C 15:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
2. NAgriTech International Distributors Ltd. deleted as undisclosed native advertising (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SirEdimon, Special:Permanentlink/844592403#April 2018). MER-C 09:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Red Lanterns Service deleted as undisclosed native advertising (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SirEdimon, Special:Permanentlink/844592403#April 2018). MER-C 09:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Draft:Periodic Table of Cryptocurrencies - Blockchains deleted as academic promo. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
5. Airbitz deleted as undisclosed native advertising (created by one of a batch of CU blocked accounts here that included Orangemoody socks). MER-C 11:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
6. Draft:Auxesis Group deleted as undisclosed native advertising (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sn6054884). MER-C 11:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
7. Draft:Cashaa Alternate deleted as undisclosed native advertising (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sn6054884). MER-C 11:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
8. Viberate deleted as undisclosed native advertising (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kickingback77). MER-C 21:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
9. Draft:AvaTrade deleted as native advertising (Special:Permanentlink/845386994#Bernie44). MER-C 16:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
10. OPSkins deleted as native advertising (Special:Diff/826612938). MER-C 19:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
11. Axoni deleted as native advertising (Special:Diff/828256721). MER-C 19:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
12. Wikipedia:Peer review/Axoni/archive1 deleted as native advertising (Special:Diff/828256721). MER-C 19:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
13. Draft:Giacomo Arcaro deleted as self-promotional autobiographies. MER-C 20:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
14. User:Giacomoarcaro deleted as self-promotional autobiographies. MER-C 20:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
15. User:KA0688 deleted as covert advertising. MER-C 12:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
16. User:KA0688/sandbox deleted as covert advertising. MER-C 12:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
17. User:KA0688/sandbox/SupraScoop deleted as covert advertising. MER-C 12:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
18. Draft:SupraToken deleted as covert advertising. MER-C 12:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
19. Universa Blockchain Protocol deleted as covert advertising. MER-C 09:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
20. Khachatur Gukasyan deleted as covert advertising. MER-C 09:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
21. Mobius Network deleted as covert advertising (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kleubay). MER-C 11:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
22. Larson&Holz deleted and salted as deliberate abuse of Wikipedia as a marketing medium ([1]). MER-C 20:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Year link removal with Twinkle

G'day all, I was trying to remove just a couple of links to 1914 from the Military of Australia portal and accidentally removed many I shouldn't have. Please accept my apologies for this. Is there any way to mass revert my changes so others don't have to do this singly? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I've reverted all my edits now. Once again, apologies for this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

For info/future reference, I think Wikipedia:Rollback would do this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

G'day, thanks, yes I used that but it required a click for each page. I had been hoping for something that would allow a mass rollback of my error (a couple of editors have posted some suggestions on my talk now, which I will follow up as professional development. Although I hope to not make this error again - the self inflicted uppercut hurt...). Anyway, it took about three hours to fix and hopefully it didn't disrupt too much. Once again, sorry, all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: there's a mass rollback script at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js that might have helped with this task. I've never used it and don't have it installed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, Diannaa. I've installed this now, but wasn't quite sure how to use it so it only rolls back some of my edits, as opposed to all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

AustralianRupert, as far as I recall, it will only roll back the current edits listed on the page, so if the default window shows 50 edits, change the limit to something smaller (and/or adjust your timeframe) so that you only see the edits you want to roll back. Primefac (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

What to do about Outing

Hello all, this is not about any editor, just gathering information about what can be done in the case of a severe outing situation, for instance an administrator or other long standing editor contacting an employer or using Wikipedia administrator tools to identify the location from which an editor is operating, and then narrow in on where they live or where they work. The main problem with that scenario is that posting to ANI, or attempting to bring it up anywhere on Wikipedia, would simply result in the suspect denying the action and then possibly blocking the poster. Indeed, the outing activity itself may be as an effort to get the victim to post to Wikipedia, thus claiming they are slandering a senior editor and justifying a block or ban. Like i said, no accusations here, just getting opinions. -O.R.^Comms 04:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Firstly, I suspect if it is truly a cut and dried case of outing, this noticeboard would recognize it and take care of it. That said, the first thing you should do is contact an uninvolved administrator and/or an WP:Oversighter to remove the material from Wikipedia. An email to the WP:Arbitration Committee might be appropriate as well. Admins are not able to determine an editors location any more accurately than a normal editor - only WP:Checkusers have tools that would help with that. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• It should be kept out of the public eye as much as possible, so absolutely do not report it at ANI or AN, which are two of the most public pages here. I agree with Tazerdadog that you should contact the Oversight team via instructions at WP:Oversight to get the outing removed such that even admins can not see it. Then email the Arbitration Committee to deal with the outing abuser. Do not do anything that would expose the outing to a wider audience. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keeping it to oversight is good advice, and especially so when the outing is being done by admins, or involves the collusion of admins. Although outing just isn't something that WP takes seriously. If it's "serious", that often means it's off-wiki. At which point WP tends to throw its hands up and say "we're not involved", even when the people doing it and the reason they started are WP-related. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That's very true. Its hard to sometimes remember there are real people behind these accounts out there in the real world. When situations develop where someone is actually seeking harm to another or to gain information about them, there is really little Wikipedia can do. Good answers all around, thank you -O.R.^Comms 15:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Speaking as an oversighter, yes, contact us, do not make any posts on a noticeboard or anywhere else pointing to outing. You should revert the outing, but do not confirm or deny its accuracy, just say “attempted outing” in your summary, that will make it easy for oversighters to find when you report it. Suppression is the tool of first resort when dealing with attempted outing. Contacting arbcom at the same time is usually not necessary, if the violation is bad enough or repeated after being removed any member of our team can issue an {{oversight block}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Note that just like with anything else, information about people can be obtained by correlating otherwise unrelated data. For example, if I edit whem logged in (as I am now), you can't tell where I'm located. If somebody is not logged in, their IP address is visible, and it's trivial to map that back to an approximate physical location and/or company/school name. If I were to post something when not logged in, then login and follow up my previous comment with, "Oh, that was me, I just forgot to login before", I've now created a way to connect my logged in and "anonymous" activities. If somebody in my household were to do something similar, we would both map to the same static IP, and thus be connected to each other. This seems like a lot of work to generate those correlations, but I'm sure there are people out there harvesting public wikipedia logs and doing those things on a massive scale. You would be naive to think it's not happening. It gets worse when you start to cross-correlate that with Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc, etc, etc. And you can be sure people are doing that. My point is that even though outing is disallowed, one should always assume it's happening, or is going to happen, and be careful about what they post on line. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'd emphasise what Tazerdog has already said, Administrators don't really have any tools which would significantly help them identify someone's location. The only thing they have which are likely to be relevant is access to deleted contribs. If someone accidentally edited with an IP or revealed details of themselves either without properly realising the implications or by accident, this should normally be suppressed but occasional it may only be deleted. (It may sometimes be deleted in the interim depending on who comes across it and how it's handled.) Otherwise though, administrative tools shouldn't generally enable someone to be identified any more than an ordinary editor may. This would require checkuser access. (Or alternatively suppression/oversight if it's suppressed info.) Misuse of these is quite a serious thing and it's likely to be worth contacting Meta:Ombudsman commission if you have evidence they have been misused. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

BuickCenturyDriver standard offer request

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

---

 Administrator note The following was sent to me via email from BuickCenturyDriver '16, an old blocked sock of BuickCenturyDriver, which has email access revoked. It is not procedurally correct to reobtain email access in this way, and should have gone through UTRS, but I'm letting it slide per WP:NOTBUREAU, as it seems like an innocuous request for a community-granted standard offer. Please judge this request based on its merits. Swarm ♠ 18:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

---

• BuickCenturyDriver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

Hello, perhaps you don't know me. Perhaps you do. I'm writing to you because I am looking to get unblocked (username:BuickCenturyDriver). I am using a "sock" account because the original is unable to send any emails and it's been 5 years (and counting) since. Before I go further can you please post this to WP:ARBCOM or WP:AN (whichever suits you better) so that other editors can voice their opinion. I've waited over a year and a half -- far more than the WP:OFFER page dictates -- so I think it's only fair that I should get heard. Over the course of those years, I've learned the following:

• That getting this resolved hinges on finding someone who is genuinely interested. Two years ago someone did come foreword, but talks broke down when someone argued about me being disruptive and they instigated locking my talk page. Even the mediator had to admit that "nobody seems to care" and that I got a "raw deal". There is no point in bargaining with people who will read this and reply that I wait longer. I really want nothing to do with people that tell me they want to see me edit and turn around and lock my talk page. That deed is more then enough to call your bluff. Had that person been truly interested then we would have had this resolved right then and there.
• The people who I've dealt with positively have a history of contributing to the site's main content and not only ensuring it is informative and correct.
• The block occurred over a debacle involving a hoax article that was deleted and and editor that was capable of querying IP addresses. The person claimed I was editing from a "home IP address". When I explained that it might be a shared IP the person insisted it was not shared. There is absolutely no way to tell whether or not an IP is public or private as WHOIS does not disclose whether an IP is shared or not.
• That person and other people I've dealt with negatively have little or no history of contributing to the site's main content but are obsessed with policies -- especially pertaining the blocking and multiple accounts -- to an extent they will do anything to make sure people like myself stay blocked regardless of any previous and future edit histories. Yet we all know that policies are not etched in stone and provide exceptions for the sake of one of wikipedia's most basic foundations -- building consensus.
• That most of the "disruption" I've been accused of were efforts to fend off harassment by the latter people described above or the creation of an article (see the deletion log of Power Rangers Ninja Steel). Those of you who have access can see the deleted revisions have no vandalism and cite sources.
• That society believes that people make mistakes and people can change. I've always felt committed to resolve this so I can edit without "socking" (that's what everyone wants, right?) but then again, if you consider the purpose of wikipedia as a whole, who cares how many accounts you have anyway? I have always believed that enforcing a "one account policy" is a complete waist of time and resources but unfortunately I'm not in position to change the status quo.

These are the issues I am raising. I don't know what this will bring, but I really have nothing to lose at this point. Thanks for understanding. --BCD

• Nope anyone with that SPI archive who also says I have always believed that enforcing a "one account policy" is a complete waist of time and resources but unfortunately I'm not in position to change the status quo. has no place getting unblocked from socking. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Of course not. BTW, the last block of the master was a CU block by BU Rob13 on January 27, 2018. That's without even getting into the many CU blocks I and others have done, e.g., Cloud9shopper (talk · contribs · count). Also, per Tony above.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• no It seems clear that they take no responsibility for their own actions and prefer to blame others for everything, and reject the entire concept of WP:SOCK. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely not given the history. Just to note this is a CU block, so CheckUser consent would be needed to lift this. The editor probably should have been referred to appeal to the Arbitration Committee, not here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - It would be foolish to disagree with the CUs and admins who have commented here, especially when the prima facie evidence of the request itself screams "NO". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Nope I have always believed that enforcing a "one account policy" is a complete waist of time: There is no "one account policy", AFAIK. It's been five years, and the user still didn't read WP:SOCK? Talk about hipwaisting time. Also, what others have said above. byteflush _Talk 00:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• No way under the sun We do not need sock puppetmasters who defend socking so that they can return to editing topics like "Power Rangers Ninja Steel". No way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above and with regret. In general if someone gets indeffed and actually adheres to their block for a long period of time and then comes back asking to be unblocked, I usually try to find a reason to say yes. But that is not going to be possible here. I am not sure I have ever read an unblock request, that I presume was intended to be taken seriously, and that practically screams "I have learned nothing" as loudly as this one. My guess is that this is on course for a snow close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - per AO who sums this up well. Sockmasters are a particular concern for this project. I also would like to request a snow close. Jusdafax (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

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

The Mountain Enterprise

Your attention is called to a recent string of edits to the above article. I have a WP:Conflict of interest, so I can't keep a watch over these changes. I'd appreciate somebody volunteering to check them. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, BeenAroundAWhile. I reviewed that series of edits but see nothing terribly wrong about them requiring administrator attention. Are there factual errors that I am not seeing? The biggest problem that I see is inclusion of external links in the body of the article. Obviously, the awards should be cited to a reliable independent source, instead of a link to each article that won an award. Such links do not verify the award. Why don't you explain your concerns in detail on the article's talk page, and then ping me? I have the article on my watch list now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SPI

There's a backlog now at WP:SPI - I'd be grateful if someone could take a look at this, before some of the reports become stale. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Still a fair-few open cases, with no actions/edits made to them for >2 weeks or more. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Biography

This is more a request for a bit more oversight over the project, I undid an edit on WP:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting, not sure what was going on with it, the Deletion sorting page needs a serious update and bugs ironed out. But I really wanted to bring up the project as a whole, I feel it's getting extremely neglected now of late, this seems to be a major side of wikipedia considering all the articles that can be covered, classed as biographical, I was hoping for an admin or two with a few good editors to help shake off the dust over the project, cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the project pages are pretty neglected. However, I don't think this is a big deal. Issues related to biographies are typically high priority and take place on dedicated noticeboards or in centralized discussions. I'm semi-active on the WikiProject's talk page, but I don't think I have the project's other pages watchlisted. The issue with the deletion sorting page seems to be that this page is using too much memory when rendered. After hitting the memory limit of 2MB, the templates stop being expanded. That's why someone added the template that you reverted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, is the memory limit on the page okay then? I was thinking of having a cleanup around it, but wasn't sure, seems a bit daunting! Govvy (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is MediaWiki puts a hard limit on the number of templates that can be used on a single page. Each template included causes your browser to use memory, and using hundreds of templates on a single page can cause the browser's memory use to skyrocket. So, after a certain point, MediWiki ignores templates. WikiProject Biography is so huge that including all the tagged deletion discussions in one place apparently means we go over this hard limit for templates. To avoid this problem, it looks like we'd have to split WP:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting into subpages. Or people could just ignore the problem and pretend it doesn't exist, which is apparently what we've been doing for years now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The limit of 2 MB for post‐expand include size refers to the fact that Wikipedia's server that generates the HTML for the page refuses to expand more templates once the limit is hit. That is one of several limits to protect the server from abuse by people accidentally or purposefully generating complex pages that consume server resources. The issue is not related to your browser which sees only the HTML resulting from the expansion of the templates. For the OP, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting is in the hidden category Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. That can be seen by enabling the display of hidden categories in your preferences, or by clicking the "Page information" link in the left panel. Ask at WP:VPT for ideas on how to remedy the situation, however any solution would boil down to ensuring that fewer templates are expanded (more precisely, that the wikitext generated by expansion is smaller). Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It does sound like a good idea to split the deletion sorting between a few pages, might feel easier for users to navigate to the discussions for what they want to take part in. But I feel something needs to be sorted out about it. Govvy (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad someone else did more than just skim over the help pages. Sure, go ahead and split the page up if you want. If anyone cares, they'll revert you. Then you can take it to WT:BIOG and get consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle Afd

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

---

Could someone please cleanup this apparently botched Afd submission; can't tell what exactly has happened here. Looks like an automated tool might have gone awry. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

Just seen Wikipedia:Help desk#Incorrect information from a spam bot source regarding fantasies about the blackhill transmitter in scotland which looks like a clear legal threat. So I blocked Gaz Young. If anyone thinks they should be unblocked feel free to do so. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah a link to the edit might help eh? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

That block looks entirely proper to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Second that — no ambiguity, clear and specific threat. Some other issues (COI, etc.) as well. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions imposed on Crouch, Swale as part of their unblock conditions in January 2018 is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Crouch, Swale fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the topic area. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse. Crouch, Swale's remaining restrictions continue in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

Review of Draft:Periodic Table of Cryptocurrencies - Blockchains deletion

I deleted this a while back when the WP:GS/Crypto were new under it as academic spam (particularly of links and ideas). I'd seen that other articles had been deleted, and asssumed it was good practice, and reviewing the page, felt it fell within the any other reasonable sanctions bit.

Given that there has been contention over this above and at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9, with some (myself included) feeling that AN was the correct venue for a review of general sanctions, I'll go ahead and offer this up for review here: it's a valid review of my actions under the GS (which were undertaken in good faith, but could be a mistake), and will hopefully clarify what the community thinks of this as a whole. For full disclosure, I also am posting this because I believe a review of existing actions will help solve the question better than an abstract RfC would, and think it is best to get clear community opinion on existing actions (see my comments at VPI), but given the controversy surrounding the recent DRV, I also would like review of the one action I took in this regard. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• AN is not well suited for reviewing content questions. A thorough review of whether that page should have been deleted requires an XfD. XfD better sorts and tabulates these things.

AN is much better for reviewing administration problems. Was TonyBallioni INVOLVED when deleting this page? Was he excesively rude, or bullying or harassing editors? No, none of that is even an remotely an issue.

DRV is good for reviewing whether the deletion process was followed. It is very difficult to do a DRV-type review on this because there are no concrete criteria for WP:GS/CRYPTO speedy deletion.

Similar to what I said at the end of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol, I am sympathetic to a G11 deletion of the page. Only sympathetic because the unsolved problem of WP:Reference bombing of a heavy first version makes it very difficult to call it "obvious" that nothing in it is reasonably re-usable. As I pueruse the sources, I find that none are good at attesting notability. Non-independent sources, usually quickly indicated by them advertising the product they sell, or mere mentions. I'm guessing that TonyBallioni considers himself experienced in assessing cryptocoin spam, and I suppose that if that were to be an explicit thing for him to be doing the speedy deletion, I support that.

The RfC would largely cover the scope of ArbCom and Discretionary Sanctions, because the narrow question cryptospam is much easier. Call it CSD#G11.

I advocate that for WP:Reference bombed commercial topics, any deletion assessment, CSD#G11 or XfD, need only consider the first three references, that the onus is on the author to show two notability-demonstrating sources in the first three. It is not practical to expect Wikipedians to carefully assess dozens of unsuitable sources for every spam submission. If this were accepted, the page would easily be G11-eligible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• While my experience at NPP suggests we need CSD criteria around Crypto, I do not believe that the community endorsed/authorized that when enacting the GS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:CSD#G11a? G11 with extended generosity for WP:GS/Crypto new pages by newcomers? This would help apply it. There is broad support for these deletions, the issue is documentation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @SmokeyJoe and Tazerdadog: not sure G11a would be best, but maybe a line like In areas where discretionary sanctions, authorized by the arbitration committee or the community exist, administrators have wide latitude in applying the speedy deletion criteria. this would take into account BLPBAN deletions and deletions under ARBIPA (for 500/30 vios), which are basically the only other areas where this would apply. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Suggest In areas where discretionary sanctions, authorized by the arbitration committee or the community exist, administrators have increased leeway in applying the speedy deletion criteria. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Works by me. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
        • FWIW as a non-admin I would also support that wording. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe the letter of the GS allows deletions. the spirit certainly does not, and deletions were on nobodies radar in the discussion that authorized GS in this topic area. Therefore, TonyBallioni's deletion, while unquestionably in good faith, is procedurally incorrect. After reviewing the article, I think this is a borderline G11. I would agree with a deletion under that CSD criterion, and wholeheartedly support an expansion of G11 along the lines of SmokeyJoe's G11a. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• We've already got a discussion of this topic a couple of sections up, let's not fork it. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That discussion is a mess because of the DRV. Here’s a clean chance for people to comment on a case that doesn’t have a closure. FWIW, the lack of comment here except by the same small group that got mad at the DRV suggests to me that the community as a whole doesn’t generally care about this. It’s a processwonkery thing where as stated by others above, there is broad support for the actual deletions just moral panic at the way they were done. As the thread at WT:AC is pointing out, standard DS (which these are, the authorization is what matters, not the template copied from when setting up the page), unquestionably allow for deletions. The question is whether or not it was good judgement to do so.
    That said, I’m also personally fine with just calling this G11 with the GS standard of review applying (or even just G11, tbh). Arguing over the wonkery here (on both sides) isn’t useful to the encyclopedia in my view, and when there is a clear uncontroversial path to take with regard to an action (and future actions), it is the best way forward in my view.TonyBallioni (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • There was a bit of people getting there backs up (eh. a deletion unreveiwable at DRV). I am personally losing track what the controversial question is. You and MER-C have been excellent leaders in battling cryptospam in particular, clarifying WP:NCORP, and don't deserve the grumpiness. Can I suggest a compromise: Any GS-G11 deletion (or any DS deletion) raised at DRV must be notified at WP:AN? Or GS/Crypto matter discussed at DRV must be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies? You call it processwonkery, some some believe there is value in process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I’m fine with that compromise. (MER-C can speak for himself). My use of wonnkery is more in the sense that this discussion appears to be something that is mainly of interest to people who are really involved in the backend process details of WP (including myself on the “it’s fine” end.) My point was that finding a workable solution that doesn’t require a full meta discussion on the nature of the deletion process every time is ideal for everyone. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Sure. For the record, I think the pettyfogging about process in this topic area has the potential to be equally as damaging to Wikipedia's reputation as keeping the articles live. Wikipedia is in the real world. This topic needs to be held to the same high standard as BLPs -- if in doubt, delete. MER-C 15:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
        • If keeping the articles live means nominating them for AFD, and it's certain that the articles should be deleted, they will stay around with AFD templates and possibly other tags such as {{notability}}, {{COI}} and {{advert}} for a few days before deletion. BLP deletion is different as there's privacy to consider. Is it better for Wikipedia to be seen as biased in its coverage? Peter James (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
          • If I had to pick between bias and lending legitimacy to under-regulated financial instruments/companies many of which are used for scams I would pick bias. That's why I think the community enacted GS and why I support allowing for admin CSD as part of enforcing those sanctions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
            • An article with banners at the top saying that it is nominated for deletion as advertising doesn't lend legitimacy to anything. Peter James (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol had a majority for overturning and was closed with no consensus but was not overturned. This is the correct outcome only if WP:GS/Crypto authorises deletion and it looks like there's no consensus that it does. Even if there's consensus to apply it to content, there could be a dispute where there is 60% support for one proposal and 40% for another, and an administrator would be able to use GS in favour of the 40% that the 60% would not be enough to overturn. Peter James (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

UK technology articles

There was a short report in The Daily Telegraph business section on Saturday 14 July 2018. It had no byline.

Wikipedia users' "bias" on UK tech
A series of Wikipedia articles about prominent UK technology investors and companies has been deleted since April, erasing pages about some of Britain's major investors. Just three Wikipedia users were responsible for starting the deletion process for 19 UK technology articles in recent months.

The report seems to show an ignorance on Wikipedia deletion procedures and implies a bias against UK tech companies. Is there any basis behind this rather imprecise report? For example, is the reporter stating that just three admins did the deletions, or that just three active new page patrollers nominated the articles for speedy deletion? Were these deletions after due process at AfD, PROD and speedy deletion nominations, or were there three admins with an agenda going round on the sly deleting UK tech-related articles? Just curious. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Link is helpful. Pages mentioned: Saul Klein, Rob Kniaz, Tom Blomfield, Passion Capital, Mangrove Capital Partners, Eden Ventures, Hoxton Ventures, Angel CoFund, Scottish Equity Partners, Notion Capital and Episode 1 Ventures (AFAICT). It would appear one of the AFD nominators in question is HighKing, but I'm not sure about the others. BethNaught (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The single and only comment on the Telegraph article pinged K.e.coffman. The tweet thread from Eileen Burbidge pinged me. I've no idea who the "third" editor is meant to be. The entire thing is nonsense. Every article went through AfD. The articles were deleted, for the most part, because they were (essentially) vanity pages that failed the criteria for establishing notability. While sometimes one article leads to another because they're categorised similarly, there's no "UK bias". The entire thing is just a load of fake news on a slow news day. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

A better approach than looking at the AFD nominators -- and therefore playing the game that the source of that obviously planted article wants you to play -- would be to look at who CREATED those articles in the first place. My normal method of figuring that out -- seeing which user talk pages are linked to the deleted article or AFDs -- seems to keep coming up empty, strangely enough. Someone might want to ask User:Mparrault about this comment. --Calton | Talk 10:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I note that Misterpottery (talk · contribs) has created a couple of the articles in question, but, confusingly, has voted to delete some others. Of course, they might be actually confused here. --Calton | Talk 10:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

If I look at this, the way I see it is, editors prefer to delete rather than do the research to improve these articles. Govvy (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"If"? You mean you haven't?

I have looked at this, and so far I see a bunch of suspiciously single-purpose accounts trying to promote companies and personalities that no amount of research will transform into acceptable articles. I'm going to see if I can untangle some of this. --Calton | Talk 11:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Really @Calton:, Okay, lets take the first name on the list above, Saul Klein, hmm, google results for the name, "Saul Klein" - 38,000 results, I am sure an editor should find enough out of that to construct a decent article regarding his history and investments, especially with articles like this one. Govvy (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

So take it to Deletion Review. That's what it is for after all. Unless you want to turn this discussion into a review of every article listed above? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

And which "Saul Klein" did you mean? The Canadian business-school dean? The American real estate guy? Really, @Govvy:, you think counting raw Google hits means anything whatsoever? Maybe instead of cherry-picking one example and inflating its importance, you could look at them all as a whole. Research: a good idea. --Calton | Talk 13:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what was there before, so the deletion review doesn't help me, I am just saying that some editors are obsessed with deletion over creation, saying there is nothing on the web to help when clearly there is, this is just a paradoxical cycle of that these editors need to break. Govvy (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Making up malign motivations for editors out of thin air isn't your best move here, guy. --Calton | Talk 13:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This seems to have ben kicked off by a tweet from Eileen Burbidge -- oh, look, there's User:Misterpottery in the edit history -- listed as a founding partner of Passion Capital (see above). Nothing suspicious at ALL. --Calton | Talk 13:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Calton:, Firstly, my name isn't "Guy" Secondly, did you not notice the url I added for Saul Klein for you to read? I am effectly trying to say that these articles can be improved if people want to improve them instead of the deletion culture that we have here on wikipedia!! Govvy (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't create any of these articles, and have no connection to any of these companies - I just saw them listed for deletion, and thought they should be saved. What seems to have happened is that HighKing listed a number of British Venture Capital articles for deletion in late May and early June. In frustration, Misterpottery, who had created many of the articles in question, nominated many of their remaining articles for deletion, and also made some delete votes. Misterpottery posted on my talk page: "I voted delete on Notion out of frustration. I'd created and worked on many EU VC posts and they've mostly been AfD'ed despite many of them being significant in the venture capital community. I give up. I'm not able to figure out how to keep motivation to update content when any edits lead to an AfD and usually seconding by K.e.coffman." I don't think HighKing has any malign intentions, or is part of some conspiracy. They just have unreasonably high standards for article notability, even by Wikipedia standards (which are themselves unreasonably high, IMO). As noted here, they have voted 156 times to delete (including for 8 articles with a keep consensus, and 10 with no consensus), and only one time to keep. -Mparrault (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be very accurate. For example, it missed BTCJam changing to Keep, Calix Keep, "Costa Del Mar" Keep, "Fodero Dining Car Company" Keep... HighKing⁺⁺ 15:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, the statistics I quoted above were only for the last 200 AfD votes. The stats for the last 500 AfD votes (which seems to be the maximum allowed by the tool) are found here.-Mparrault (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the stats, it seems the bigger problem is that they're far too willing to !vote keep when it should be delete! 53/437 times they !voted delete when the outcome was something else (including merge, redirect and no consensus). That's around 12.6%. 2 our of 14 times they !voted keep when the outcome was delete. That's 14.3% of the time!!!!! Of course in reality these statistics are too tiny to draw any conclusions except that a high percentage of the time HighKing's !vote agrees with the community consensus. How many of these discussions are so limited that a single change in !vote would have changed outcome I don't know, but the point remains, such raw statistics aren't likely to convince anyone of anything other than HighKing appears to be doing the right thing on an encyclopaedia that operates by consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

BTW I do appreciate that in general the proportion of delete !votes is very high. I don't believe the outcome is anywhere near that skewed. There are only 10 other AfDs with participation but no !vote counted. This suggests that they're being selective in which AfDs they're participating in. While some people may not like this, ultimately even if you dislike it it's very difficult to come to a conclusion without more analysis. Whatever people said about anything else, the (reasonable) way no consensus is handled means that someone may reasonably feel there is more imperative to !vote delete if you feel the evidence leans towards delete than if it leans towards keep. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I generally only participate in AfD's relating to companies/organizations from whatever is listed at this page and occasionally an AfD relating to a person connected with the companies involved and I believe the outcomes are generally "that skewed" for those AfDs. The pertinent stat is that, in general, my !voting is in agreement with consensus at 89.2% (excluding "No Consensus" it is 94.3%). This is in stark contrast with the participation of Misterpottery (agreement with consensus 70%/73.7%), Mparrault (agreement with consensus 31.2%/41.7%) and in line with editors who frequently participate at AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Misterpottery's actions are not constructive. The community gets to decide whether an article should be deleted, not them. If they want to vote keep because they believe the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines, fine, but to vote delete "out of frustration" is WP:POINTy and unhelpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Misterpottery's actions were not constructive.-Mparrault (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I do apologize for that. I was extremely frustrated that consistently any article was deleted of note to the UK tech community despite there being 196 US firms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Venture_capital_firms_of_the_United_States) all left untouched and maybe 25% of them being as noteworthy as the ones deleted here. Even the mention of them led K.e.coffman to then AfD them. He and HighKing both repeatedly vote for each others deletions and thus leave these articles under immediate attack. There seems to be no remediation for this and any article they together will purge. Misterpottery (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

You know, the closer of an AfD doesn't just count !votes? And the accusation that K.e.coffman and me always !vote for each other's deletions is crap, we simply don't. Sure, we agree a lot - but that's because most articles in relation to companies/organizations at AfD (pretty much all I do these days) usually fail to meet the criteria for notability. At a guess, that's why they were nominated. It was even pointed out to you in other AfD's that you were consistently creating articles on marginally-notable topics and you did not appear to understand the relevant policies and guidelines. Your subsequent behaviour at AfDs and your accusations of collusion or bias here and in other places are not AGF and extremely unhelpful. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the fundamental problem is that AfD is so much harsher to articles than NPP (or AfC). As far as I can tell, all of the articles that were nominated for deletion by HighKing survived NPP (which is not a trivial accomplishment), but almost none survived AfD. The "consensus" at AfD supports this, but this "consensus" doesn't reflect the broader population of Wikipedia editors (who are better represented by those who create the articles in the first place). The result is that only a small percentage (maybe 25%) of existing company articles would survive an AfD (at least without editing), so an editor like HighKing can wreck havoc (unintentionally) by nominating most of the articles in a category for deletion. -Mparrault (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Surviving NPP is noteworthy for some reviewers others not so much and why I think a couple of admin seem to have tightened up granting of the reviewer permission recently. I think your percentage of companies that could survive AfD is too low but the right ballpark (I'd guess 40%). But this isn't an indictment of AfD - it's reflective of the community consensus, reflected by the changing of WP:NCORP earlier this year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I would be pleased to re-create many of the UK tech pages but despite them being no less notable than the US VC pages, I fear they'd quickly all be deleted. Misterpottery (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: before this thread was opened, I had emailed to the reporter; you can see the email here: User:K.e.coffman/Email to The Telegraph; it shows some of my thinking on this matter.

Re: this "consensus" doesn't reflect the broader population of Wikipedia editors (who are better represented by those who create the articles in the first place), I don't believe that this assessment is correct, when it comes to articles on corporation. If you look at my PROD log (i.e. User:K.e.coffman/PROD log#July 2018, most of the company articles were created by SPAs – most likely employees, PR agents, or socks belonging to paid editing rings. I don't believe that such accounts are representative of the volunteer community here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• that doesn't make sense though. I created several of these and improved several others. I'm none of the above yet my work is deleted with malice. I'd be happy to recreate at least half of the deleted ones as I belive they are notable but I'm simply not reinvesting that work because you think I'm a sock puppet and will delete with prejudice? Misterpottery (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This is now just getting disrputive. Please don't "recreate" your deleted articles unless you can now overcome the arguments that were used at their AfD for their deletion. As much as you'd like to lay the blame for your deleted work at the feet of "malicious editors" with an "anti-UK agenda" "creating havoc", the simple truth is that you are now trying to get a runaround our community processes. Your request above is a transparent attempt to seek permission here to exclude your articles from any future scrutiny based on your flawed reasoning that there are editors acting with malice that are going around deleting perfectly good articles. You are now throwing two fingers at our AfD process which is based entirely on community consensus with a final decision by the closing admins who weigh each argument against the policies and guidelines that underpin the standards we are aiming for. As you well know, you certainly don't need to ask permission to create an article, but if those articles don't meet the criteria for establishing notability they will probably end up (eventually) at AfD. Its not perfect, but it is what we have. I can understand you feel that your articles were as good as lots of other articles (probably true) and that you feel you were singled out (nope) but the simple truth is that an article appearing at AfD is more akin to a lottery. There is no "process" by which articles are nominated at AfD. It just depends on what people see at a particular point in time. Often times an article that is linked from a nominated article also gets nominated, and in a short time you can end up with a number of articles from a particular domain or category getting nominated. But nobody "picked on" UK Technology articles and "favored" US Technology articles and there's no "malicious editors" going out of their way to pick on your work, that's total BS. If you don't agree with a policy or guidelines, or you don't agree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, the proper course of action is to start a discussion and perhaps the community consensus will agree and make changes. Whining at AN rarely achieves anything. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Chintu6 WP:3X

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

---

Chintu6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has evaded his block at least 3 times[2][3][4] since he was indeffed for socking as Abu_Harb_al-Wuhayshi. It seems he has passed WP:3X and thus an admin should place the ban notice on the userpage, though I assume he will end up becoming an LTA since he is showing traits of those LTAs that were doing exactly same thing that he is doing. Capitals00 (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This is premature.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: 4th block evasion, see 2405:205:b:ec39:6c6c:4375:ee57:181a (talk · contribs · 2405:205:b:ec39:6c6c:4375:ee57:181a WHOIS). Though what is the policy for implementing ban per 3X? It is 2 times block evasion that involves "checkuser block"? ML ^talk 17:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Otomat and

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

---

User talk:Adamgerber80 is disruptive denying a very valid article supporting what i wrote.Outliner73 (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Outliner73: No, you just need to read WP:Assume good faith, WP:Edit warring, and WP:BRD. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't realize all these things.i just know what i write is true and he denies evidence.Stop him to revert.He acts as a vandal.Outliner73 (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Outliner73: Read WP:NOTVAND. Adamgerber80's edits are not vandalism. I've left a summary of some site policies on your talk page that you should review. Just because you know something is true is not enough -- you have to cite a professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither my refence is vandalism.So one of two is wrong.Outliner73 (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Outliner73: No, this is not a matter of "winning" or "losing". Vandalism is specifically a deliberate attempt to damage the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Denying an evident valid reference is vandalism according to guidelies i read.I'll edit these articles then i'll give up.I'm bored.Outliner73 (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Outliner73: What guideline is that? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I set clear and evident reference that he denied.Deleting this is vandalism.It seems you are with him,not with Wikipedia lines.Why don't you warn or block him ? As people did on my talk page?Incredible.Outliner73 (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Outliner73: You said Denying an evident valid reference is vandalism according to guidelies i read. What guideline did you read that said that Denying an evident valid reference is vandalism. Again, this is not "winning" or "losing" or "sides" -- this is about cooperation and collaboration.

Also, is the source you cited a professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

You press me to collaborate warning me to block and he has 0 warnings. Strange way to be balanced.I published a specialistic ref. Italian defence.Outliner73 (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The warning is not some sort of negative point, it is just a notice of our site's policies. Adamgerber80 has been around long enough that if he can be expected to know about our policy on edit warring. If he violates our policy on edit warring, he can be blocked.

Now, I can tell that you're frustrated, but that's not going to help anything. Calm down and realize that both Adamgerber80 and I are trying to help the site, just as you are trying to help the site. The problems here are miscommunication and distrust. WP:Assume good faith is one of this site's foundational policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, i turst good feith in Adamgerber80 mistake.Now he knows.I trust your one too.Outliner73 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User talk:ScrapIronIV arrived to revert in a non sense way with a strange timing.does he agree with Adamgerber80 or is he the same person?Adamgerber80 never wrote to defend himself.Strange.Outliner73 (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User talk:ScrapIronIV is lasting in vandalism.Outliner73 (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok I'm going to be blunt. You need to stop with the vandalism claims immediately. The edit you are making needs to be discussed on the talk page, as it's been requested now by 3 different editors. You are now edit warring and further revisions to the page will result in a block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

None warned them about the risk to be blocked.Can i trust you?)They never wrote here to defend themselves, like the administrators cover them.My source is more tha reliable.No time for puppets.Outliner73 (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there any body to defend valid references as Wikipedia suggest to set?Outliner73 (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Outliner73 does not appear to have sufficient command of the English language to be editing content on English Wikipedia. His communications here are comprehensible but very ungrammatically written. A person whose command of English is at this level should not be editing content here, although there are other tasks which do not rely as much on English language abilities. Certainly, they appear to be only barely capable of carrying on a normal discussion in English: eg. "Ok, i turst good feith in Adamgerber80 mistake.Now he knows.I trust your one too."
  I suggest that a WP:CIR block should be considered, both for their lack of English capability and for their apparent inability to understand basic policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Can RM discussion be used to reach consensus to delete existing or ban creation of future articles?

There is a dispute about the outcome of RM discussion at Talk:World War II persecution of Serbs. A very small group of editors participated in two-days RM discussion and used it to reach consensus not only about renaming but also to:

1. delete trough renaming the article with major topic. Clarification: The major topic article was created 12 years ago as major topic article and stayed as such after millions of views and more than thousand edits.
2. to ban any future attempt to create splinter articles with topics which is removed from the major topic article. Clarification: the topics of splinter articles is persecution of many millions people and mass murder of dozens of thousands of people just because of their ethnicity.

None of above points were actually mentioned in RM closure which only mentions renaming and nothing else (diff). I tried to get opinion of editor Mahveotm who closed this discussion diff but they did not reply to my question.

That opens space for different interpretations and disputes about the outcome this RM discussion:

• Some editors (me included) may literaly interpret the RM closure as only related to renaming.
• Some editors (including Peacemaker67 and maybe GregorB) believe that this RM discussion actually ended with valid consensus on above points.

I sincerely apologize if I am wrong here, but I always thought that deletion of articles or banning eventual creation of articles on certain topics has to follow Wikipedia:Deletion policy. That is why I have a simple question: Can above RM discussion can be used for reaching consensus:

1. to delete existing article through renaming and
2. to ban any future attempt to create splinter articles

Best regards,--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This contains a number of misleading statements and is an attempt to impose needlessly bureaucratic limits on the outcome of an RM. The RM was started about the title and scope of the article (which several editors had agreed had become a WP:COATRACK), and six editors quickly came to a consensus about both title and scope and on actions to be taken as a result. It was opened on 25 June and closed on 4 July (open over seven days), no-one opposed to the title and scope change commented, and the consensus was very clear among those that contributed. Clearly that consensus is only for the article in question and cannot "ban" creation of other articles. What was also discussed was where the information that was to be trimmed from the article (that didn't relate to persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia) would go. It wasn't to be deleted, as claimed. This was discussed, and the consensus was that the material should go in existing articles about the other occupied territories in Yugoslavia and in one proposed new article (so the OP is just wrong about the supposed "ban" on new articles). After the closure and move, I personally ensured that the material on Hungarian persecution of Serbs was already covered in the relevant article, Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories. At best, the RM could have been advertised more widely, but even since the closure, the only editor to oppose the title and scope change is the OP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Peacemaker. A RM is, well, a RM, and obviously is not binding w.r.t. other actions such as merging, splitting, or creating new content, and there is WP:CCC if nothing else. As far as I can tell, the outcome is that no content is being deleted (other than perhaps OR/SYNTH, and that is subject to discussion). This motion is unnecessary. GregorB (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize if I misunderstood something but I think your above comments Peacemaker67 and GregorB are contradictory to what you wrote before, to each other and to what obviously really happened. I will not go into details here, except to point that comment the outcome is that no content is being deleted (other than perhaps OR/SYNTH, and that is subject to discussion) is obviously untrue because Peacemaker67 removed huge parts of text, ie on Hungarion persecution of Serbs (ie diff). That material was far from OR/SYNTH, and even Peacemaker67 emphasized in their above comment that they personally ensured that the material on Hungarian persecution of Serbs was already covered in the relevant article.

To avoid misunderstanding, could you two clarify what kind of consensus you reached during RM discussion by answering one simple question:

* Has RM discussion been used for reaching consensus that article on major topic should not exist? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your comments here. Peacemaker67 and GregorB stated that no content was removed, since it already existed (or was moved) elsewhere. The information is still in Wikipedia, even if it's not on the same article it was before, since the scope of the article was changed as a result of the move. Also, there was no restriction on creating other articles mentioned in any comments either here or at the move request; in fact, the participants of the discussion encouraged the creation of new, more specific articles. What "major topic" are you saying that the discussion reached consensus to delete? ansh666 23:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I should have been clearer: what I meant is that the discussion itself was not explicitly about deleting stuff. Merging may always result in deletion of content, but that's typically only content that is duplicated or otherwise unusable. Also, since Peacemaker said he "personally ensured that the material on Hungarian persecution of Serbs was already covered in the relevant article", what's your complaint? You are against the merge, or you are saying stuff was deleted without being covered in the target article, contrary to what Peacemaker says? GregorB (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The main issue here is quite simple. The World War II persecution of Serbs article covered persecution of all Serbs as main topic article for twelwe years. It did not cover only persecution in Croatia because millions of Serbs were persecuted and dozens of thousands were killed outside of Croatia, just because of their ethnicity. The main topic article does not exist now. A very small group of editors used two-days RM discussion to reach consensus that article on major topic should not exist. I might be wrong here (and I sincerely apologize if I am), but I am afraid that my concerns might be justified having in mind many contradictory and obviously incorrect statements of Peacemaker67 and GregorB accompanied with their apparent refusal to reply to above straightforward underlined question. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Metal Detector.jpg

Can one admin check the original file here on en wp. If there is more information about this file? Other wise it will be deleted.--Sanandros (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sanandros: No, there's no additional information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

OK thx.--Sanandros (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

Once again this part of the project is being neglected by admins. We have, on a regular basis now, errors which persist for the whole day on the main page without being addressed by admins. Either more time should be spent by admins on this or we should close the page down and mark as historical. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'd rather just mark DYK as historical ... power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't just affect DYK. OTD has around 2-3 errors per day too. ITN, TFA and TFL have perhaps one or so per day, and TFP is completely ignored. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Just as a general comment, I tend to find than when I'm doing volunteer things, I respond far better to a polite request than to an accusation that I am neglecting my (actually non-existent) duty. I have a great deal of sympathy for your position, The Rambling Man, but I honestly don't think your demanding approach is the most successful one you could adopt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  Oh well, fuck the main page then. I couldn't care less what you think of me or some so-called "demanding approach", but at least you should care about the integrity of the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  Sheesh, chill out. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  Using three words to throw a patronizing blue link in the face of someone who has a legitimate grievance about the integrity of a page that everyone can see is not an ideal exercise in conflict resolution.--WaltCip (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  An excellent contribution. Truly, Erpert. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  I concur with Erpert's sage advice. Dumuzid (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  Excellent. Good job we're not relying on you to actually do something about the problem in hand. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  "Good job" or "good thing"? I'd just like to be clear, as "good job" seems discordant to me here. Thanks in advance. Dumuzid (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Nor how any of your input here has any relevance to the issue at hand. I suggest you go and improve some articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  I was actually trying to help you to understand how to get the best from other people, and that is not by making demands and belittling everyone who doesn't instantly toe your line. Honestly, I do have great respect for what you have done and continue to do, but your continuing invective is really not helping you or your cause - you're just making yourself look more and more like a whiner and increasingly likely to be ignored. You seriously need to get a mirror and take a look at yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  I repeat: I don't care what you think of me or my methodology. Just fix the main page. Personalising the issue is not becoming of an admin, just work on maintaining the integrity of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's my view - I do chip in and help at ERRORS from time to time, particularly looking for replacements when an OTD entry needs to be pulled. However, I reserve the right to not fix something where it's on a topic I don't know anything about, and decide that charging in on horseback in complete ignorance of what the article is about is counter-productive and probably in violation of WP:COMPETENCE. TRM is right when he says there is not enough admin attention on ERRORS and things do lapse without getting fixed; however screaming "fuck the main page then" is not going to magically make admins jump to it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie, as he well knows, is one of the good guys, but there is a systemic problem here. There are not enough admins who routinely patrol ERRORS. There are enough admins fullstop. There are far, far, far too many errors coming through from the various MP feeds, but especially ITN, OTD and DYK which I think is the worst offender (though I'll take my hat off to TRM who is the expert here). MP is our shop window and it routinely makes us look amateurish.

So, the possible solutions are:

1. Promote more admins.

   Yeah right.

2. Discontinue DYK/OTD/ITN so the small resource pool can focus on the small number of issues from the other sections.

   In my dreams

3. Improve the quality of DYK/OTD/ITN processes

   I refer you to the answer above

4. Get some more existing admins to frequent ERRORS

   See the next but one section

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I've had a go at #1 - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ealdgyth - and looking back at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hoppyh I think I missed a trick; we could have got him on ERRORS patrol. Ah well. I am on record in saying that I would support Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Rambling Man 2 purely to clear the ERRORS backlog, but realise such an RfA passing is about as likely as Katie Price becoming Secretary of State for Education. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "scream" anything. I notified this admin page of a problem that only admins can deal with. If no admins can be arsed to do anything about it, that's just fine, but this is the only venue that can be used to get more admin eyes on the ever-increasing number of issues at ERRORS. If admins would rather make things personal and get humpy about it, that's not my problem. If admins can't be arsed to fix main page issues because they see my reporting as somehow personal affronts, then also "whatever". Shameful. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• I unwatched the page a few months ago as TRM's combative stance was tedious to view, much less attempt to interact with. Sometimes it's not what we say but how we say it. (The means don't justify the ends.) Killiondude (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  Heartbreaking, but we could use some volunteers who care about the integrity of the main page beyond personal issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for merge discussion closure

Will an uninvolved administrator please determine the consensus at this merger discussion? THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 23:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

And it seems to have been undone, so attention is still needed. –FlyingAce^✈hello 19:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Pretty please

Further to the section above the section above this, pretty please can some more admins make a habit of frequenting WP:ERRORS. It's not a huge time sink. Processes are not difficult to learn. The improvements we make are really important.

And most of all, you'll have my admiration. That, surely sells it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I tried that a few years ago, and the first time I didn’t do something exactly right one of the regulars went all guard dog on me and basically chased me off. But perhaps the alluring specter of your admiration is enough of an incentive to give it another go. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Beeble, you are lovely. Pretty please. It'd be lovely to have you. And anyone else reading this. If several people joined and picked a task or two they're happy with, we'd be immensely better off. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I did just stick it on my watchlist and shortly afterwards I got this for the very first thing I did. So I'm taking it off again. Hut 8.5 20:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

What, I dared question your "pretty suredness" and asked why we don't just use the same phrasing as in the article? Ridiculous. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

There is, AFAIK, no requirement that the hook has to have exactly the same wording as the article, and it's fine to rephrase it as something which means the same thing as the article (which is itself usually rephrasing the source to some degree). It's hardly an "error" if the phrases aren't exactly the same. As far as I can see these phrases do mean the same thing, and you haven't offered any evidence, reasoning or argument to the contrary. It looks as though you just wanted to pick a fight with someone. If that's how ERRORS works then I'm not interested in working there. Hut 8.5 21:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you're 100% wrong. "associated with" does not mean the same as "host" where I come from, so it needs addressing. I already offered you a rationale, but I can see that anyone who dares to disagree with you is classed wishing to "pick a fight" and I'm not interested in interacting with you. In the meantime, this dismal and sad personalisation of ERROR reporting does nothing for the encyclopedia or the readers' experiences. And that is shameful. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thirding what Beeblebrox and Hut 8.5 said; I've tried in the past to assist at WP:ERRORS and got a load of abuse from one of its self-appointed owners for not doing things exactly the way he demanded. @Dweller, to be blunt you're going to get the exact same reply from every admin you approach. ‑ Iridescent 21:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You mean your answers weren't accepted verbatim and anyone who dared question them were labelled an "abuser"? Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I mean Sca went absolutely batshit crazy. IIRC you were there. ‑ Iridescent 21:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? BATSHIT CRAZY? I have no idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It's because we all get together on the secret admin IRC channel and agree not to touch any reports on ERRORS so we can troll you. Jeez..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't follow that either. Is that related to the Sca mention above? What are you talking about? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I tried not to name names, but there’s the problem for all to see. TRM’s guard-dogging of his walled garden is very off-putting to potential contributors there. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, TRM does himself no favours droning on and on as self-appointed keeper of the-bits-of-the-main-page-he's-decided-are-important. If only he could be given selective Admin rights over those bits, he could spend all day every day checking the minutest details and correcting them himself. Of course he might then also have to deal with the endless pleas of others to get things exactly right? 86.176.145.104 (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I was always happy to address issues, no matter how complex or trivial, when I was able to do so. And since I already check the minutest details, it would be much easier to fix them myself rather than have to debate it out with admins over hours and hours. Thanks for the opportunity to re-affirm that, "IP". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. If someone wants to pop by and accuse me of abuse and guard-dogging and walled gardens and picking a fight, some of them admins, then I'm entitled to respond. Unless of course it's just a case of all editors are equal, just some more equal than others. Just fix the issues with the main page. Stop personalising things. Admins need to resolve the myriad issues that arise on a daily basis, regardless. If not, then close ERRORS down. Or at least make it clear that we minions have to say please and thank you to admins for considering our requests and rejecting any debate. You're all barking up the wrong tree, I don't own ERRORS, nor do I wish to. I would love nothing more than a day without having to post half a dozen issues there. But I actually care about the main page. It seems that I am more isolated in that regard than I thought. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and I personally am grateful for the prolific work you put in there, and try and resolve issues as and when I can. But when I see edit summaries like "*tap tap* HELLO ... IS THIS THING WORKING" and "COME ON, ANY ADMINS OUT THERE" I can't help think that a) people are put off helping there and b) the odds of you regaining the bit so you could just fix these errors yourself seems to get further and further away. When you combine that with the general atmosphere of RfA that "good vandal fighter, SPI clerk, lots of Twinkling, 100% AfD score (failing to mention that it's because they vote with the herd)" will get a strong support despite being the sort of character that is just not suited to fixing problems at ERRORS, it seems like the subset of admins who can help is somewhat limited. So it does seem like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

TAP TAP because most errors need to be resolved quickly, indeed most items on the main page are only there for 24 hours, so waiting around for six or nine hours for someone to pop by isn't good enough. Creative edit summaries have been actually very effective at getting attention, so I'm not going to stop doing that. Why does everyone but me keep banging on about getting the admin bit back? Have I ever said anything about that? Too many people don't like me, so regardless of whether I spoke as a saint for the next decade, I'd still never get re-sysopped, that's a red herring. Focus on the issue. ERRORS is not serviced adequately by admins, regardless of the personalisation issues brought in by numerous admins here. And that's a problem. Fix the problems. Admins are here to serve and if they get grumpy phone calls or happy phone calls, they need to still fix issues that are detrimental to the main page. Seeing so many abscond from their duties here because of a personal dislike is very concerning. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have an alternative suggestion, which is kind of based on what the IP said above. Can we drop the protection of the various main page templates (that directly transclude onto it) from full to Template Editor, then give TRM Template Editor rights? Or is that not possible because everything on the Main Page gets cascaded as full, in which case could we seriously consider dropping the Main Page to Template Editor protection (with an added warning that anyone caught doing something stupid to it gets indef blocked)? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not possible. It's been discussed before. Cheers though. We have what we have, and ERRORS needs better service, despite the sensitive nature of some of our admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I get tht you are working in an area that needs help, and maybe feel you are the only one holding it together, but given this very discussion you might want to consider that the situation is at least somewhat due to the your own actions and attitude towards others trying to help out in this area. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

With please comes thanks

We have some admins who have over the years been very very industrious and helpful at ERRORS. I don't make it into the top ten contributors to the page, (I languish in a humble 13th - and fyi TRM is out there in 1st, by a street) but the following do: Stephen, Howcheng, Floquenbeam, Kevin McE, Art LaPella, Sca, Dank, Bencherlite and Jayron32.

Most of the people I just pinged are admins and most are active, but many of you aren't so active at ERRORS these days. Thank you to all of you for your contributions, and also to those a little further down the list (Crisco 1492, you're just 23 edits outside the glory list!).

Please continue / come back and help more, including those of you who aren't admins - you do a valuable job in copyediting and consensus building. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

An interesting new form of abuse

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

---

Following some pretty mundane anto-vandal activity, the SPA Thanked you for your edit on just started "thanking" me over and over again, as fast as they could. This thus rendered the user-messaging interface useless, with no reasonable encyclopedic purpose. The interesting thing about this is that there is no apparent log trace associated with these "thanks" messages. Blocking the user stopped it. Is this something the edit filter could be used to rate-limit? -- The Anome (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the thanks log is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=thanks&user=Thanked+you+for+your+edit+on&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=1&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_tag_log=1&hide_review_log=1, and you can mute notifications from users through the preferences in the "Notifications" tab. I don't *think* the edit filter could be used for this, though, since it's not an edit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This isn’t a new idea either. I’ve had trolls use that feature to let me know they are around for the last several years, although not usually in such an extreme fashion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It would be possible to introduce (or increase) a rate limit on the thanks feature, if this is a widespread problem. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Something like this happened to me quite a while ago. I can't remember who it was though. Adam9007 (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

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