Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AN)
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.

Sections older than six days are
archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

  • Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
  • If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email directly with your concern.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.
The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Centralized discussion


Requests for closure

These requests for closure are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

Requests for Comment

Talk:Eidetic memory#WP:RfC: Should the article be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing?

Things look okay at the article these days, but this discussion should have a close to help put the previous dispute to bed. Keep in mind that the question is not simply about distinguishing the terms (which is something the article already does); it's about whether we should strictly distinguish them (as in say they are not the same thing and leave it at that). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC: Allow inclusion of former names in lead section of biographies covering transgender and non-binary people

Any brave soul want to take a wack at this? It's been open about 6 weeks. I don't think it's urgent, but could use a look over. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RfC: "Sir"

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RfC: "Sir" (Initiated 68 days ago on 20 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done188.174.89.135 (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox (Initiated 67 days ago on 21 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done188.174.89.135 (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Order of the Netherlands Lion#RfC, Name of the article

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Order of the Netherlands Lion#RfC, Name of the article (Initiated 60 days ago on 28 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)#RfC: Changing to genre for Taylor Swift – “Red” to Pop • country• rock

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)#RfC: Changing to genre for Taylor Swift – “Red” to Pop • country• rock (Initiated 59 days ago on 29 June 2016)? Canvassing concerns were raised at Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)#Canvassing effort by Bjork138. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)#Another RfC: Episode Groupings

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)#Another RfC: Episode Groupings (Initiated 59 days ago on 29 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: should galleries use mode=packed by default?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: should galleries use mode=packed by default? (Initiated 64 days ago on 24 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Give it some more time. It seems that technical improvements are in the pipeline, which may affect the options available. Deryck C. 14:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Deryck Chan (talk · contribs), I've fixed the initiated date from 19 July 2016 to 24 June 2016. I listed it here because it had been archived. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • My apologies. It got archived already... I'm not sure that discussion has a closure action as it is. You can slap an {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} onto it if you feel necessary? Deryck C. 09:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Marking as not done for the bot for now, because I'm not sure what there is to do. Deryck C. 23:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Deryck Chan (talk · contribs), why is there nothing to do? The proposal was to move galleries from mode=traditional by default to mode=packed by default. The proposal received much discussion from the community. An RfC close would determine whether the proposal was successful. If it is successful, then the technical change could be implemented, If it not successful, then a close would note that and possibly summarize points of agreement that could help frame future discussions. I've removed the not done tag. I have not closed the discussion myself because I would not be an objective closer for this subject. Cunard (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Cunard: In that case would it make more sense to re-open the discussion (by moving it back to the main noticeboard) first, then close again after another few days? Deryck C. 17:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Can other site accounts ever be linked to

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Can other site accounts ever be linked to (Initiated 58 days ago on 30 June 2016)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking a three-person closure (Including at least one user who handles non-public information on a regular basis) would be advisable for this discussion. I'll volunteer with the admission that I am probably one of the worst people to close this, so I'll defer to basically any other team of three. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Cunard and Tazerdadog: Am up for it. Deryck C. 13:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so we need at least one more, and someone who has handled private info on a regular basis. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The WP:Signpost has just run two issues that discuss the issue at hand extensively. This is likely to generate a lot extra participation in the debate in the coming week or so, which will hopefully generate new arguments and possibly affect the outcome. I think we should hold on for at least two more weeks before closure. Deryck C. 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Two weeks might be excessive, but a week is certainly a good idea. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Cunard and Tazeradog: Okay, probably time to get people to close this. Any nominations on "someone who has handled private info on a regular basis"? I have handled personal information for Wikimedia before, but that's in the context of organising meatspace Wikimedia events. Deryck C. 12:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Euryalus (talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), oversighters who have posted in WP:ANRFC recently. Would one of you be able to join Tazerdadog and Deryck Chan in closing the discussion? Or do you know how to reach out to others who have "handled private info on a regular basis"? Cunard (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, but I should decline the offer given I've directly contributed to the debate on a couple of occasions, as well as the Signpost editorial comment section. The best ways to reach others who handled routinely handled private information. would be a neutrally-worded email to, which will reach current CU's and Oversighters plus a small collection of former arbs. Someone who hasn't taken part in the debate would hopefully then step forward to help with the close. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Rajka Baković#Request for comments

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rajka Baković#Request for comments (Initiated 54 days ago on 4 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist)#Request for Comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist)#Request for Comment (Initiated 43 days ago on 15 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Rolfing#NPOV - Request for Comments - Contentious Labels - "Quackery" "Pseudoscience" Opinions Stated as Fact

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rolfing#NPOV - Request for Comments - Contentious Labels - "Quackery" "Pseudoscience" Opinions Stated as Fact (Initiated 51 days ago on 7 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Earthquake prediction#RfC re neutrality/POV issues

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Earthquake prediction#RfC re neutrality/POV issues (Initiated 42 days ago on 16 July 2016)? See the subsection Talk:Earthquake prediction#Non-Participation, where a participant expressed a desire for closure: "Is that a possible outcome: no closure at all, or a 'no consensus' close to the RFC, after all this discussion? Sigh... I was at least hoping that a close might decide whether 'natural time' and the VAN prediction of 2008 can be mentioned in the article." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Extraterrestrial atmosphere#Confusing article titles

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Extraterrestrial atmosphere#Confusing article titles (Initiated 52 days ago on 6 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Singla#RFC: Is Singla a Jatt caste?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Singla#RFC: Is Singla a Jatt caste? (Initiated 36 days ago on 22 July 2016)? There is an edit war over the outcome of the RfC regarding whether the page is a disambiguation page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Request for Comment: Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Request for Comment: Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles (Initiated 46 days ago on 12 July 2016)? The previous RfC was at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 129#Wikipedia:Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion (Initiated 46 days ago on 12 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability#Systemic Bias: Proposing a separate standard of notability and Wikipedia talk:Notability#Adding ways to assess Systemic Bias to WP:N

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfCs at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Systemic Bias: Proposing a separate standard of notability and Wikipedia talk:Notability#Adding ways to assess Systemic Bias to WP:N (Initiated 54 days ago on 4 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Novak_Djokovic#RfC_Novak.27s_mother? (Initiated 42 days ago on 16 July 2016) Vanjagenije (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I was just here to request this to see that it has already been done. I endorse this request. (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Assault rifle#False, unsourced claim, and generally the article's a mess of Apocrypha and bias

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Assault rifle#False, unsourced claim, and generally the article's a mess of Apocrypha and bias (Initiated 48 days ago on 10 July 2016)? My RfC close of this discussion was contested. I considered this an uncontroversial, "consensus is clear" close, which has turned out to be an incorrect assumption so I have undone my close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Administrative closure requested for Cultural Marxism RfC and related Administrative incident

Request for closure of an RfC regarding the lead of the Cultural Marxism section of the Frankfurt School page (discussion on talk) as well as Administrative Closure of a related Dispute on the Administrative incidents noticeboard. --Jobrot (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gibraltar#RFC: Llanito as language or dialect

Request a none involved admin look at closing this RFC and (if they can) decipher the mess as to what it actually concluded. WCMemail 21:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion

This discussion forum has an average backlog with approximately 20 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from July 2016. (04:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions

There's 100+ open discussions, some well over two months old. The vast majority of these are easy closures. Would appreciate it if an admin could spend an hour or so clearing these out. Thanks! -FASTILY 08:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure

There are approximately 50 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from April 25, 2016. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Rose

Has been open for almost a month; needs assessment from an uninvolved admin. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 13:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Other discussions

RevDel amendment

This proposal for amendment of the RevDel guidelines has been open for more than a month. Currently 100% of !votes are in favor of adopting the amendment with a thorough discussion among a variety of other editors who have chosen not to register any opposition. Despite a low number of !votes, the participation of a large number of editors without registered objection seems to indicate no objection to adoption of the amendment. Could it please be evaluated for closure? LavaBaron (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves

There is now a pretty significant backlog building at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Oddly, some of these haven't even been relisted (which means even non-Admins aren't looking at them...), but have been sitting around for 2 weeks or more. Also, oddly, some of the ones that I just looked at are WP:SNOW results, so I'm not sure why they haven't been moved, except that I guess an Admin hasn't looked at them. --IJBall (contribstalk) 06:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Pages recently put under Extended-confirmed protection

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (13 out of 105 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Judea and Samaria Area 2016-08-27 00:36 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement NeilN
Lehi (group) 2016-08-24 18:20 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement NeilN
Gaza Strip 2016-08-24 11:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement NeilN
Avactis 2016-08-16 15:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: two PRODs, one speedy David Gerard
Bitrix24 2016-08-16 14:46 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: two speedies, one PROD David Gerard
Desi Kanoon 2016-08-16 14:29 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: speedied twice, prodded once David Gerard
Kaajal Naskar 2016-08-14 16:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: third time the same article's been BLPPRODed David Gerard
Act I: Eternal Sunshine (The Pledge) 2016-08-12 02:08 2017-08-12 02:08 create Repeatedly recreated MBisanz
Jesse Koller 2016-07-30 22:44 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated A7 article − non-notable person, organisation, etc. Rmhermen
Nem Kosal 2016-07-22 16:38 2017-01-22 16:38 create set an expiration on ECP protected page not under ARBCOM sanction Xaosflux
NEM KOSAL 2016-07-22 16:38 2017-01-22 16:38 create set an expiration on ECP protected page not under ARBCOM sanction Xaosflux
Sophia Strauss 2016-07-22 16:38 2017-01-22 16:38 create set an expiration on ECP protected page not under ARBCOM sanction Xaosflux
Teleios 2016-07-11 11:37 2017-07-11 11:37 create Repeatedly recreated A7 article − non-notable person, organisation, etc. MBisanz

Administrator Log

Thank you for your updates, for now further updates will just be in the general section below. — xaosflux Talk 15:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

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

The following administrators have recently applied ECP following the close of the new community standards, but may not yet have completed the policy requirement related to notification is to be posted in a subsection of AN for review. Please post your information below. Please also note, there is already a discussion about this requirement and its mechanisms below (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#ECP_postings_to_AN). Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 10:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • User:Deb
    • I've amended the protection level on the 3 articles involved. I don't really understand the new policy and, frankly, I can't remember why I set that particular level in each case, but I believe it was because they were being repeatedly recreated by the same user who was already autoconfirmed. Deb (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • User:David Gerard
    • I SALTed perennially-recreated spam magnets at that level to avoid full protection. Should I just fully protect those articles instead? Seems worse - David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • User:CorbieVreccan
    • OK, I'm a bit confused by this. I think the ECP option, along with template editor, was rolled in when I wasn't paying close enough attention. I can put the articles back to semi, but it seemed a better option for tendentious edit-warring where a new account that had racked up a great number of edits in a short period of time was involved. As that user is now blocked, normal semi would probably be fine. I need to go read the new policies and will amend if needed. Thanks. - CorbieV 15:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Content translator tool creating nonsense pages

Machine translation gadget

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

Thank you, I didn't remember about that gadget; I surely can make good use of it. That's the kind of tools that may be invaluable time savers in the hands of us who know how to use them, making the difference between translating a stub right now when you first stumble upon it (thanks to the kick-start of having part of the work already done), or leaving it for another day (and never coming back to it).
Given that the CTX tool has been restricted to experienced editors, and that the GoogleTrans gadget needs to be explicitly activated, the combination of the two won't be at the hands unexperienced newbies in the way that created the current backlog. The GoogleTrans doesn't insert translated content into text fields, it merely shows the translation in a pop-up; so I don't agree that it "explicitly endorses machine translations". Any editor with your experience should know better than copy-paste machine translated text unedited into an article. Diego (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I am the creator of the GoogleTrans gadget and it does do Machine Translation Under The HTML Markup when used in the Content Translation system. I have used this to translate 226 articles from the frwiki to the enwiki and got all of them reviewed okay. The Machine Translation is a starting point. You still have to manually change each and every sentence to get the grammar and meaning right. It's not very sensible to ban it because, without human followup, it produces a bad article. The point is that it is a tool to quicken the translation of easy to medium difficulty articles, especially for good language pairs like English-French. Wikipedia, itself, uses both Apertium and Yandex translation engines to do machine translation and these have been used to good effect in the Catalan and Spanish wikipedias. GoogleTrans does the same thing as Apertium in the Content Translation system, except it uses Google Translate, which most people feel is a better translation engine. As Diego says this needs to be explicitly turned on, so it tends to restrict usage to competent editors. To stress the point, Machine Translation, as done by GoogleTrans gadget, is a starting point, it is not the end product. Human intervention is required to massage the MT into decent destination language text and grammar, but Machine Translation can help start the translation quite a bit. Wikipedia feels that Machine Translation is worth doing, because it has it as a feature (using both Yandex and Apertium machine translation engines) Endo999 (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Except that we have a policy against machine translation on en.wikipedia, because the requirements for correcting its output are far higher than users tend to realise; in fact it is easier and faster to translate from scratch than to spend the necessary time and effort comparing the original with the translation to find the errors. Hence the whole long discussion above and the agreement that machine translations can be deleted as such. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no policy against Machine Translation on the enwiki. That would have to be posted on the Content Translation blog, and it isn't. I've done 226 of these articles successfully and I can tell you there is more editing for non text issues, like links around dates coming from the frwiki, editing getting references right, manual changing of TAGS because their parameter headings are in the origin language. The actual translation work postprocessing, when polished up by a person competent in the destination language is far less than you say. But style differences between the wikis take more of the editors time. Endo999 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The policy is at WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, and has been in force for a decade. ‑ Iridescent 19:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The policy is against unedited machine translation. It doesn't apply to using machine translation as a starting point to be cleaned up by hand. Diego (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
MACHINETRANSLATION isn't a policy. It isn't even a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I have never claimed that Machine Translation first drafts are good enough for articles on the enwiki. They aren't, but responsible use of Machine Translation, as a first draft, that is then worked on to become readable and accurate in the destination language is quite okay and even helpful. Endo999 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The consensus is pretty clear that unless you are translating at a professional level, machine translation is a trap. It looks good at first glance, but often introduces bad and difficult to detect errors, such as missed negations or cultural differences. Even if a human caught 9 out of 10 of these errors, the translation would be grossly unacceptable and inaccurate. I'd request that this gadget be disabled, or at minimum, de-integrated from the content translation tool. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Well. I'm pretty far from being a fan of machine translations, but it's always been possible to copy/paste from Google Translate. Anyone autoconfirmed can do that without going to all the trouble of finding and enabling this gadget. The problem is fundamentally behavioural rather than technological. The specific problem behaviour is putting incomprehensible or misleading information in the mainspace. Over-reliance on machine translation is a cause of this, but we can't prevent or disable machine translation entirely, and there's not much point trying. I think the position we should adopt is that it is okay to use machine-aided translations provided you don't put them in the mainspace until they've been thoroughly checked by someone who reads the source language and writes the target language fluently. I suggest the approach we take to Endo999's tool is to add some warnings and instructions rather than try to disable it.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget that the use of Machine Translation in the Content Translation system is expanding all the time, and I'm am pretty much the only regular user of my GoogleTrans gadget for translation purposes. Why is the gadget being singled out? Yandex machine translation is being turned on by the Content Translation people all the time for various languages, like Ukranian and Russian. The Catalan and Spanish wikipedias are at the forefront of machine translation for article creation and they are not being flamed like this. I reiterate that the majority of edits per my frwiki-to-enwiki articles are over differences in the frwiki for an article than for articles in the enwiki. The treatment of dates and athletic times is one such difference. You need to do postediting after the document has been published in order to please the editors of the destination wiki. This usually has nothing to do with the translated text but is actually the treatment of links, the treatment of dates, the removal of underlines in links, the adding of categories, the transfer of infoboxes, the addition of references (the fiwiki is particularly good for references of track and field athletes), and other wiki standards (that are different from the origin wiki). There's always going to be some postediting of translated articles because of these nontranslation specific items. It's just inherent in wiki to wiki article movement. Endo999 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
We don't care about what happens on other wikipedia language versions, basically. Some are happy to have 99% bot-created articles, some hate bot-created articles. Some are happy with machine-translated articles, some don't. It may be true that "the use of Machine Translation in the Content Translation system is expanding all the time", but at enwiki, such a recent "expansion" started all this as the results were mostly dreadful. "Why is the gadget being singled out? Yandex machine translation is being turned on by the Content Translation people all the time for various languages, like Ukranian and Russian." Your gadget is in use on enwiki, what gadgets they use on ruwiki or the like is of no concern to us. We "single out" tools in use on enwiki, since this is an enwiki-only discussion. And this discussion is not about the long list of more cosmetic things you give at the end (or else I would start a rant about your many faux-bluelinks to frwiki articles in enwiki articles, a practice I truly dislike), it is (mostly) about quality of translation, comprehensability and accuracy. Yours are a lot better than most articles created with ContentTranslation, luckily. Fram (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Endo999: I just happened to check Odette Ducas, one of your translations from French. You had Lille piped to read "Little". This is a good illustration of how easy it is to miss errors, and it's not fair, in fact counterproductive, to encourage machine-based translation and depend on other editors to do the necessary painstaking checking. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that error (Lille translated at Little). I had seen and corrected that problem in a later article on a french female track athlete from Lille, but didn't correct the earlier translated article. Don't forget that Wikipedia is about ordinary people creating Wikipedia articles and through the ARGUS (many eyes) phenonmenon having many people correct articles so they become good articles. This is one example of that. Wikipedia is not about translation being restricted to language experts or simply experts for article creation. Your argument does tend towards that line of thought. Endo999 (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it does (for one thing, all you can know of my level of expertise is what I demonstrate). The wiki method is about trusting the wisdom of the crowd: this tool hoodwinks people. It's led you to make a silly error you wouldn't have otherwise made, and it's led to at least one eager new editor being indeffed on en.wikipedia. It rests on condescending assumptions that the editing community can't be left to decide what to work on, in what order. (Not to mention the assumptions about how other Wikipedias must be delighted to get imported content just because.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Almost everyone of the articles I have translated, using the GoogleTrans gadget, has already been reviewed by other editors and passed. I can only translate the existing French, which is sometimes not well written. In Fatima Yvelain's case I transferred over all the sources from the frwiki article. Can you tell me which reference didn't work out. You've deleted the article, without the ordinary seven day deletion period, so you deleted the article without any challenges. Are you and a few other reviewers systematically going through every article I have translated looking for things to criticize? Endo999 (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
That's how Wikipedia rolls; it's the easiest way to demonstrate supposed incompetence, and since incompetence on the part of the creator reflects on the tool, it is therefore the easiest way in which to get the tool removed (along with phrases such as "I'd like to retract my compliment", which I hate as much as Fram hates faux-bluelinks). Simples. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Having just checked the article for myself, if it was really "reviewed by other editors and passed" it reflects just as badly on those other editors as it does on you, given that it contained an entire paragraph of grossly libellous comments sourced entirely to an alleged reference which is on a completely unrelated topic and doesn't mention the subject once. (The fr-wikipedia article still contains the same paragraph, complete with fake reference.) Checking the review log for the page in question, I see no evidence that the claim that anyone else reviewed it is actually true. ‑ Iridescent 15:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

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

You are all panicking. There's nothing wrong with using the GoogleTrans gadget with the Content Translation system if the appropriate editing happens alongside it. The ordinary review process can uncover articles that are not translated well enought. I'm being punished for showing ingenuity here. Punishing innovation is a modern trait I find. Endo999 (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
No, our reveiw processes are not adequate for this. Both the problems with translated articles, and the unrelated but similar problems with tool created articles (now discussed at WP:ANI show the problems we have in detecting articles which superficially look allright (certainly when made by editors with already some edits) but which are severely deficient nevertheless, and in both cases the problems were worse because tools made the mass creation of low quality articles much easier. While this is the responsability of the editors, not the tools, it makes sense to dismiss tools which encourage such creations. Fram (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yes, I believe an RfC would be helpful assuming it is well prepared.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The GoogleTrans gadget has been running on the enwiki for the last 7 years and has 29,000 people who load the gadget when they sign into Wikipedia. It's quite a successful gadget and certainly, wiki to wiki translators have concentrated on the gadget because while they may know English (when they are translating articles between the enwiki and their home wikis) they like to get the translation of a word every once in a while. Endo999 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Editors with Editcountitis working in new page patrol

Group A- Problematic group of editors patrol new pages to increase their edit count. They have no interest to check, whether a page or an article has any notability. Their job is to fill bare URLs with refills, they will tag articles with auto wiki browser and twinkle, adding categories using hotcat. They will use all those primary sources to expand the article. They will never nominate a page for CSD, AFD, PROD. They work hard 24/7 to make a zero notable article, look like a notable article.

Group B- 98% of the new page patrollers have an interest in finding the notability of a page. These users try to identify non-notable page, by checking the sources and finding references. Now "Group A" editors make their job difficult. As SPAs don't know how to improve an article. They come to Wikipedia to promote themselves, their friends and their companies, bands, shops, business. They get unexpected help from "Group A" editors, whose editcountitis allows 5-6 % of these non- notable articles to escape being noticed by "Group B" patrollers.

I am giving one example, but this is just a drop in ocean. This page's references are nothing but links to their website. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The top of this page states and I quote "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.
Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.
Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email directly with your concern."
So what does editors using AWB/Twinkle etc etc have anything to do with this board ? ..... –Davey2010Talk 17:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
If you have issues with a specific user, where blocking may be necessary, feel free to post here after trying to deal with this user via his/her talk page. Otherwise, there's probably nothing we can do to help you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@John Jaffar Janardan: You may get more of a response by posting your concerns at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol. North America1000 20:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
From past experience, when I see a "new" user doing page-patrols with article bomb-tagging, they nearly always turn out to be a sock of a blocked user. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
So what is the issue for administrators here? A general discussion could go at WP:VPM. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Request to appeal unblock conditions (voluntary topic ban)

I am aware that I've brought this to AN/ANI on two previous ocassions. Neither which led to a consensus, hardly any discussion at all

For those of you unfamilar with the events that led to this "voluntary topic ban":

To sum things up a little, I was banned in 2009. Prior to the events that led to my ban, when problems was constantly occurring, I treated Wikipedia as a bureaucracy. This included and was not limited to—overly strict interpretations of policies (especially sourcing and rollback policies), wikilawyering, abusive talk page warnings, unnecessary questions to user talk pages, nitpicking at the language parsed in either a policy or editing restriction, tendentious editing, editing such a manner so to impose my stance on articles or otherwise impose my strict interpretations of policies on articles, refusing to work with other uses, combative editing practices, policing other editors, slapping tags on articles, making gratituous remarks, etc. If you take a look at these 60+ conversations, my talk page archives (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9), and my edits dating from 2010 and earlier, I think those give some insight to sum that all up. All this, whilst "avoiding actually contributing to the project" (as one user said best). I attempted to do all the things that was administrative or technical, whilst without also helping to build an encyclopedia, and instead did things that garnered drama and ill will

It was the Power Rangers/Tokusatsu topic area that got the worst end of it. I targetted the topic area and went to impose my stance on the articles (as I said earlier about treating Wikipedia as a bureaucracy). I butted heads with a user named Ryulong and although this user certainly wasn't right in many of his judgments/actions, it didn't help matters when I sat there and was a constant drain/timesink on the topic areas resources, scrutinized every single action this user did, or otherwise harassed and/or nettled them. All this would eventually lead to this interaction ban from Ryulong and a topic ban from editing Tokusatsu articles (to be clear however, the topic ban I'm appealing is one that was voluntarily imposed in 2012 due to unblock conditions I'll mention below). Long story short, my edits from 2007-09, was mostly either A) nitpicking at every single thing that I thought was wrong with the topic area and B) trying to find faults in every single thing Ryulong said/did. Needless to say however, this whole imposing my stance on articles went beyond this topic area, [ this being a prime example. I could have contributed to the Power Rangers topic area (since its something I'm knowledgeable in), but I did not, given my mindset at the time I was so focused on treating Wikipedia as a bureaucracy

When I was unblocked in 2012, I stated "If allowed back, I do not intend to return to the tokusatsu articles which I had edited during my first tenure". Its a condition of the unblock and voluntary editing restriction, because the statement was a part of my unblock appeal, to which the community ultimately reached a consensus to unblock. I felt having just been unblocked, I'd be better off not diving head first back into the topic area I was most disruptive in, and to prove myself in other areas, practing my new editing practices elsewhere, for if I ever changed my mind later on, I would have this in force to prove myself productive in other areas and only then come back. Largely another reason for me imposing that ban on myself, was me trying to avoid the one user I'd once nettled or harassed. I wanted to make completely a fresh new start, by taking the advice some others gave me, by stopping interacting with a certain user and to find other topics to edit. I took this advice for the purpose to practice my new editing practices expressed in my unblock appeal elsewhere

Since my unblock, and while I still do janitorial work for the project (from time to time, mostly vandal fighting), I also do now contribute to the project by adding content and referenced content in articles. Just take a look at my edits since 2012. What you don't see is me treating Wikipedia as a bureaucracy or imposing my stances on articles or otherwise going back to any of the other behaviors as before (as I mentioned above). I know 500+ edits doesn't seem to be much to go off of, but that's a reflection of me not going back to my old habits. I've done more for the project in just over 500+ edits since being unblocked, than I ever did in 7,000+ edits during the course of 2007-10 when problems were constantly occurring (and which there was only one content contribution I recall, and more than half of all edits was not article space, and even article space edits was me treating Wikipedias as a bureaucracy, not contributing to the project, which did nothing but inflate my edit count not improving the encyclopedia). Since my 2012 unblock, I've focused almost exclusively on the article space. These days I edit Wikipedia more as an occasion than a hobby, as I've steered clear of almost all things administrative, and mostly only edit Wikipedia if there's something to add to an article or a minor fix that could be done (as such, my vastly lower activity and edit count)

I'm requesting that the unblock conditions (the voluntary topic ban) be lifted. Power Rangers is a subject area I'm knowledgeable in, and if on the occasion I find something to contribute, it would be another topic area I could be useful to. If the conditions are lifted, I will promise not to repeat the same behaviors that pertained to treating Wikipedia as a bureaucracy and will not go after the topic area to impose strict interpretations of policies as I once had. For once, I will actually be productive to the topic area (by actually contributing)

P.S. sorry for the long post. I just couldn't help but be this insightful, given as how many may be unfamilar with my case, and I wouldn't possibly be able to convey this in fewer words. (I wanted to give everyone an understanding of what led to the events whilst also informing everyone of how things have went since being unblocked) —Mythdon 08:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Rather than make any sort of commentary, I'll support with a simple thumbs up. Blackmane (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Request seems reasonable given the passage of time and your 500+ edits in other areas that demonstrate you can edit without causing problems. Monty845 13:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Past problems seem to be firmly in the past. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Please be aware that your contributions in the area are likely to be reviewed carefully, so make sure to let some issues go. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking or an uninvovled admin to take over a protection

Hello, could an uninvolved admin please review my protection of History of Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and take it over under their own name if they feel it's appropriate. There has been a long-running content dispute there that has broken out into a more intense edit war in the last few days. I have no dog in that fight, but I was involved in the Gibraltarpedia project and I've written several articles about Gibraltar and offered advice on this article earlier while another editor was developing it to FA quality, so I try to make it a point no to use my admin tools on anything Gibraltar-related. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Purely on the merits it seems like that article needed a break from editing, indeed - little but back-n'-forth reverting the last few days despite a talk page discussion. No opinion about which version is the WP:WRONGVERSION, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree, with no opinion about The Wrong Version. If there's a problem after the protection expires, ping me and I'll take a look. Katietalk 19:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Had to be. Apologies. Tiderolls 20:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, that was humerus. Katietalk 22:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Please assess my bold action

Greetings. Pardon me, if this request is out of scope with this page's intent; I am open to admonishment on several fronts, and in need of accurate feedback in case I have been overly bold. I happened across a thread on Jimbo Wales talk page which after reading it, did feel compelled to close, which I did. To my chagrin, I aggrieved at least one editor for having done this bold thing. I'd like to ask the keepers of this page to review my actions and give feedback if it is supportable or not. Relevant threads are here and here (permalinks). Thank you for considering this request.--John Cline (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Converted links to permalinks. ―Mandruss  00:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  • No comment on whether the close itself was apt: but stylistically, you were perhaps just a trifle poetical- unnecessarily so, since a close should really sum up the main points upon which there is a consensus, or otherwise. Just an opinion though. Muffled Pocketed 04:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Not something like, "Go back to doing something useful FFS"? --NeilN talk to me 04:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
      • It certainly makes a change ;) Muffled Pocketed 05:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
After a brief skim, the close seemed fundamentally fine. I could have missed something, but I wouldn't worry too much about it.Tazerdadog (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
"Aggrieved" is too strong a word. The discussion was a mix of (1) the usual unproductive, combative bickering, which will always be present in any discussion that is open to anyone, and (2) constructive discussion of what I feel is one of the most pressing core issues facing us today. (Strongly disagree with NeilN's "something useful" assessment, as there is nothing more useful than constructive debate of foundational issues.) It was closed apparently on the basis of the former, and I felt it should have been left open on the basis of the latter. That's it. I was and am prepared to move on rather than make a big issue of it. ―Mandruss  05:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd also note that, for future reference, discussions on someone's user talk page should generally be left to that user to close if they want to, unless for some reason they request an outside editor close it. I'd probably be a little irritated if someone started closing discussions on my talk page. That being said, unless Jimbo objects or reopens it, we may as well leave it lie. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate this feedback; it is helpful and I will abide by its good counsel. It is not my normal manner to non-admin close a discussion and I don't know why I felt in this case that I should. I followed an impulse and soon began feeling like I had overstepped propriety. I am glad that I've not earned a sanction and give my assurance that I won't repeat this again. Sometimes I feel like a fool and it happens that this became one of those times; I apologize. I sincerely thank everyone who gave of their time to help me with such thoughtful advice. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo has, in the past, been absent for extended periods, and has welcomed rational moderation at his talk page. There is no doubt that the discussion had gone well beyond a reasonable length, and closing such discussions on Jimbo's talk page has been the rule rather than the exception. In the case at hand, I would have suggested that it too far too long for someone to close that discussion" which had reached quite unreasonable length. 6000 words is far too long, and this went far beyond that lenient value. Collect (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, I've moved on from that particular discussion, but the preceding comment is worth a response.
An arbitrary word limit is all well and good for the average everyday discussion. For discussions that have some potential for improvement on core issues, not so much. Solutions to these problems are very difficult, but they are impossible if constructive discussion of them is shut down on grounds of length. These are highly complex issues that can't be resolved in 5,000 words. The question we should ask is whether or not the discussion has completely devolved into pointless argument, and that one had not. As long as there is something constructive going on, and the talk page's owner doesn't object, no number of words is too many.
It would have been helpful to take action to end the unproductive part of the thread, but there is apparently no way to do that (there is a very wide gap between pointless bickering and actionable disruption). ―Mandruss  21:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Look at it this way. Want to shut down a good discussion? Start a fight. Someone will be along shortly to nac it. ―Mandruss  21:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
John Cline, your first link is dead. Would you mind going into the archives and finding the thread and linking it from there? (BTW, this is why it's best to provide a perma-link from an iteration of a page rather than from the live page.) Softlavender (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Permalink to archived thread: [1]Mandruss  22:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, Mandruss. I was asking John Cline (or you if you like) to fix his link in his OP. Softlavender (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
LOL. Or you if you like! I am converting both opening links to permalinks—to their respective original locations, for consistency. ―Mandruss  00:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Mandruss for improving the links, and Softlavender for drawing my attention to this situation; I'll keep it with things I intend to remember when making future edits. Best.--John Cline (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Review of AE block of Jensbest

There is clear consensus that the block was appropriate. There is, additionally, consensus that Jensbest should be topic banned from the subject of Donald Trump, broadly construed. Arbitration enforcement won't even be necessary in this case, as there is a clear consensus to apply such a topic ban as a community sanction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Jensbest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

For Jensbest: "No detailed explanation is given for this blocking. Also on the redacted part of the talk page to the article about Donald Trump there were no wording used by me which are in anyway untrue and a violation of WP:BLP" [2] --NeilN talk to me 05:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This is my second block of Jensbest. They've wiped out all the notices and warnings on their talk page. There has been extensive discussion on Talk:Donald Trump on complying with BLP on the talk page (most of it collapsed). Example: Use WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:NOTFORUM as guidelines. Stick closely to what sources say, don't post assertions like "x is a psychopath" or "x is racist", and you should be fine." This was Jensbest's post. --NeilN talk to me 05:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support block and recommend a topic ban. Wikipedia talk pages shouldn't be battlegrounds for personal attacks on people, particularly on the talk pages of their own biographies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I forgot I told him earlier he would be facing a topic ban [3] if he made this kind of edit (provided the revert as it's easier to see BLP violation) again. If sanctions are upheld but it is felt a topic ban is more appropriate I'm fine with that. --NeilN talk to me 05:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support block and recommend a topic ban from Donald Trump-related articles. If you look at this user's talk page history, you can see that he was warned multiple times about his editing on the Donald Trump article, and he deleted the warnings. He was:
  • given two Twinkle warnings by Winkelvi, on August 13 and again on August 14;
  • given a formal ArbCom/DS warning by NeilN on August 14 at 1:21;
  • blocked for 48 hours by NeilN per Arbcom sanctions on August 14 at 20:59;
  • given a formal warning of possible topic ban by NeilN on August 19, based on an edit on the Trump talk page that had to be redacted;
  • given a formal ArbCom/DS warning by The Wordsmith on August 19;
  • given a formal ArbCom/DS warning by me on August 21;
  • blocked for a week by NeilN per ArbCOM discretionary sanctions on August 22.
The user then asked to have his appeal copied to here, which NeilN has done. In my opinion this user appears to be a scofflaw who has no intention of abiding by Wikipedia guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S. For more insight into this editor and his understanding of Wikipedia, see his recent comments on his talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the talk page, there seems literally no comprehension of what's the problem- merely reiterating the BLPvio that led to the block in the first place. This rather suggests the editor is still not getting it... Muffled Pocketed 06:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support block, and recommend topic ban. I have revoked talk page access as it is being used to continue the BLP violations. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC) (And a bonus point to MelanieN for use of the word "scofflaw". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC))
    I suggest an indefinite topic ban, which can be appealed after six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support block and recommend topic ban: Based on his responses on the appeal, it seems to me that Jensbest doesn't realize or doesn't care that his commentary on Trump is in violation of policy and the attempts by multiple editors to explain it aren't working - either WP:BLPTALK, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, the WP:AC/DS procedures or some combination of them. I think there is a high risk that this behaviour will recommence as soon as the block expires, so I think a topic ban will be necessary until they give assurances that they understand the policies & intend to abide by them.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support block and topic ban from Trump and related articles. They're here to push their POV. Sadly, this kind of thing may get worse as the election approaches, on both sides. Katietalk 11:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    After reading further, I'd support an indefinite topic ban from American politics, broadly construed, that can be appealed after six months. If the consensus is to keep it to Trump, I'd support that too.Katietalk 19:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus forming around implementing a topic ban. Any thoughts as to the length of this topic ban? --NeilN talk to me 12:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support block and 6 month topic ban - After I saw the posts from this editor on talk:Donald Trump I headed over to Jensbest's talk page to give them a warning only to discover that they had already received several. Jenbest has demonstrated that they don't understand or accept our standards of editing and talk page participation, and that they are not able to edit Trump-related articles objectively. A six month topic ban will allow to Jenbest to make other contributions, and reflect on how they can make productive contributions to Trump articles after the heat of the election has subsided.- MrX 12:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I concur as above, with one additional comment: Topic bans depend on voluntary compliance by the individual. Given Jensbest's habit of deleting and ignoring warnings, and his inability to understand what he is doing wrong, it will be necessary to explain very clearly to him what a topic ban is and what the consequences will be if he violates it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Block and a topic ban from BLPs and American Politics (broadly construed). The editor doesn't seem to be able to keep their cool dealing with politics and refuses to understand why the edits to Donald Trump are a serious issue, which shows they either don't understand or are unwilling to follow the BLP policy. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support block If you can't check your political POV at the door when you enter a political article space you have no business editing there. Indefinite topic ban is the only option, with no appeal earlier than a year from enactment of the ban. Blackmane (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Recommend indef block as NOTHERE, per observations above, by MelanieN that "In my opinion this user appears to be a scofflaw who has no intention of abiding by Wikipedia guidelines" and by FIM that "Looking at the talk page, there seems literally no comprehension of what's the problem- merely reiterating the BLPvio that led to the block in the first place. This rather suggests the editor is still not getting it". -- Softlavender (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm seriously concerned with this user's prior work too, adding BLP-vios: [4], [5] and other unsourced aspersions [6], [7] (edit war), [8]; senseless removal of facts: [9]; removing cited information using bizarre edit summaries which make little or no sense: [10], [11] (is apparently on a campaign against Thierry Antinori). -- Softlavender (talk)
  • Endorse block with recommended topic ban (under both BLPSE and AP) until after November. He either doesn't understand why blatantly calling a BLP subject a racist is against policy, or doesn't care. Either way he should not be editing in this topic area, and I would have banned for less. We all need to stow our personal crap when editing here. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE - after some consideration I am led to believe this user is only here to push their point of view, and not to build an encyclopaedia. A topic ban simply would not work - I am led to believe it would be violated, considering the user has been blocked twice before. Zerotalk 14:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support three month block followed by topic indef ban for all articles related to Donald Trump. My guess is their racism tare will be done once the election is over. I don't see why they should receive an indef before being given a chance to either show they are here to edit seriously or want us to hand them the rope. I do believe, however, that given their negative obsession with Trump, an indef topic ban on him and all related articles needs to be enacted once the block expires. -- WV 14:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse block - and recommend indefinite topic ban regarding Donald Trump. There is no indication this editor is capable of writing from a neutral perspective in this area. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse block and topic ban - With the recommendation that Jensbest not discuss the matter of the block or topic ban except to reasonably request its removal. It should be made clear that Jensbest repeating what has already been said (whether in a request to remove the topic ban or made in a comment about the situation of the block (in other words complaining)), will result in a longer block. Six months to request the removal of the topic ban sounds good. A final warning that violations of the BLP policy anywhere mean an indef block or a topic ban from all BLP articles, should it be worth the time to TB. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 22:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Bad Dryer unblock request discussion

Bad Dryer has initiated a block appeal on his talk page and requested input here. See: User talk:Bad Dryer#Block review discussion at WP:AN. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  • For reference, here is the previous block review that took place in February. Katietalk 19:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • unblock with the conditions stated I'll admit I've not looked closely, but A) it's been a while and B) it sounds like there is a good understanding of the issues and C) the interaction ban and topic ban should cover most of the problems. And of course, WP:ROPE... Hobit (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC) (also posted this to his talk page, not sure where the discussion would be held, I'd think his talk page would be ideal as he can post there, but eh...)
    • I'm perfectly fine with a broader topic ban of all I/P issues. Hobit (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment is an AN request the way to go? Why can't a standard unblock request be good enough? Merely having the block endorsed at AN doesn't mean it's a community block, just that the admin block was affirmed. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    As the admin who recommended a second discussion here, I was working off the second point of WP:CBAN. That, and given the extensive background (the ARBCOM case mentioned below) I figured that the case merited wider discussion - I know from offwiki experience that "time passed" does not by default equal "issue gone". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    Because the AN discussion endorsing the block was so emphatic that it cannot be overriden by one administrator, though if you're happy I'm quite willing to reject the unblock request for the reasons given below. I think it's better if it comes here though. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Bad Dryer is an expert in goading editors who he considers not pro-Israeli enough. (Have you forgotten the User:Malik Shabazz brahooha?) If he is allowed back, then please at least topic ban him from the Israel/Palestine area, (only an interaction ban with User:Nishidani is simply not enough, IMO), Huldra (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock. BD's unblock request says "I do want to return to editing in a constructive manner", but when has he edited in a constructive manner? In his block review six months ago [12], more than a dozen highly experienced editors, many of them admins, made it clear that BD is anything but a constructive editor or asset to the encyclopedia. It was a nearly unanimous ruling. Softlavender (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unblock but... would also accept a topic ban from the whole I/P area. This is the area where his previous issues have occurred (let's not forget this includes two indefs), and I have no confidence whatsoever that they would not recur. I am also not convinced that he is not a sock of User:NoCal100; behaviour has a number of similarities both in interests and attitude, and previous Checkusers returned "Possible". Black Kite (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock (Non-administrator comment) - as I said in the previous unblock request, this user's unique awfulness manages to stand out in a topic area plagued by general awfulness. Multiple blocks for racially-charged personal attacks; one should be enough for a siteban but here we are. There are a rare few users who should never be allowed back; Bad Dryer is one of them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can only agree with Softlavender and others. In my 8+ years here, I have never seen anything approaching the rancor of 6 months ago. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support unblock, at the very least WP:ROPE, or WP:SO applies here. I would be ok with an IBAN for BD and Nishidani. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose IMO the only thing "rope" does is allow the ghastly behavior to happen again. Other editors should not have to go through the things that this editor will put them through. MarnetteD|Talk 22:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment and proposal: In the earlier WP:AN request, which I had initiated, I had opposed the indef block. My viewpoint is the same, but that argument probably isn't going to fly; so the proposed solution of unblocking them and simultaneously issuing a topic-ban from Israel-Palestine seems fine to me. I don't really see any downside to this solution. Two points about the above comments, especially by Black Kite and Ivanvector. Firstly, there was no conclusive SPI (I had initiated one myself, which went nowhere), so sockpuppet allegations are at best, unproven. The SPI here was never cleared up one way or another, and fell through the cracks. It has been a long time since then, so any CU evidence would probably be stale now. Secondly, there were no "multiple blocks for racially-charged personal attacks". There was one incident which could be deemed racially charged. The other had nothing to do with race - other than the general fact that anything dealing with Israel-Palestine does have something to do with religion or race. Kingsindian   23:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
As I said, one should be enough, and I disagree that others were not more of the same. I have made no comment on the SPI. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

New user account called User:DocJames

I am wondering if we should move this account to decrease confusion.[13]

They seem to be editing well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Softblocked. Katietalk 22:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
There is also a User:Docjames Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you have control of that account? It shouldn't redirect to your user space unless you do. Katietalk 22:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@DocJames:, @Docjames:, would you consider a change of username to help reduce confusion? Failing that, would you be willing to change your signature to a different color/style from Doc James's which is close to the default?
@Doc James:, could you consider creating doppelganger accounts on any other permutation of your name that would be likely to cause confusion? Tazerdadog (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
It was a redirect [14] but than someone created it. As the account is now blocked. Once that user makes a new account I can than replace it again with a redirect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Doc James: I believe the question is now about User:Docjames, which is another redirect to your userspace, and another user (although long inactive user). -- The Voidwalker Discuss 22:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes not sure what people wish to do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
While I don't believe they do renames anymore (unless they're wearing additional hats), I think they're the ones most likely to help point you in the right direction, so you may wish to drop a note at WP:BN. - jc37 12:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambig Misspelled

Done by 78.26. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Can someone please delete Martin May (disambiguartion). It was created in error while creating Martin May (disambiguation). Thank you! -O.R.Comms 16:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@OberRanks:You could have simply tagged it with a {{db-author}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Question about a recreated article

Unsalted by Jo-Jo Eumerus Tazerdadog (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

While discussing a possible move at Talk:The Rebel Legion#Proposed move to Rebel Legion, it was discovered that the existing The Rebel Legion probably is the same as Rebel Legion deleted back in 2009 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebel Legion. It appears that "The Rebel Legion" was (re)created (in good faith) in December 2015 and the "The" was added to the title because an article could not be created under the old name. Anyway, this latest version was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rebel Legion and the result was "keep". The article has been cleaned up quite a bit by TenTonParasol, who is proposing the move, but the name has been salted. Can an admin look at this and advise on what needs to be done. I'm not sure if the edit histories of the two need to be merged and if information about the first AfD needs to be added to the new version's talk page. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I've lifted the salting as it's evidently moot now and so that regular editors can do the move if it is agreed upon. The topic of the previous article is indeed the same as of The Rebel Legion, but I am not seeing similarity in the text so I'd say the old history is useless. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Inadvertent casting of (what some interpret as) a supervote: how to fix?

At Talk:Murder of Seth Rich there is a lively discussion about how to apply BLP to a bare mention that Wikileaks offered a $25,000 reward with no additional speculation allowed. There are multiple veteran Wikipedia editors who have offered good-faith opinion on both sides of this issue.

At Talk:Murder of Seth Rich#Administrative reminder re: BLP policy, administrator MastCell has made a declairation[15] in his official capacity as an administrator that many have interpreted as stating that one side of this policy-based content dispute is is right and the other side is wrong, and multiple editors on the side MastCell favored have pointed to this as if it settles the matter.[16][17][18][19][20]

I don't think Mastcell did anything wrong at all (please read the preceding nine words three times before dragging out the flamethrowers -- this is a good-faith discussion of a problem and how to fix it) and in no way intended to use the the admin bit is being a supervote in this way, but it is clear that some participants saw it as official admin support of their side of the content dispute.

So how do we fix this? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Best practice in general for any admin actions which seem to decide an editorial issue on any topic whatsoever is
No matter how pure the motives, Wikipedia commends us to seek consensus from the editors, not an administrative ukase on any issues at all. Collect (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: My interpretation is that all that the references cited above imply is that the editors that wrote them (including myself) agree with the interpretation of our policy done by MastCell. I don´t see any reference in any of them to the fact that he is an administrator or any claim that just because the policy in question was cited by and administrator it meant that the issue was settled. We cited his comment because we feel it is a strong and valid argument. If the same comment would have been made by a regular editor I would have still have referred to it in the exact same way, and probably the rest of the editors cited above would have as well.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • (1) You are the only person who has used the term "supervote", and only in or in regards to this AN filing, so I fail to see the problem. (2) MastCell's comment was not a !vote, it was a reminder of BLP policy, so again, I fail to see the problem, or why you are bringing this to AN. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Weasel me this... Why are "some" going to such great lengths to derail normal editing processes on this and other election-related articles? There's no basis to this concern. MastCell has been very clear and has been trying to keep the talk page focused on policy. SPECIFICO talk 11:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Fix? If there is a fix needed. Then start a proper content RfC with a specific content proposal (within the care required by BLP) and then people can make their policy based and reasoned arguments and it can be closed by an uninvolved as proposal enacted or not (and no consensus would likely also result in not). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, you have raised the more important concern. We can't have an RfC that proposes to ratify a BLP violation. The proposed content is clearly such a violation. SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Adding the phrase "WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction" does not violate BLP. Not even close. "BLP" isn't a magic word that allows you to always get your way in any content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

An example that shows the problem can be found in the second !vote of the RfC at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich: " We have an official announcement above from a Wikipedia administrator acting in his administrative capacity". That's one example of someone (wrongly) thinking that Mastcell made a ruling on the content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no stricture against citing policy in an RfC !vote, whether ad hoc or in reference to an admin's reminder; there is also no indication that that or any other voter took it as a "ruling". If you think there is something to "fix", would that for instance be MastCell removing all mention of his status as an administrator from his reminder? Softlavender (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess I would chime in and say that there are two clearly opposing sides to this dispute, both citing policy (correctly and incorrectly), and wielding said policy as it were helpful to the content dispute, instead of working on the content. My .2 would be that it is NOT a BLP violation to simply say that wikileaks has offered a reward for information regarding the murder, but some editors are saying that this itself implies a deeper link that is inappropriate to write about. I don't know how to proceed. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but look. As a thought experiment, Ernie: Why do you think Wikileaks offered a reward and then when questioned by a reporter why did Assange make a statement about "our sources take risks" in the context of this reward? I'm just asking for your personal take on that. It was televised, citation on the talk page so you can view it if you wish. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I certainly have my opinion as to why they offered the reward, but it would be WP:OR to add my speculation to the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I know you're capable of understanding my question, so your (non-)response sounds like a coy evasion. I didn't ask you to put it in the article. I asked for your evaluation of the sourced material. We constantly evaluate material from all kinds of sources as part of our responsibility to present sourced material in context, with due weight, on-topic, etc. So batter-up. What say you? SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, my personal opinion would be that Wikileaks offered a reward to either grab some headlines or somehow imply that Rich was their source for the DNC leak. But please note that this opinion, if included in our wikipedia article (which no one is trying to do), would be a violation of WP:OR, WP:V, and I'll just throw out WP:BLP since everyone else is. My personal opinion has no place in the article; only reliably sourced and notable facts do. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Mr Ernie. The problem is that your opinion, though it's just a suspicion and not proven and perhaps even an idle thought, is reasonable reaction. If we put the reward story in the article other readers can be expected to have the same reaction. That would be WP:SYNTH and the conclusion that many readers would draw -- their reasonable inference -- would be a BLP violation, and a serious one suggesting unethical and/or criminal behavior. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll post the same thing here that I did at the RfC, where Guy Macon also posted his original comment: What MastCell did, was provide a clueful and therefore authoritative perspective on how BLP reads on the decision.  !votes that fail to take BLP into account at all as many of them do, are likely to be given less weight by a clueful closer and if the closer doesn't take BLP into account, the close will be liable to be overturned (not necessarily overturned, but open to be overturned). Other clueful admins have also weighed in on how BLP applies to this issue, see here, and came to different conclusions about how BLP applies (but directly addressed BLP) so anyone who takes MastCell's view as The Only Possible View is out to lunch. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC) ((add clarification since there is apparent confusion about what I meant Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC))
  • This being AN, I would at this time like to formally request a closer or closers who is an uninvolved admin with a lot of experience closing contentious RfCs. If possible, more than one: a little extra time spent now coming up with two or three admins who agree on what to exclude and who carefully word the closing statement will avoid a boatload of time later as the losing side tries to relitigate the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I presume you mean for a month from now. The RfC was just opened yesterday. Softlavender (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I think an experienced admin should close it sooner than later to prevent disruption, as I doubt we'll get any new insight. Maybe not today, but probably not after a month. Per WP:RFC the process doesn't have to run the full 30 days. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I note the conspicuous absence of admins commenting here; there is nothing actionable in the OP. And there is no reason to close the RfC early. The question is difficult and the more clueful input that is given, the better. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, having looked at that RfC, it's rather likely to be useless probably because the proposal is not in the form to propose the precise words and source(s): "example"[cite]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes the trigger was pulled without proposing it to make sure everybody was OK with how it was posed. hell is other people; par for the wikipedia course, limping along as best we can. .Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Re "there is nothing actionable in the OP", sure there is. You could tell the admin to be more careful in his wording (if you thought his wording was not careful enough, which I definitely do not). You could correct those editors who incorrectly interpreted the admin's comments as a supervote. You could put together a panel of three rock-solid uninvolved admins to close and RfC that will be challenged (see the attempts to relitigate the recent AfD). You could re-affirm the basic principle that when several experience editors conclude that saying that Wikileaks offered a $25,000 reward is not, in itself, a BLP violation while several other experienced editors conclude that saying that Wikileaks offered a $25,000 reward is, in itself, a BLP violation, that no admin should, in his official capacity, state or even imply that one side is right and the other wrong but should instead speak as an ordinary editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You are misreading what MastCell wrote at the Talk page, and if you had questions you should have asked MastCell directly, as Mr. Ernie did; MastCell's response to Mr Ernie here is quite clear. This is drama that no admins are taking up. It was just unwise, Guy. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hidden page

Ok, so I was going through some old edit histories (as I am sometimes wont to do : ) - and I came across this.

Seems innocuous at first glance.

However, read the discussion and then try to click on the link of the redirect in question.


It seems that C: is now the interwiki link for the Commons. (See this discussion.)

So just for housekeeping, I thought I'd speedy the redirect, as it clearly doesn't now get anyone anywhere (and so isn't aiding navigation in any way).

But here's the thing... I can't actually get to that redirect : )

I think we have a page that is trapped in the system which can't be accessed through typical means.

Now it shouldn't be a big deal, as I doubt the commons will ever need that page, but it's interesting enough that I wanted to share with all of you : )

Oh, and going through allpages, I found the following as well (though they do not appear to have this issue):

(And now I'll wait as someone will come along to tell me how it's actually simple to get to, "like this" : ) - jc37 12:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Jc37, it's actually simple to get to if you know how to use the API to get these pages; there was an incident some time back in which the software momentarily permitted the creation of an article beginning with "de:", which of course quickly became inaccessible, undeleteable, and unmoveable, so we had to wait until someone familiar with API-based work was able to handle it. I'm not one of those someones. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
<applause> Congratulations on having tea and no tea at the same time! : ) - jc37 13:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
[edit conflict with the applause] PS, I thought perhaps I'd get it by going through John Vandenberg's contributions for January 2014 (he sent it to RFD, so presumably he added the RFD template to the page), but it's not there. Deleted contributions? There's a relevant line:

(change visibility) 00:26, 11 January 2014 (diff | deletion log | view) . . C:WPCATSUP (Listed for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 11#C:WPCATSUP. (TW))

So the revision has been deleted. But click the (diff) link, and you get a message I've never seen before, MediaWiki:Undeleterevision-missing. Or go to Special:Undelete/C:WPCATSUP, and you discover that there are no deleted revisions in the database. I'm guessing that the process of turning C: into a crosswiki prefix caused all revisions of all C: pages to be deleted and then "really" deleted those revisions entirely. You know how computer experts can often recover files that you've deleted from your hard drive, but it's much harder (or impossible?) to recover old revisions of files if you've saved a newer revision on top of it. I think this is the same situation: causing "C:" to be an entirely different kind of topic caused the wholesale destruction of everything previously at that location, but since the deletion logs and the stuff that appears at Special:Undelete is probably stored separately, there's no technical reason that it can't appear there: the software can tell that a page previously existed at this title, and it knows that John Vandenberg made an edit to it, but there's no live revision of such a page, so it should be listed in Special:Deletedcontributions. So overall, it's the bizarre effect of a rare developer intervention in the revision database. Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
PPS, </applause>. jc37, you ruined the HTML validation by not closing your tag :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Please consider it ongoing applause : )
And yes, my guess was and is that this may very well require someone with that magical un-knowable thing called shell access to resolve : ) - jc37 13:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

If nobody can get to it, why does it need to be deleted? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it actually exists. For example, c:ThisIsOnlyATest. You can create any link to commons you want, and it doesn't appear to check to see if it exists before making it a blue link. Kbdank71 16:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Admin attention is required

again for Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions, which has a ~500 item backlog dating back to May. Most of these are very easy closures; any help is appreciated! -FASTILY 18:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Evad37/FFDcloser is a good userscript for the people who find all the manual template adding and removing tedious. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Involved action by admin Ritchie333 on Main Page

Please see WT:DYK#Error on Main Page for 12 hours, after involved admin reverted it ion the main page to the wrong version!. Basically, user:Ritchie333 has reverted the DYK section on the Main Page back to a hook he had suggested in the first place, about an article he brought to GA status. The hook was corrected by user:Gatoclass, but Ritchie333 objected to the correction and reverted it without prior discussion, violating WP:INVOLVED badly. First discussion with him doesn't seem to indicate that he understands the problem. Fram (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Isn't bold editing how the main page's content pages (noticeably ITN) are typically handled? My impression was that most people don't care about involvement there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Please, you guys (/gals), is this really ANIAN-worthy? Can you just take 24 hours and talk about it again over at Talk:DYK? EEng 20:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow. An ontological debate over the exact meaning of "removed their boobs" vs "carried fake breasts"? I'm not sure we've even established that in Devon, or even Cornwall, breasts, whether fake or not, are seen as "a distraction to drivers." And, who knows, even EngVar might have motivated Ritchie here. The Main Page can be such a dangerous place, these days. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • The problem for here is not with the meaning of the hook (and let's be clear, removed vs carried is quite different), but with the involvement (it wasa hook he had nominated in the first place, not some random hook). 22:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • If they mean the same thing, any involvement is irrelevant. So is the meaning relevant, or not?. I trust you've asked Ritchie to fully explain his motivation before inviting him here. And that his explanation was somehow lacking. Editors who take articles to GA status are sometimes regarded as subject matter experts, allegedly. Perhaps we ought to look at "wearing" vs "carrying"? Or maybe even "timebomb"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
        • I didn't know that the standards at AN had dropped as far as they have at DYK. Since when did "they removed X" mean the same as "they carried X"? And GA is a joke (someone please explain to me how this whole breast cancer episode is an important aspect of the history (or, for crying out loud, the "legacy") of this bridge in the first place?) and writing a GA doesn't make anyone an expert on the subject or a master of accuracy. Fram (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
          • Having removed your false breasts, I think you'll find you can carry them in your hand, over your shoulders or even on top of your head. But great to see Ritchie making joke GAs as well as forcing the public to read his lies at DYK. Perhaps he could throw his tools into the Tamar for us. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
            • Please join him, as all you seem to be wanting to do is defend him no matter what. If you don't know the difference between "you can" and "they have", then you shouldn't bother writing or defending DYKs and GAs. We should never present something as "this happened" on the main page (or in articles) when all we know is "this may have happened". That this happens occasionally can't be prevented, but if someone then checks your edit and corrects it, then why would you revert back to the OR version (or defend such action)? Fram (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
              • Thanks for those kind words of encouragement. But I see you're now changing tack, away from the "removed" vs "carried" distinction, to whether or not anything like that actually happened. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
                • We know that they removed them, we don't know whether they carried them and have nothing to indicate that they did, but the hook stated it as if it was a clear and sourced fact. No changing of tack here, just not being used to someone who likes to misunderstand everything only to defend a wikifriend. Fram (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
                  • Thanks for the personal attack."Good luck" at ArbCom. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is something of a storm in a teacup: neither of the hooks was very good. Ritchie333 is probably in line for a WP:TROUT for re-adding a mistake to the main page, and Gatoclass might also warrant one for what I think is dubious grammar in their corrected version of the hook. But I share Jo-Jo's understanding that in general it's OK for admins to jump in and adjust stuff they have a connection to on the main page in the interest of quickly fixing errors here. When I've done so I, from memory, have always posted a note at WP:ERRORS for transparency. But the short version is that everyone seems to have been acting in good faith. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The problem is, they re-added a mistake using their administrator status - normal editors could not have made an obvious error visible on the main page for 12 hours. While its fine for admins to jump in and fix the main page, its *not* fine for another admin to then revert it keeping the error visible. That is trout-worthy. What pushes this over into 'bring out the tuna' is that the admin was deeply involved in the mistake to start with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the error was "obvious." I think that's the main reason we've ended up here. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
It is once it had already been pointed out. This didnt happen out of the blue. But this is a common issue with DYK hook wordings. I dont think any serious outcome needs to come from this, but it was two issues that caused this. First using administrator status in what is effectively a content dispute, secondly, using their administrator status in a content dispute in which they were involved. Both of which are explicitly forbidden. You could go with the first being a good faith - its the nature of the main page its only editable by admins, but the second is in no way an unforseeable or good faith thing. The only excuse in the us of admin status where involved is 'would any other admin have taken the same actions?' and this in no way comes close to that, being a trivial dispute over wording. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
That's not a totally unfair appraisal. But I'm glad that you've used the word trivial. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Even if he had been right content-wise, he should have left the reversal to someone else (or he could have pulled the hook and discussed things). That the error may have been trivial (well, a hook saying the exact opposite of what happened as far as we know isn't really trivial) is hardly an excuse for allowing a clearly involved admin action. If it's your hook, your article, then you don't edit the main page to get your preferred version there, as that is something other editores can't do. Fram (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we'll just have to disagree here about your interpretation of the term "exact opposite". An involved admin action is indeed a mistake. I think you'd be fully justified in leaving a stern note on Ritchie's Talk Page, whether you're a "prolific contributor" over there or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
He doesn't care about the involved part, as is clear from his one response at WT:DYK and his absence here. Fram (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that imputation is unnecessary and unjustified. But then you've already given me my marching orders, so I'll have to leave it to others. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Your thinking in the whole of this discussion has been rather clouded, so no surprise here. Fram (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I notice that User:Ritchie333 has been quite active since this section started, but hasn't responded to the WP:INVOLVED allegations here or elsewhere. This of course violates WP:ADMINACCT. (I also note that Martinevans123, the most active defender of Ritchie333 here, is also the most prolific editor at his talk page; in general, it is better if neutral editors look at these problems, in my opinion). Fram (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

By number of edits or number of bites? Yes, I'm always over there telling him he's useless. A neutral appraisal is fine by me. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Considering the sort of argy-bargy that goes on on the mainpage sections (and is currently under investigation at ArbCom), I don't see this as a serious breach, if one at all. The worst of it is that that ridiculous piece of trivia is even in the Tamar Bridge article at all. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
How can this not be a breach of WP:INVOLVED? Can I now add any hook I want from any article I wrote to the Main Page at all times, even when it already has been corrected by another admin? I get the impression that most admins here have simply given up on the main page (and/or GA), even though it is the most visible part of Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Fram, what exactly do you want here? A punitive block? A de-sysop? An ArbCom trial? A stern warning? Here is the sequence of events: Ritchie changed the hook back to the way it had been approved and to what to him was the more correct version, with the edit summary "rvt back to what was in prep and reviewed, if you want to change the hook, pull it and add a note on WT:DYK": [21] (apparently figuring that making the fix was quicker than listing it on Errors and waiting for someone else to fix it). He then notified Gatoclass on DYK talk, saying "I have reverted your undiscussed change to the Tamar Bridge back to what was reviewed and put in prep. Using 'boobs' trivialises breast cancer, and carrying fake breasts across the bridge does not imply they wore them. (I also preferred the non-breast related hook, but that's consensus for you...) If you were uncertain about the factual accuracy of the hook, you could have pulled it from queue." [22]. When BlueMoonset posted on his talk page that Gatoclass had changed the hook, Ritchie explained that he disagreed with the change but that if it was a serious problem the hook should be pulled: [23]. Speaking for myself, as a woman I find it offensive that the word "boobs" was even on the main page, much less in reference to breast cancer. Softlavender (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
If he doesn't show any understanding of how his actions violated INVOLVED (and by now ADMINACCT), then yes, a desysop would be best, or a topic ban from DYK. I am not defending the replacement hook, which may have had its own problems. Ritchie333 should have listed the hook at ERRORS or at WT:DYK, or pulled it and opened a discussion at WT:DYK (pulling it would technically also breach INVOLVED, but temporarily removing a contentious hook from the Main Page is much less of a problem than readding your own contentious hook). His reply at my section at WT:DYK indicates that he understands neither the problem with the hook nor with his actions, and since he hasn't discussed these things since, I have no reason to assume this has changed. Not understanding how this hook was wrong dissqualifies him from work at DYK: not understanding how his actions were a breach of INVOLVED warrants a desysop. At the moment, all we have is evidence of making these errors and no indication at all of understanding how they were errors, hence no reasonable assurance that they won't happen again. Fram (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
"Not understanding how this hook was wrong dissqualifies him from work at DYK" -- well, to Ritchie it wasn't wrong, and it wasn't directly refuted by the sources, and it was a definite improvement over the offensive replacement. Admins inadvertently put incorrect stuff on the main page all the time, and there is no actual proof that Ritchie's version was wrong. Likewise, if you're going to ban Ritchie from DYK for re-wording an offensive hook to something that wasn't verifiably incorrect, I'd say you should moreso ban Gatoclass for changing the hook to add an offensive misogynistic term, and in relation to breast cancer no less. I agree with Nick-D above -- Ritchie did exactly what Nick-D says he himself has done many times -- change a main-page hook he was involved with. And as Nick notes, everyone was acting in good faith. Are we going to put Gatoclass on trial here for not understanding the misogyny of using the word "boobs" on the main page, especially in relation to breast cancer? If not, then there's no reason to put Ritchie on trial for doing the same thing that Nick-D says he himself has done several times. Softlavender (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Looking at this, it can't have been "many times" for Nick-D, most are replies to WP:ERRORS, and one is an action he self-reverts. He is free to indicate which ones were comparable to Ritchie333s action. His only edit to the page this year doesn't change the meaning of the hook[24]. The one before that, Template:Did you know nominations/Gloria Lim was not by him, so not an involved action. Which means that his most recent comparable action, if any, was from January 2014 or earlier... As for this instance: a hook which isn't supported by the sources is wrong, that is the basic rule of DYK. What he did was WP:OR. That to him it wasn't wrong is one of the problems, and one of the reasons he should stop doing DYK work (certainly of this kind, nominating articles is probably still acceptable). That you consider a wrong hook an improvement over a mildly offensive one is your view, having neither (i.e. pulling it) was in any case a lot better. But feel free to start a section about Gatoclass if you feel so strongly about it. This is about Ritchie's actions, and his lack of response to it. Fram (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Softlavender, the misogyny of using "boobs": have you even looked at the source for all this? Walkers remove their boobs to cross the Tamar[25] is the actual title of the source for the hook (and with such a title, I don't understand how the hook was ever proposed or accepted anyway). Blaming Gatoclass for using the same word as the source seems inappropriate. Fram (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So Fram, now you have taken this to ArbCom, I see: [26]. Unless Ritchie has repeatedly created problems at DYK, I find this action baffling. Softlavender (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems relevant for the case, no? Fram (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No, not at all, unless Ritchie has repeatedly caused problems at DYK. You mentioned his name three times in that report. Softlavender (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Proof? Seems evident that Ritchie's hook was wrong in the DYK sense, as the source did not say they carried them, and a further source since put on the DYKTALK page appears to have an image of them on the bridge not carrying anything (which makes sense, as the point was to not have the costumes on the bridge, so, the hook was not only unsupported but it may have actively misrepresented the march). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The phrasing "removed their boobs" on the mainpage, in the context of breast cancer awareness, was offensive and created a risk of bringing the project into disrepute, so its removal is defensible as an emergency action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@NYB, "Removed their boobs" is the wording of the actual source so that, at least, is defensible. The (ridiculously minor) issue is whether the fact should have been mentioned in the article at all (definitely not) and whether "removed" can be assumed to mean "carried" (probably yes). ‑ Iridescent 08:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
And whether an admin should restore his own nomination to the main page (which is comparable to an admin reclosing an AFD discussion he started as delete after another admin already closed it as keep). (And of course assuming = OR). Fram (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The phrasing "removing their boobs" came right from the source (provided by Ritchie333), like I indicated above; he didn't remove the phrase because of supposed offensiveness but because it wasn't the hook he had proposed, and putting incorrect information on the main page is not likely to bring the project into disrepute or what? Your priorities seem to be completely wrong here. Fram (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    • That phrasing did not belong on our mainpage regardless of who else might have used it. I agree that it might have been better to have dispensed with this factoid altogether. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Brad, the organisation in question explicitly uses the term "boob" exclusively in their own publicity materials (indeed, the event in question was actually called "Boob Walk"). Avoiding potential offensiveness is laudable, but when you're endorsing actively avoiding the terminology the campaigners themselves prefer because you personally disapprove of it, it's well over the "inappropriate" line. I may not be a fan of Fram's shoot-em-all approach to curating DYK, but in this instance he's completely correct. ‑ Iridescent 12:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
        • As much as I agree with you Brad, that really is beside the point, here. (That is a MAINPAGE talk discussion and knowing the history there, that would be a long discussion with a most uncertain outcome to actually keep it off the mainpage -- the group wants notice obviously, but it seems they don't mean to be offensive - we don't have to use their words, but there would be many editors who would defiantly 'notcensored' that.) The issue here, though, is not that --it is a matter concerning discussion of a factually wrong, unsupported, misrepresentation and INVOLVED edits to the main page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Deceitful PRODs

I was patrolling the expired PRODs and found a user that is using a deceitful practice to ensure the article's they PROD are deleted. Sixth of March has been adding PRODs to articles. Then they comment out the PROD so it does not show up when someone views the article. They then come back 7 days later and remove the comment so it does up and gets deleted. I have gone back to 7 July and found instances of this practice. I have restored many that were deleted this way. I figured it out after deleting two articles. On the third article there were intervening edits and reverts by Sixth of March. I started to look to see if the ip had removed the PROD and if it had been restored. I looked at intervening edits, where it hasn't been removed but it wasn't showing up either. Initially I assumed the best and thought it was a mistake. I decided the best course was to reset the click on the PROD. Then I looked at the fourth and found the same thing. I also went back and looked at the two I had deleted and found the same thing. I restored those two, declined all 4 PRODs and warned Sixth of March if I saw this ever happen again that I would block them. I then started looking through contributions and deleted edits and found more of the same. This isn't an isolated event. My main reason to bring this here it's to notify other admins to be on the look out for this tactic. -- GB fan 23:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The editor has also commented out project banners on the talkpages of the affected artices (see Talk:Damdaming Bayan - restored now). GermanJoe (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
After looking some more I think the earliest article that was deleted this way was DYGB. It was initially PRODd 22 May with the PROD commented out 1 minute after the PROD. The comment tags were removed 28 May. -- GB fan 23:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
We kind of duplicated work, I looked thru his deleted contribs and agree it started around 22 May. I'm going thru his delete contribs and restoring any page where this was done. It looks like you might be doing the same. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I restored three nine commented out banners.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sixth of March also added a prod here which was legitimate, but when it was removed a day later, they restored it an hour later here, in violation of policy. It was removed again, so it did not get deleted, but that second addition was clearly contrary to policy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I restored or declined 27 PRODd articles. -- GB fan 00:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Devious. Is there any possible way to AGF with this? Seems like an obvious attempt at WP:GAMING or otherwise intentional manipulation of a process. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to AGF the restoration of a removed Prod, not all new editors know the rule that you cannot restore it, but I'm awaiting an explanation of how commenting out project banner and Prods are justifiable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe I've restored all the PRODs where this trick was used. Agree with GB fan that it seemed to have started around 22 May, so I went thru every PROD he made between then and now. A few were done legitimately, but I restored 18 pages and their talk pages. Anyway, half an hour of my life I'll never get back. I didn't look at their speedy deletion nominations and AFD nominations, I'm not about to start second guessing admins who looked at the articles and agreed with his speedy nominations and an AFD has sufficient eyes. But the hidden PROD trick made all of the PROD deletions invalid. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow. I've never seen anyone do that. It will be interesting to hear an explanation, as I can't think of any valid reason for that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I can hazard a guess; I think around that time he dealt with one or two people who were mass-declining PRODs, as kind of a political act against PRODs in general, rather than a true disagreement with each particular PROD. This may have been his attempt to prevent that. of course, also it completely prevented legitimate readers of the articles from disputing the PROD too, unless they happened to look at the article history. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Okay, that's a semi-valid reason, though not valid enough to actually do because of the secondary fallout you mentioned. If it can be shown that one or two people where trying to make a political statement against PRODs by closing them improperly, then he should have brought his concerns to ANI or some other appropriate venue. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
        • That might be a reason but not very good one IMO. We should fix the problem, not game the system to try to right what is perceived as a wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. Thanks for the help in cleaning up, I got pulled away in the middle. -- GB fan 01:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
          • Concur. I find it hard to see an expalantion of this that doesn't involve bad faith on the part of Sixth of March. I'd be open to hearing an explanation for them, but I agree that a block if they do it again is also an appropriate reaction. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC).
  • There are some more where the prod tag wasn't hidden, but project templates on the talk page were disabled. I'm restoring them as well for abuse of the prod process. Monty845 02:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
They appear to go back to February 2016. I've now restored all the affected prods. There are also AFD discussions that closed as delete while the project banners were commented out, resulting in the projects not getting notifications about the AfD discussion. This isn't something an admin can unilaterally undo, and its less clear it tainted the result than in the case of the PRODs, but it should at least be raised as a potential topic of discussion. Monty845 02:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow. That's...I'm impressed. Of all the out-of-process deletions I've seen, I've never had one that creative. It would almost be a shame to block for a tactic as underhanded and brilliant as this one. Almost. I'm keeping an open mind, but I'm honestly not seeing any good faith explanation so a block or a topic ban from the deletion process might be necessary.
On another note, now that this idea has been made public, is there any sort of template-magic we can do to subvert this if someone in the future tries it? The WordsmithTalk to me 03:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that any AfD discussion where this user had commented out the WikiProject banners should be mentioned at the involved WikiProject talk pages, along with an explicit mention of the option of WP:DELREV. I would trust any speedy deletions he tagged, unless there is any evidence of this user changing pages to match the CSDs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, why isn't this user blocked? Why in the world would anyone assume good faith here, in the face of such deliberate destruction? Also, how does a brand-new user even know about commenting out? They are obviously a returning user; their first edit ever was this: [27]. They are an SPA for Filipino radio. Does this ring any bells? At the very least their rollback rights should be revoked. Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • They haven't edited since the issue was raised here eleven hours back, so let's give them the chance to offer an explanation. I can't imagine what that explanation would be, but hope springs eternal that there is one. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Out of interest, is there anything that explicitly says 'dont do this'? While it is obviously sneaky, is it actually prohibited anywhere? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Not sure, but not convinced it matters. One can compile several books with all the manners people can be deceptive and edit inappropriately. We cannot have comprehensive lists for all "don't do"s. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Deletion tags/notices of any sort must remain visible on the article they are placed on until they are actually removed via a normal process. That's the only way for most users to know that the article is being considered for deletion. Softlavender (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
        • If we're going full-on wikilawyer mode, WP:PROD plainly states that "it may only be placed on an article a single time. Any editor (including the article's creator) may... simply remov[e] the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD." Lower, it exhorts administrators to "confirm that... the {{proposed deletion}} tag has been in place continuously for at least 7 days" (em mine). —Cryptic 11:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
            • There was a discussion that concluded that if the editor that placed the PROD removed the PROD themselves that did not count as an objection to deletion and the article could have another PROD added. I do agree though that the new PROD must be visible on the article for the whole 7 days. This isn't really relevant to this concern as the obvious intention was not to remove the PROD but to make it harder for others to object. -- GB fan 11:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
        • This is basically fraud. An editor claimed that the banner had been on display for the full period but it hadn't. Wikipedia:Honesty would cover this. Deryck C. 11:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
          • Closing admins should check that there is no silliness like this before deleting, I always do. I don't think it's appropriate to put in a list of all the things that one is not allowed to do, it should be patently obvious to anyone that hiding the tag in this way is not in the spirit of the guideline and not permitted. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC).
            • Closing admins should look for this. Most of the ones I see that were deleted wee ones where there wire no intervening edits. The PROD was added then commented out and then restored. With no other edits taking place. I think I probably saw the edits and thought that they were just fixing the PROD, assume good faith. It was only when I saw the edits by an ip and then reverts that I started to look at every edit to figure out what happened. There are quite a few admins, including me that were deceived. The tactic obvious worked but I am hoping that admins will look closer from now on. -- GB fan 12:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Topic-ban from Deletion

I recommend a topic-ban from all deletion actions. Commenting out the PROD is disgraceful and deceptive. (Restoring a removed PROD is improper but a common mistake, but making a PROD invisible is a different matter.) Robert McClenon (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support topic-ban from deletion as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban We should just block this guy. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this proposal is premature. We need to give them the chance to change their actions on their own first. There is no evidence that CSD is a concern and the only AFD concern is the removal of project banners on talk pages. This is only a concern for PROD. There are many more eyes on their actions now and I believe that if they ever try this again, a block will be swift. -- GB fan 14:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree. Blocking is supposed to be preventative, and I see no evidence that the editor has engaged in the inappropriate activity after being warned, so blocking isn't warranted at this time. As for a topic ban, while the actions go beyond even a careless disregard of process, I think in the interest of process, we shouldn't be instituting a ban for an action that has (not yet) occurred after the first warning. I don't wish to understate the seriousness of the concern, but other than technical blocks for improper usernames, we generally don't mete out punishment without any prior discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Thirded. There's a big spotlight on him now, and we can discuss a topic ban later. (Although I'm really interested in the explanation. Just when I thought I'd seen everything.) Katietalk 15:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Seems like a good time to hand out a good-sized length of rope and see what happens. A+ for ingenuity, though. PGWG (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose let them come and explain themselves first, as they haven't edited since the opening of this discussion. Pinguinn 🐧 18:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Premature. Lets give them an opportunity to explain themselves before breaking out the torches and pitchforks. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC).

Proposed block

I propose that the user in question is blocked for 1 year. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support As nom. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Again, oppose. There is no indication that this will continue now that it has been brought out. If it does continue it will meet swift action and they will be blocked, probably for more than a year. -- GB fan 14:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I refer the honourable editors to the answer I gave a short time ago, in the section above.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Opppose - Such a bloch would clearly be punitive. If it happens again, sure, but I see no reason to suspect it will happen again. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support indef block. Why we are even entertaining the idea of retaining a vandal is beyond me. Support indef block; possible SO in a year if they explain why they engaged in such repeated and deliberate vandalism. There's also the question of who the editor actually is, as they were far too clueful from the get-go to be a newbie. Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Premature. Lets give them an opportunity to explain themselves before breaking out the torches and pitchforks. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC).

Mass creation of Indian astrologer pages with phone number

For past few days, many Indian astrologer/Indian Godmen(who can cure homosexuality, erection problem, premature ejaculation)/Indian hypnotist/Indian soothsayer articles, are being created. Are they part of a paid group? I don't remember all the page names. These article names are large and the name includes a phone number. I don't have all the pages in my watchlist. Check user can help here.

Check my contributions and User:Justinzilla/CSD log.
User talk:GAJANAN V. KHARE Another one. This is not the full list. There are many which were tagged for speedy deletion by other page patrollers. Marvellous Spider-Man 07:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I just used SPECIAL:NUKE to delete about a half dozen articles like this started by User:Balusharma. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
This is another User talk:Lovekus45. Marvellous Spider-Man 07:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If artrologer isn't a word, it should be. EEng 07:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
My recent deletion log also contains a variety. This has been going on, on and off, for more than a year. Special:AbuseFilter/425 is the relevant filter, which obviously needs some adjustment. They're described as spambots, but there might be a human or two around somewhere. When someone creates so many accounts so quickly after being blocked, checkusers and range blocks are usually not going to be much use, but it probably won't do any harm to do a quick SPI. Multiplying the spam in CSD logs and on talk pages (please consider what User talk:Lovekus45 really looks like) is also probably not going to help much. Please instead just get the blocking admin to nuke it, and keep an eye out for the next account. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a recurring problem that we have: hookers and astrologers, all with phone numbers (+91 XXXXX XXXX). With the former there's a lot of the "revenge phone number listing", so sending to oversight becomes necessary sometimes, though most of the cases are just spam. —SpacemanSpiff 11:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • In the past few days I've tagged a number of articles with " Molvi Ji..." in the title, with a phone number and "LoVe pRoBlEm sOlUtIOn" in the title as well. Might an edit filter be used to catch these? RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure how the title blacklist works, MER-C, or how best to add things? I've never done it. It worries me that the phone number 7073778243 is and was on the list if you do a search, but 7073778243 love problems solutions baba ji in delhi was nevertheless created at 02:25 27 August UTC. (I'm pleased to say Bishzilla ate the baba's page a mere 2 minutes later.) Bishonen | talk 09:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC).
  • That particular entry expected a +91 as part of the phone number. I've just removed that restriction, it should be blocked now. MER-C 10:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

IP creating whitespaces

It appears we've an IP ( who's continuing to create un-needed whitespaces in articles. GoodDay (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I see some scattered cases of disruptive blanking, such as 1, 2, and 3, but Materialscientist already blocked the IP editor for those edits. It's possible these whitespace edits are a passive-aggressive reaction to that block. They're not especially disruptive, but they're not constructive, either. The most annoying aspect of edits like these is that they clog watchlists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

For people wondering about non-admins having deletion logs...

According to phab:T106119, now when someone moves a page over a redirect, it by default shows up as a deletion in the deletion log, even when the editor in question is not an administrator. Also being discussed at the technical Village Pump, please follow up with questions and comments there; this post is solely for publicization. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The previous RfC for this same issue (12/10/15) can be found here where consensus was established six months prior to the RfC in question. Between the two RfCs, the closer had created a number of discussions (possibly in violation of WP:FORUMSHOP) here: [28] [29] [30] [31]. These discussions failed to garner much attention and mostly reinforced the 12/10/15 consensus.

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

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

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

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

The issue is bifurcated in the prior RfCs. There was a limited consensus that a company could be called a "vulture fund" but no consensus that a person should be described as a "vulture capitalist" in the lead of a BLP. My own position has always been that specific pejorative terms should only be used as opinions ascribed to the persons holding the opinions, and that use of pejoratives about individuals should very rarely be allowed at all. To that end, I suggest that reversing prior closes is inapt, and the claims made that the prior RfCs support calling a living person a "vulture" are incorrect. The company can have cites of opinions that it is a "vulture fund" cited and used as opinions, but the use of that pejorative as a statement of fact about a living person falls under WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The current RfC has 6 editors specifically noting that the use of the pejorative in the lead about a person is wrong, 1 says the person is absolutely a "vulture capitalist", 1 asserts that every RfC supports calling the person a "vulture" and one says we should not have any more RfCs - that the issue is settled and we should call the living person a "vulture capitalist" in the lead on that basis. I rather that the current 6 to 3 opposition to use of the term in the lead indicates a substantial disagreement with the assertions made here, and the request that a close be overturned out of process. Collect (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
There has been no RfC to discuss whether someone should be called a vulture. I myself have said in past discussions that doing so, especially in WP's voice, would be contrary to what this encyclopaedia is about. Please do not mis-represent my views - it's things like that which have made these constant ongoing RfCs so toxic. My view is that Singer is most notable (WP:DUE) for running a vulture fund - and there are indeed countless sources (WP:RS) which confirm this and thus this fact should be made clear in the lede. Claiming that mentioning his company in an article equates to WP calling someone a vulture is nonsense and not a new arguement - this is the same line those same editors took over and over again in these discussions to no avail. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that I specify the issue at hand is with regard to using the pejorative with regard to the single living person in the lead. A number of sources have branded him a "vulture capitalist" as distinct from his role at EMC, which has been called a vulture fund.. The two catenated uses of the pejorative are different here - ne is with regard to how some have categorized the fund, the other as a personal pejorative in the lead about the person. Do you see that distinction? Especially when the single sentence uses the term "vulture" twice? Collect (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
You also failed to mention 2 more editors who had been in favour of using the term vulture fund in the lede but refused to partake in this particular discussion since they have made it clear that there have already been to many. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Again - the word "vulture" is used twice now in a single sentence in the lead - once with regard to opinions held about the fund (for which the prior RfC found the use of the opinion as opinion about the fund was allowable), and the second, the problematic one, with regard to the use of a pejorative about a living person in the lead of the BLP. Collect (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I am the creator of the most recent RfC. Frankly SegataSanshiro1 forced this RfC to happen in the first place by refusing to engage in talk page discussion on the vulture point. I would like to request that anyone participating in this discussion carefully read Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, and then refer directly to each of SegataSanshiro1's actions leading up to this RfC, and his actions in this one as well. Whatever SegataSanshiro may personally believe, a slur in a lead is Always A Very Big Deal, and not something to be brushed under the rug. As WP:Biographies of living people says, "we must get it right." It seems clear to me that several parties want to freeze an ongoing discussion at a point they find satisfying. Yvarta (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I have been involved in these ongoing discussions for quite some time now. As I've stated before, using a pejorative to describe an individual on a BLP is unacceptable, especially in the lead. That being said, the previous RfC was closed once discussion went stale. There were ample opportunities and there was more than enough time to provide arguments. Once users agreed upon a version, which limited use of the term "vulture", the user who closed the RfC made the edits in question but was reverted and the term was included an additional three times.
SegataSanshiro1's antics on Singer's page has gotten out of control and his motive on the page is clear. Now that consensus on the newest RfC is shifting highly in favor of removing the slur from the lead, SegataSanshiro1 is grasping at straws to get the previous RfC reviewed. If SegataSanshiro1 had an issue with how the previous RfC was closed, why didn't he follow through with an secondary discussion after this one went stagnant? After realizing consensus is shifting, not in his favor, he wants to call this new productive RfC "disruptive". Also, after the last RfC was closed, an admin came in and suggested a new RfC so do not throw out WP:FORUMSHOPPING accusations. Meatsgains (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Meatsgains, consensus is not shifting as you cannot establish consensus in a discussion which half of the editors can't even take seriously. You have been at the heart of this whole drama. Every time there was an RfC or discussion and consensus was established to use the term, you actively went about making against-consensus edits and other highly disruptive behaviour (which myself and other editors have called you out on time and time again) such as misrepresenting the results of other discussions, claiming sources weren't reliable when they were and even making up terminology like "distressed securities funds" to avoid using actual terminology. You are the only editor who has been involved in every single one of these discussions - very possessive behaviour all in all and along with the other things, you should have been sanctioned and barred from editing on that page.
Still, you continue to misrepresent what happened. There were five editors (myself included) who have said that this RfC is daft. If that were not the case, I wouldn't have opened this discussion on the noticeboard. I'm not going to let you make me lose it again, so please stop referring to me - I want absolutely nothing to do with you, and I know I shouldn't be addressing editors directly, but I really want to make that absolutely clear. Something hypothetical you might want to think about though:
After you've rolled the dice so many times trying to prevent WP:RS from an article and failed miserably, let's say that now after 8 or so attempts at getting your way you finally do. How seriously do you think other editors would take that consensus? Would they simply carry on doing as they wished to the page regardless as you have? Would they simply call another RfC in three months time and pretend the others never happened as you have? I very much doubt I'll stick around after this because I'm sick of this page, but I have a feeling you will, and if you do and you carry on acting as you have, you will be doing this for years. Please don't answer me. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Long-term vandalism at Howie Schwab

Hi. Howie Schwab, a BLP, is currently indefinitely semi-protected because of long-term vandalism from socks. Yesterday, an autoconfirmed account, LambertJudd (talk · contribs), vandalized the article. If you look at the article's history, I'm the only editor since April 2016 who has made a constructive improvement to the article, and the vandalism goes back to at least November 2015. Clearly, this isn't going to stop, and semi-protection alone isn't going to cut it if autoconfirmed accounts are now being used. Given the lack of reverts by Oshwah or Cluebot, I'm going to assume that automated tools aren't catching this vandalism. So, I see three solutions: 1) we make NinjaRobotPirate waste his time until he decides to retire in protest, 2) we set up an edit filter, or 3) we use extended confirmed protection. I am against the first option. The second option sounds good to me, but I would prefer the third one, as it's more foolproof. I figure there's little chance anyone will support ECP just to make my life easier, however. By the way, I gave LambertJudd a level 3 vandalism warning for perpetuating the vandalism, but if we've got a hanging judge around here who wants to block LJ as a vandalism only account, I wouldn't complain. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked as a clear vandalism only account. No opinion yet on the question of ECP. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC).
Clear target of a proven sockmaster who apparently has multiple sleepers set up. I'm in for ECP for one year, as this is a long-term abuser and I doubt a shorter duration will be effective. Objections before I set it up? Katietalk 03:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Would support the use of ECP here. Cases like these, where vandals know to use auto confirmed accounts, are precisely what ECP was brought in to deal with. Blackmane (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
For the record, this is User:Jaredgk2008, and they've made 501 edits before just to do some vandalism on ECP pages. Actually, more than once, and more than twice. They attack a lot of pages, but yeah, ECP might be useful. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)