Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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[edit]

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

Administrative discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Calibrador: Proposal and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Calibrador: Alternative to 1RR proposal[edit]

These two proposals for editing restrictions are part of this larger discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Self-promotion by User:Calibrador. Thank you. (Initiated 41 days ago on 12 September 2016)- MrX 21:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Requests for Comment[edit]

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

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)

Regarding this, I have objected to Rhoark closing this RfC. Due to our disputes in the past, I do not consider him a neutral party. And I would rather not rehash here what those disputes were. Will a neutral editor close this RfC? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: I also commented on Rhoark's talk page about this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
My closure was not contingent on the identities of any people participating. It was part of a slate of backlogged closures, so the fact you posed it did not influence my decision to close it. The topic is not related to any disagreement we've had in the past. The RfC was posed reasonably neutrally, and you expressed no definite preferences apart from that the article should not be forked. You've said the closure itself is not bad, and if it differs in any way from your preferred outcome, I don't know what that difference is. It does not seem possible that I could have acted even with a subconscious desire to thwart you. In consideration of all this, I don't think it's necessary to withdraw the closure, but I'm open to more community input. Rhoark (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Rhoark (last time pinging you in this section because I assume you will check back here if you want to read replies), I appreciate you taking the time to explain and being open to community input. It is difficult for me to trust people acting in a neutral manner toward me if I've had a tempestuous or semi-tempestuous Wikipedia relationship with those people. Editing here for years, in the various contentious topics I edit in, has proven my distrust to be valid. It usually takes a significant time for me to even consider that an editor I've had a tempestuous or semi-tempestuous Wikipedia relationship with might become a good Wikipedia acquaintance of mine and/or might be willing to be neutral when it comes to me. There are a few such editors, but that took time. As for my preference for the RfC outcome, I didn't object because your close went against any preference I might have. My preferences were: That the article not be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing, and that we don't unnecessarily content fork. But I am curious about something. The RfC, as previously noted, is about whether we should strictly distinguish the terms/concepts (as in say they are not the same thing and leave it at that). I don't see any consensus that we should be strict in stating that they are not the same thing. And your close begins by noting that definitions for the topic are not consistent. But then you stated, "There seems to be agreement that the article should more clearly partition its material to being about one concept or the other, but should not over-emphasize terminology as a way to distinguish the two." Why did you state that? How can the article more clearly be about one subject or the other, given the interchangeability of the terms? See the "Eidetic memory or photographic memory" section of the Eidetic memory article. That is a needed section. Do you mean that the article should pretty much stay as it is, with the lead noting the interchangeability and distinguishing aspects, and that one section going into further detail, but the rest of the article focusing specifically on eidetic memory (as in the one with more scientific backing)? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The consensus that I read is that there are two concepts sharing a term. Normally they would be disambiguated with separate pages, but in this case there is sufficient reason not to do so, considering how often the two are conflated. Imagine there were a consensus to cover Bill (law) and beak in the same Wikipedia article for some reason. You would have to pay attention to what each source means by "bill". If you juxtapose claims about both of them you might have readers thinking waterfowl are part of the legislative process. That's what I refer to by "partitioning". On the other hand, you wouldn't say "A bill is always proposed legislation and never part of a bird," since you know there are sources that mean different things by "bill". There wasn't enough discussion about things like which section should be first or longest to call a consensus on anything like that. I notice you've unilaterally reverted the close.[1] That's not the recommended process and I don't agree with the action or reasons. I'm not disposed to argue about it though. Anyone else reviewing this noticeboard will know what they'll be getting into. Rhoark (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures (which is an information page, not a policy or a guideline) indicates that it is about disagreeing with a closer's rationale. I, on the other hand, disagree with you closing the RfC regardless of your rationale, and I've been clear about why. If you were an administrator, I could cite WP:INVOLVED. But since you are not, I can only state that a closer should be a neutral party. This is clear at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Requesting a close. Given our history, I would have never attempted to close a discussion you were involved in. And you stating "Anyone else reviewing this noticeboard will know what they'll be getting into." is the type of thing I mean when it comes to your opinion of me being able to factor into matters. You make it seem like I am being difficult. Politely asking that another editor close the RfC because the previous editor who closed it is not exactly a neutral party when it comes to me is not being difficult. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Can other site accounts ever be linked to (Initiated 115 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:List of best-selling albums in the United States#Request for comment on use of sources[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of best-selling albums in the United States#Request for comment on use of sources (Initiated 96 days ago on 19 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 20#RFC:Should Judge Curiel’s membership in the Hispanic National Bar Association be in the Donald Trump article?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 20#RFC:Should Judge Curiel’s membership in the Hispanic National Bar Association be in the Donald Trump article? (Initiated 73 days ago on 11 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#RfC for NFCC#8 exemptions for currency and USPS stamps[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#RfC for NFCC#8 exemptions for currency and USPS stamps (Initiated 87 days ago on 28 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: What (if anything) to do about quotations, and the quotation templates?[edit]

I'm not sure how expired requests are handled here -- archived, auto-archived, or just deleted -- but anyway, this RfC 1) does not necessarily require a close, and 2) has been auto-archived due to inactivitiy. So I hatted it and, and it can be deleted or archived I guess. Herostratus (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


(Initiated 64 days ago on 20 August 2016). Note that the later thread Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Sandwiching is an extended part of the RfC discussion as well, as is the subthread mentioned in the request immediately below this one.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC) updated 04:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I opened this RfC, so let me talk about this a little bit. I originally opened the RfC as a "let's talk about this" thread with no "action items" expected to come out it (rather, perhaps some suggestions for future RfC that would have action items). It turned into rather quite a sprawling discussion, which is exactly what we want. But not one that would normally need to be "closed".
However, in the organic process, an editor opened an "action item" RfC within the large RfC. This is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Permit Template:Quote box for regular quotes. This is unusual and some editors objected that 1) this was improper, and/or 2) anyway it was not properly and neutrally written, and/or 3) there was canvassing.
Anyway, this sub-RfC did have a survey section, and so it does need to be closed. One valid close would be "Well the objections are cogent, this is not a valid RfC from which any action item can ensue". Another valid close could be would be to close it as a normal action-item RfC, e.g. as "the proposition is accepted" or "the proposition is rejected" or "no consensus so no change". FWIW and it may not be worth much, my counting noses and summarization of the matter as it currently stands is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Summary to date, and thinking about next steps #3. Herostratus (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Permit Template:Quote box for regular quotes[edit]

See the above thread, of which this describes a sub-thread. Herostratus (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


An uninvolved editor will be needed to close this RfC on 30 September. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This request is redundant with the one above it, and is just a request to close one subthread of the actual RfC. The RfC en toto should be closed (on 21 September), not just one part of it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  17:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is PolitiFact a reliable source for fact checking?[edit]

Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is PolitiFact a reliable source for fact checking? (Initiated 56 days ago on 28 August 2016)? Thanks, Neutralitytalk 20:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Slut-shaming#RfC: Is it WP:Synthesis to use sources that do not identify the topic as slut-shaming to make claims about slut-shaming?[edit]

The RfC for this discussion expired on the 18th. Would an uninvolved administrator assess the arguments and whether or not a consensus was reached on the matter or on part of the matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#Request for comment on .E2.80.9Cvulture.E2.80.9D descriptor[edit]

Really need an administrator to close this one, as it's a contentious issue that has been discussed several times. Softlavender (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jane Austen#RfC: Establish consensus on a consistent format for citations in Jane Austen[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jane Austen#RfC: Establish consensus on a consistent format for citations in Jane Austen (Initiated 62 days ago on 22 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Alexander the Great#RfC - Jewish tradition[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alexander the Great#RfC - Jewish tradition (Initiated 59 days ago on 25 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd#Renewed merge discussion[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd#Renewed merge discussion (Initiated 68 days ago on 16 August 2016)? There is a clear consensus for a merge. However, editors are split on merging Miniature Australian Shepherd to Miniature American Shepherd or merging Miniature American Shepherd to Miniature Australian Shepherd. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Neonicotinoid#RFC: Inclusion of a sentence on a primary study[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Neonicotinoid#RFC: Inclusion of a sentence on a primary study (Initiated 61 days ago on 23 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: What (if anything) to do about quotations, and the quotation templates?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: What (if anything) to do about quotations, and the quotation templates? (Initiated 64 days ago on 20 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#RfC: Conversion of route diagram templates to Template:Routemap format[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#RfC: Conversion of route diagram templates to Template:Routemap format (Initiated 59 days ago on 25 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Request for Comment: Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles[edit]

(Initiated 44 days ago on 9 September 2016) Would an editor please assess and close this discussion. Springee (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Menelik II#RfC on Menelik's "Reign as Emperor" split out[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Menelik II#RfC on Menelik's "Reign as Emperor" split out (Initiated 56 days ago on 28 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Greger#Request for comments on SBM source[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Greger#Request for comments on SBM source (Initiated 52 days ago on 1 September 2016)? I recommend a formal close per this comment about how this dispute has been ongoing for years:

Note past discussions Turns out this dispute goes back a few years :Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1#Don_Matesz_mention, and most of the talk page discussion this year is about it, starting at Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1#SBM_source. It's been brought up at BLPN twice: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Michael_Greger and just today at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Michael_Greger_-_claims_of_BLPSPS_violation. Given what I've found, there may be more as editors haven't been clearly acknowledging past discussions, as with this RfC.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)#List of fatalities[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)#List of fatalities (Initiated 47 days ago on 6 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of awareness ribbons#RFC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of awareness ribbons#RFC (Initiated 45 days ago on 8 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of bus routes in London#colour codes[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of bus routes in London#colour codes (Initiated 53 days ago on 31 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Proposed rewording in instructions for listing: when to use <noinclude>[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Proposed rewording in instructions for listing: when to use <noinclude> (Initiated 50 days ago on 3 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott#RfC: Scott history of carrying a gun[edit]

Requesting close because of this diff [2]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#Atsugi[edit]

A single purpose account has a serious problem with WP:IDHT. This lone editor has argued for over a month that trivial information about Oswald's job as a radar operator on a military base that coincidentally involved U-2 planes should be included in the article. Editor makes no sourced connection between Oswald and U-2, and clearly is trying to insert an unfounded implication into the article that Oswald was involved in a bigger conspiracy. Editor repeats the same argument again and again and can't take no for an answer. (Initiated 48 days ago on 5 September 2016) Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages[edit]

Would an esteemed admin kindly volunteer to assess consensus in this long and relevant discussion about WP:TWODABS guidance? — JFG talk 15:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Proposed Change to PORNBIO[edit]

This discussion was marked as complete on 3 October, and, given the strong opinions expressed on both sides, needs a formal closure. It was suggested during the discussion that it might be best for a panel of three admins to decide this. (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion[edit]

This discussion forum currently has no backlog! (11:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions[edit]

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)

Request speedy close on Talk:Lane splitting#RFC: looking for outside opinions on dispute about wording[edit]

Requesting speedy close of this RfC. The initiator has not made a reasonable effort to resolve this very petty dispute over wording. One of the three editors in the discussion has not yet replied. The actual reasons for the disagreement were only just outlined fully in just over 24 hours ago. I have not yet had time to post the full list of citations that I alluded to mere hours ago. Neither side has had time to suggest any compromise wording. All of this violates the instructions at WP:RfC to make an effort before starting an RfC. Any outside editor who is drawn into this petty dispute is going to find it annoying that such drama has been created over this obscure issue.

Please close for now and at least give it a week to see if we can work it out before pestering the wider community with this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure[edit]

No substantial backlog right now, but it's quite likely that the backlog will grow again at some point in time. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox video game#Multiple release dates in the infobox[edit]

Requesting formal close on Template talk:Infobox video game#Multiple release dates in the infobox czar 01:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion[edit]

Here are a few RfDs which have already been relisted twice:

Any help is, of course, appreciated. --BDD (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge discussions[edit]

Merger of Demolition[edit]

Would an experienced user assess the consensus formed here and close the discussion? Thanks. (Initiated 42 days ago on 11 September 2016) --Mhhossein talk 14:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


Discussion open for a year with 1 opposition and 8 support votes. Not quite willing to go boldly as there is one initial opposition. There are also a few other similar previous discussions on that page. --Artoria2e5 emits crap 21:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (24 out of 159 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
1948 Palestinian exodus 2016-10-23 19:20 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Prevention of Terror Ordinance 2016-10-23 19:20 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Yamam 2016-10-23 19:19 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Issa Amro 2016-10-23 19:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Israel Border Police 2016-10-23 19:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
User:Thomas.W 2016-10-22 21:31 indefinite edit Persistent vandalism Favonian
Mount Lilydale Mercy College 2016-10-21 09:29 2016-10-28 09:29 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing CambridgeBayWeather
Amy Schumer 2016-10-20 01:11 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy Enigmaman
Billy Bush 2016-10-19 22:54 2017-01-19 22:54 edit,move Persistent vandalism Enigmaman
Students for Justice in Palestine 2016-10-19 13:15 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Abdullah Barghouti 2016-10-19 13:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Dirar Abu Seesi 2016-10-19 13:13 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Mossi Raz 2016-10-19 13:12 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Ameer Makhoul 2016-10-19 13:12 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Muhammad al-Qiq 2016-10-19 13:12 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Daniel Sokatch 2016-10-19 12:24 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement KrakatoaKatie
User:Class455 2016-10-18 15:37 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry: semi-protection was not enough JohnCD
User:Kashish Arora 2016-10-18 13:10 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry: Previous semi-protection failed to stop the problem. JamesBWatson
List of best-selling music artists 2016-10-17 04:05 2016-11-17 04:05 edit Persistent sock puppetry BU Rob13
Intifada 2016-10-17 03:58 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
2014 Jerusalem unrest 2016-10-17 03:58 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
First Intifada 2016-10-17 03:57 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Brit HaBirionim 2016-10-17 03:56 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Kurdish cinema 2016-10-16 20:34 2016-11-16 20:34 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KurdoKardir. Mkdw

Content translator tool creating nonsense pages[edit]

Machine translation gadget[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I believe an RfC would be helpful assuming it is well prepared.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The GoogleTrans gadget has been running on the enwiki for the last 7 years and has 29,000 people who load the gadget when they sign into Wikipedia. It's quite a successful gadget and certainly, wiki to wiki translators have concentrated on the gadget because while they may know English (when they are translating articles between the enwiki and their home wikis) they like to get the translation of a word every once in a while. Endo999 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Discussion on this matter seems to have mostly died down, but I was unaware of this discussion until now and I feel the need to speak up on behalf of translation tools. I don't believe the tool being discussed here is the one I am using, since *it* does not provide a machine translation into english. However. I do put english into French based on the machine translation. I repeat, *based on*. Many of my edits to date have been translation and cleanup after translation, so I am probably close to an ideal use case. The tool, Yandex.Translate, appeared on my French wikipedia account and I do find it useful, although it produces text that needs to be gone over 4-5 times, as, yes, it sometimes creates inappropriate wikilinks, often in the case where a word can mean a couple of different things and the tool picks the wrong one. And it consistently translates word by word. I have submitted a feature request for implementation of some basic rules -- for example in German the verb is always the last word in the sentence and in French the word order is almost always "dress blue" not "blue dress". But there are many many MANY articles with word order problems on Wikipedia; it's just usually more subtle that that when the originating editor was human but not a native English speaker. So it's a little like fixing up the stilted unreferenced prose of someone who can't write but yea verily does know MUCH more about the topic than I do. And has produced a set of ideas, possibly inelegantly expressed, I would not have conceived of. The inelegant writing is why we have all this text in a *wiki*
For the record, I agree that machine-translated text is an anathema and have spent way too many hours rescuing articles from its weirdnesses, such as "altar" coming through as "furnace branch" in Notre-Dame de la Garde. BUT. Used properly, machine translation is useful. For one thing it is often correct about the translation for specific obscure words. I deeply appreciated this when, for example, I was doing English into French on a bio of a marauding Ottoman corsair who, at one point or another, invaded most of the Mediterranean. I am an English speaker who was educated in French and has spent years operating in French, but the equivalent terms for galleon, caravel, Papal States, apse and nave, for example, not to mention Crusader castles and Aegean islands, weren't at the tip of my tongue. Its suggestions needed to be verified, but so do Google Search results. I could look these words up, sure, and do anyway, but Yandex gives my carpal tendons a break, in that I can do one thing at a time, ie translate a bit of text like "he said" then check to make sure that wikilink is correct, move down to the next paragraph and do some other simple task like correcting word order while I mull why it is that the suggested translation sounds awkward, walk away and come back... All of this is possible without the tool, but more difficult, and takes much longer. I have translated more articles in the past month, at least to a 0.95 version, that I had in the entire previous several years I've been editing wikipedia. Since the tool suggests articles that exist on one wikipedia but not the other, I am also embarking on translations I otherwise would not, because of length or sheer number of lookups needed to refresh my memory on French names for 16th-century Turkish or Albanian settlements or for product differentiation or demand curve or whatever. Or simply because while the topic may be important it's fundamentally tedious and needs to be taken in small doses, like some of the stuff I've been doing with French jurisprudence and which is carefully labeled, btw, as a translation in progress on those published articles that are still approaching completion.
I agree that such tools should not be available to people who don't have the vocabulary to use them. I don't really have suggestions as to what the criteria should be, but there is a good use for them. They -- or at least this tool -- do however make it possible to publish a fully-formed article, which reduces the odds of cranky people doing a speedy delete while you are pondering French template syntax for {{cn}} or whatever. This has happened to me. The tool is all still kinda beta and the algorithm does ignore special characters, which I hope they remedy soon. (In other words ê becomes e and ç becomes c etc.) Also, template syntax differs from one wiki to another so infoboxes and references often error out when the article is first published. Rule of thumb, possibly: don't publish until you can spend the hour or so chasing this sort of thing down down. And the second draft is usually still a bit stilted and in need of an edit for idiom. But the flip side of that is that until you do publish, the tool keeps your work safe from cranky people and in one place, as opposed to having to reinvent the version management wheel or wonder whether the draft is in Documents or on the desktop. Some people complain within 3 minutes of publication that the article has no references without taking the time to realize that the article is a translation of text that has no references. As the other editor said above, translation tools aren't magic and won't provide a reference that isn't there or fix a slightly editorial or GUIDEBOOK tang to language -- this needs to come next as a separate step. When references are present the results are uneven, but I understand that this issue *is* on the other hand on the to-do list. Anyway, these are my thoughts on the subject; as you can see I have thunk quite a few of them and incidentally have reported more than one bug. But we are all better off if people like me do have these tools, assuming that there is value in French wikipedia finding out about trade theory and ottoman naval campaigns, and English wikipedia learning about the French court system. Elinruby (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Hi there. I have had a look today at that list, but haven't really been posting comments since as far as I could see nobody else has been there in several days. I do not know what happened with duckduckstop but as to the articles on the list
- I do not understand why an article about a French general who invaded several countries under Napoleon is nominated for deletion as far as I can tell solely on based on authorship? Do we not trust the content because of the person who wrote it? Can someone explain this to me? I glanced at the article quickly and the English seems fine. This is a serious question; I don't get it. Also, why did we delete Genocide in Guatemala? It was already redlinked when I noticed it, but unless the article was truly astonishing bad, I would have made an effort to clean that one up. Personally. Considering that some of the stuff that's been on the "cleanup after translation" list the past few years --- we have had articles on individual addresses in Paris. We have lists of say, songs on a 1990s album in Indonesian, sheriffs of individual municipalities in Wales (one list per century), and government hierarchies in well, pretty much everywhere.
- I have a suggestion: The person who decides that we need a set of articles for each madrasa in Tunis, water tower in Holland or mountain in Corsica is responsible for finishing the work on the articles in the set to a certain standard. Which can be quite low, incidentally. I have no objection to some of the association football and track and field articles that are being nominated for deletion. They may not be sparking entralling prose but they are there and tell you, should you want to know, who that person is. Similarly the articles about figures in the literature of Quebec, while only placeholders, do contain information and are preferable to nothing. Although I don't see machine translation as the huge problem some people apparently do, the translation tool also does need work. It might be nice if it sent articles to user space by default, and the articles could then be published from there there after polishing. Elinruby (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Guatemalan genocide was redirected, not deleted, for being a very poor translation, resulting in sentences like this (one sentence!): "The perpetración of systematic massacres in Guatemala arose of the prolonged civil war of this country centroamericano, where the violence against the citizenship, native mayas of the rural communities of the country in his majority, has defined in level extensivo like genocide -of agreement to the Commission for the Esclarecimiento Historical- according to the crimes continued against the minoritary group maya ixil settled between 1981 and 1983 in the northern demarcation of the department of The Quiché, in the oil region of the north Transversal Band, with the implication of extermination in front of the low demographic density of the etnia -since it #finish to begin to populate the region hardly from the decade of 1960- and the migration forced of complete communities to the border region in search of asylum in Chiapas, Mexico , desarraigadas by the persecution; in addition to becoming like procedure of tactical State of earth arrasada, tortures, disappearances, «poles of development» -euphemism for fields of concentration- and recurrent outrages against the women and girls ixiles, many of them dying by this cause, crimes of lesa humanity against of all the international orders of Human rights." Fram (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Heh. That's not unusual. But see there *is* an article, which was my primary concern. I should have checked before using it as an example. Here is the point I was trying to make. Since apparently I didn't, let me spell it out. -- I have put in a considerable amount of time on the "cleanup after translation" list so yes, I absolutely agree that horrible machine translations exist. I have cleaned many of them up. But. Many of the articles we keep are extremely trivial. Many get deleted that seem somewhat important, actually, just not to the particular person who AfD's them. I have seen articles on US topics get kept because of a link to Zazzle. (!) Perhaps my POV is warped by the current mess I am trying to straighten out in the articles on the French court system, but it seems to me that the english wiki is rather dismissive of other cultures. (Cour d'assises != Assizes, just saying; this is what we call a cognate.) That is all; just something that has been bothering me. Elinruby (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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: [3] [4] [5] [6]. These discussions failed to garner much attention and mostly reinforced the 12/10/15 consensus.

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

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

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

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

The issue is bifurcated in the prior RfCs. There was a limited consensus that a company could be called a "vulture fund" but no consensus that a person should be described as a "vulture capitalist" in the lead of a BLP. My own position has always been that specific pejorative terms should only be used as opinions ascribed to the persons holding the opinions, and that use of pejoratives about individuals should very rarely be allowed at all. To that end, I suggest that reversing prior closes is inapt, and the claims made that the prior RfCs support calling a living person a "vulture" are incorrect. The company can have cites of opinions that it is a "vulture fund" cited and used as opinions, but the use of that pejorative as a statement of fact about a living person falls under WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The current RfC has 6 editors specifically noting that the use of the pejorative in the lead about a person is wrong, 1 says the person is absolutely a "vulture capitalist", 1 asserts that every RfC supports calling the person a "vulture" and one says we should not have any more RfCs - that the issue is settled and we should call the living person a "vulture capitalist" in the lead on that basis. I rather that the current 6 to 3 opposition to use of the term in the lead indicates a substantial disagreement with the assertions made here, and the request that a close be overturned out of process. Collect (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
There has been no RfC to discuss whether someone should be called a vulture. I myself have said in past discussions that doing so, especially in WP's voice, would be contrary to what this encyclopaedia is about. Please do not mis-represent my views - it's things like that which have made these constant ongoing RfCs so toxic. My view is that Singer is most notable (WP:DUE) for running a vulture fund - and there are indeed countless sources (WP:RS) which confirm this and thus this fact should be made clear in the lede. Claiming that mentioning his company in an article equates to WP calling someone a vulture is nonsense and not a new arguement - this is the same line those same editors took over and over again in these discussions to no avail. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that I specify the issue at hand is with regard to using the pejorative with regard to the single living person in the lead. A number of sources have branded him a "vulture capitalist" as distinct from his role at EMC, which has been called a vulture fund.. The two catenated uses of the pejorative are different here - ne is with regard to how some have categorized the fund, the other as a personal pejorative in the lead about the person. Do you see that distinction? Especially when the single sentence uses the term "vulture" twice? Collect (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
You also failed to mention 2 more editors who had been in favour of using the term vulture fund in the lede but refused to partake in this particular discussion since they have made it clear that there have already been to many. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Again - the word "vulture" is used twice now in a single sentence in the lead - once with regard to opinions held about the fund (for which the prior RfC found the use of the opinion as opinion about the fund was allowable), and the second, the problematic one, with regard to the use of a pejorative about a living person in the lead of the BLP. Collect (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I am the creator of the most recent RfC. Frankly SegataSanshiro1 forced this RfC to happen in the first place by refusing to engage in talk page discussion on the vulture point. I would like to request that anyone participating in this discussion carefully read Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, and then refer directly to each of SegataSanshiro1's actions leading up to this RfC, and his actions in this one as well. Whatever SegataSanshiro may personally believe, a slur in a lead is Always A Very Big Deal, and not something to be brushed under the rug. As WP:Biographies of living people says, "we must get it right." It seems clear to me that several parties want to freeze an ongoing discussion at a point they find satisfying. Yvarta (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I have been involved in these ongoing discussions for quite some time now. As I've stated before, using a pejorative to describe an individual on a BLP is unacceptable, especially in the lead. That being said, the previous RfC was closed once discussion went stale. There were ample opportunities and there was more than enough time to provide arguments. Once users agreed upon a version, which limited use of the term "vulture", the user who closed the RfC made the edits in question but was reverted and the term was included an additional three times.
SegataSanshiro1's antics on Singer's page has gotten out of control and his motive on the page is clear. Now that consensus on the newest RfC is shifting highly in favor of removing the slur from the lead, SegataSanshiro1 is grasping at straws to get the previous RfC reviewed. If SegataSanshiro1 had an issue with how the previous RfC was closed, why didn't he follow through with an secondary discussion after this one went stagnant? After realizing consensus is shifting, not in his favor, he wants to call this new productive RfC "disruptive". Also, after the last RfC was closed, an admin came in and suggested a new RfC so do not throw out WP:FORUMSHOPPING accusations. Meatsgains (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Meatsgains, consensus is not shifting as you cannot establish consensus in a discussion which half of the editors can't even take seriously. You have been at the heart of this whole drama. Every time there was an RfC or discussion and consensus was established to use the term, you actively went about making against-consensus edits and other highly disruptive behaviour (which myself and other editors have called you out on time and time again) such as misrepresenting the results of other discussions, claiming sources weren't reliable when they were and even making up terminology like "distressed securities funds" to avoid using actual terminology. You are the only editor who has been involved in every single one of these discussions - very possessive behaviour all in all and along with the other things, you should have been sanctioned and barred from editing on that page.
Still, you continue to misrepresent what happened. There were five editors (myself included) who have said that this RfC is daft. If that were not the case, I wouldn't have opened this discussion on the noticeboard. I'm not going to let you make me lose it again, so please stop referring to me - I want absolutely nothing to do with you, and I know I shouldn't be addressing editors directly, but I really want to make that absolutely clear. Something hypothetical you might want to think about though:
After you've rolled the dice so many times trying to prevent WP:RS from an article and failed miserably, let's say that now after 8 or so attempts at getting your way you finally do. How seriously do you think other editors would take that consensus? Would they simply carry on doing as they wished to the page regardless as you have? Would they simply call another RfC in three months time and pretend the others never happened as you have? I very much doubt I'll stick around after this because I'm sick of this page, but I have a feeling you will, and if you do and you carry on acting as you have, you will be doing this for years. Please don't answer me. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I have weighed in on this on multiple occasions and will do my best to promptly summarize my opinion on the topic. The original dispute over the use of the term vulture has been over the derogatory nature of the term on vulture fund’s page. Subsequent discussions have taken place regarding the general use of the term, however the scope of the debate later concentrated on the term’s use in a BLP, specifically Paul Singer’s page. Some editors, whom I will not name, act as if they wp:own the article and have done everything in their power to keep vulture fund and vulture capitalist in the article. Some users have actually made the argument that "vulture" is not derogatory whatsoever (one even argued that it should be taken as a compliment. No reasonable and neutral arbitrator could disagree with the fact that “vulture fund” is a slur, invented by people who are deeply opposed to their entirely legal investments. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Collect, it's quite understandable that a number of editors are very much on edge considering this has been discussed to death and the conduct of a couple of editors in particular. I think what Nomoskedasticity meant by that remark is that you were making edits about something which was being discussed... Were you not one of those supporting an RfC after all?
From my own personal perspective, I think mentioning his main business area is running a culture fund, then including other references to him specifically in some sort of criticism section would be ideal. That and removing references to philanthropy from the lede as per WP:UNDUE. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: first of all I wish to state my astonishment at not being pinged when I was directly involved with one of the RfCs called into question. SegataSanshiro1's guerilla antics are indeed widespread and grave. I do not care about user behaviour at this stage, however, merely the state of Singer's biography. Said RfC was indeed improperly closed by myself, after which I requested admin intervention to reopen it (or closed by an uninvolved user - note I did so per WP:BOLD and because a determination was indeed agreed upon). This request was speedily rejected by KrakatoaKatie together with its corresponding ANI post, so I think it's safe to assume there is no interest in rekindling old fires. Attempts at mediation about this issue also failed. Regarding consensus, I counted at least 7 new voices in the current discussion, all offering interesting new insights (DGG, Collect, Elinruby, FuriouslySerene, Snow_Rise, Chris Hallquist, and Yvarta); there is strong indication at least some parties are willing to compromise. Some are under the impression consensus is a simple vote tally. I call into question this vehement ownership of the Paul Singer article. Every time any editor makes a serious attempt at a copy edit (no matter how minor), a concerted effort by the same bunch of editors reverses all possible changes. Just look at the edit history. Serious and pragmatic comments aimed at stemming this dreadlock are conveniently brushed aside, such as DGG's - "It's appropriate to use it in the article, since there is good sourcing, but it is not appropriate to use it in the lede. Ledes should be relatively neutral". If civil discussion cannot come about and admin action is required, so be it, but it does set a sad precedent. We had originally copy edited the lede back in October, trimming the use of "vulture" down to a single mention. This was of course then reverted maniacally even though discussion had concluded in that precise path. I don't see why a reasonable review of each instance of the word's use cannot take place. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Focus, this wasn't intended to be "guerilla antics" - we had actually discussed a re-close prior to this and you were involved, together with a number of other editors who I did not ping since I figured they would not want to be dragged into this again - I take it you're a page watcher anyway and I mentioned this discussion on the talk page. I also never had a problem with you being WP:BOLD and closing the discussion (in fact if I recall correctly, me and other editors were all for it), what myself and other editors had a problem with was the closing remarks, in particular "the RfC question was not unequivocally answered" when in reality it had, for the nth time that it is appropriate to use this particular word in this particular article - that's beyond discussion at this point. To this day, I agree with the path of compromise we embarked on, what I did not agree with was the sheer amount of forums this was taken to and the manner in which the discussion was closed. To be honest, that close made me question your good faith and took away any desire on my part to be collaborative.
The issue with these discussions is that they're never clear, we're never discussing on a point by point basis since one or two editors (should be fairly obvious who) take these discussions as an attempt to remove all mention of the terminology, digging in their heels until we're back in 2014 again discussing whether we should censor it entirely (again, always the same editors). All the while, creating serious NPOV issues by removing statements backed up by RS and adding in things which are UNDUE in an attempt to whitewash. If that stops, then I'm sure normal discussion could ensue and general anger levels could be drastically reduced along with the tedium. I have already said that I'm of the opinion that "vulture capitalist" should be discussed, but that's hardly going to happen if we still have editors claiming a vulture fund is not a thing, and the very presence of the term (what Singer is most notable for, if I may add) equates to Wikipedia calling a living person a vulture. That's not new, that's not productive and you're as aware of that as I am. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It was a middle of the road close. . There is a distinction between someone being personally a vulture, which implies that he acts in that manner in all his activities or is of that personality type, and running a fund that shares some similar characteristics and goes by the common name of vulture fund. We cannot avoid using the full term, because even those sources that endorse the profession use it as a matter of course. But we can try to avodi personalizing things that don't need personalizing, especially things that some people are likely to consider highly negative. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
And to the point - any BLP which stresses the use of "vulture" seventeen times is likely to be perceivable as making a point in itself. I just do not understand the concept that name-calling is something Wikipedia should actively pursue, and that editors who even remove a single use from the lead are somehow evil here. Argh. Collect (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't appear 17 times. I only see 6 mentions in the article itself and one of them was actually about an antisemitic cartoon - the rest are mentions in references. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
That's INCREDIBLY misleading. Most of those are references, hence more reason to include it. Of the 6 ACTUAL uses, none of them are in WP's voice. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@SegataSanshiro1: You keep claiming that "Singer is most notable for" his "vulture fund". This is your own opinion. Do a google news search and tell us how many pages you have to dig through before coming across a page that uses the slur? This is a false assumption, which you have consistently done throughout this dispute. Meatsgains (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Stop pinging me. This isn't my own opinion and vulture fund is not a slur, it's the name of a type of fund that buys debt at discount prices and attempts to sue for 100% payment. As much as you pretend it isn't, you should remember this since you were involved in multiple discussions where you pretended that there was consensus that it was a slur when there wasn't - you were called out on it multiple times: [7] [8]. You also made a no-consensus page move from vulture fund to "distressed securities fund" despite there being no sources to validate such naming and in clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME - you should also remember this since there were two discussions, both on the talk page and at WP:W2W which undid that rather stealthy move and established rather firmly that vulture funds are indeed a thing and that is indeed what they are called, while Singer's EMC is one of the most prolific. Why have you consistently misrepresented information and lied to other editors? There's plenty more examples where you have been called out on doing this, want me to give more? Meatsgains, you are the only editor (along with Comatmebro, actually) who has been involved in every discussion to do with Singer, vulture funds and Elliott Management Corporation and consistently used some very dodgy tactics to get your way, ranging from ignoring consensus and making edits regardless to protecting all these pages like a hawk (or vulture, more appropriately?) and claiming sources aren't reliable based on your own opinions. I'm still shocked you're still around and you haven't been sanctioned. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
"This isn't my own opinion and vulture fund is not a slur" - Yes it is and yes it is. Also, do not dilute this discussion with attacking me. Meatsgains (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Agree that handling a vulture fund does not equate to being a vulture - that's the main flawed premise that has been holding this back. I still disagree that the close was "middle of the road", since using vulture terminology does not violate NPOV (the question raised in the RfC) since it is WP:DUE - only a tiny, tiny number of people have said that all reference to vultures should be gone from the article. The Samsung affair and other criticism (such as "vulture capitalist") needs to go in a criticism section rather than the lede - Singer has received enough criticism from multiple sources to warrant one. Vulture fund, on the other hand, should remain firmly in the lede - that's what he's known for and what a large chunk of the article is about. I know you have argued that he has other investments, but that's akin to leaving out the Iraq war in Tony Blair's page. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Yet again you are wildly, amazingly off topic. There is already an RfC discussing this issue, in case you forgot, and a talk page to discuss general improvements. This discussion, SegataSanshiro, you started to determine if the RfC creations are inappropriate. As you seem to have forgotten, I would like to remind you that you reverted my lead change on the grounds that I needed to first discuss, and now you are trying to shut that very discussion down - that, or apparently force it to stagnate by repeating the same arguments while ignoring the arguments of others. As far as I am concerned, you specifically continue to stonewall and disrupt a natural consensus building process. You are either nearing either an epiphany (i.e. that this is not a battle you are trying to win), or nearing a topic ban. Yvarta (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Not me specifically. There have been five editors (including me) who have questioned the validity of this RfC. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully I haven’t given the impression I think those other four are guilty of actively stonewalling. If so, I apologize for being thoughtless and rude. Yvarta (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not opposed to having an administrator re-close a previous RFC if the stated consensus was incorrect (I was the one who suggested coming to AN on the Singer talk page as SegatSanshiro continues to question it), just for the sake of clarity and any subsequent discussions. I do not support closing the current RFC though. I don't see it as disruptive as opinion is clearly divided and the issue is contentious, the previous RfC was over 4 months ago and the closing and consensus is disputed, so getting new editors involved to seek consensus should be a good thing (I only joined this discussion thanks to this most recent RfC). As for my opinion about the underlying issue, I've already posted to the RfC and it may not be relevant here, but I believe that mainstream reliable sources do not refer to Singer as a "vulture." He is called a hedge fund manager by these sources. Therefore the term vulture should only be used when it is ascribed to a specific person or entity (i.e., his critics). My reading of the current RfC and previous ones is that most editors agree with that position. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have never edited this article and am in this because the RfC bot asked me to give my opinion. The person who started the RfC however has repeatedly told me I am off-topic when I try to explain the BLP policy. As best I can tell however the person's argument is that the appellation is inappropriate because Singer is a living person, and they appear to be ready to repeat this argument indefinitely. I would also like to mention that while I personally believe that "vulture capitalist" is a specialized bit of vocabulary that is not particularly pejorative, the current wording does not use it in wikipedia's voice either, which many of the comments on this seem to assume. It says he has been called a vulture capitalist and provides no less than nine sources for the statement. I believe we should remove the weasel wording and explicitly quote one or more people. I would agree with the idea expressed at one point of balancing out concerns about due weight, assuming that is what they are, by adding other details of his business dealings. However as far as I can tell there are no such details; Singer seems to be a specialist in this type of transaction, and to have been for decades. Elinruby (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Explaining BLP policy is not off topic - however, long accusations of COI (without basis) and facts focused on Singer's details are very off topic to this particular RfC, as I've pointed out that many businessmen have similar, nigh identical press coverage concerning the "vulture" phrase. If you would like to start another RfC on a different nuance or topic, you are welcomed to. Yvarta (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Heh. The heart of my point is that Singer is a public figure and therefore under WP:PUBLICFIGURE it matters very much whether the statement is true. As for my COI concerns, well, normally we don't comment on editors but your actions do suggest one in my opinion, yes. You are very concerned, astonishingly concerned, with the PR of this billionaire, shrug. I didn't actually start with that assumption, mind; I just told you it was ok to be a paid editor if you declared yourself as such. But you say you are not, so. AGF. You *still* never ever answer any other editors questions, and dismiss them as irrelevant unless they support your desired outcome. Elinruby (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Anyone look at the nominator's (i.e. Yvarta's) edit history? Yvarta, this looks like it was not your first account. Who were you editing as prior to this account? NickCT (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to ask any questions about my experience on my talk page/email. My editing history relates to personal details of my life, and so I haven't shared that here/in the RfC. Yvarta (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - This RfC makes for a dramatic read. My perception of things, after also skimming the older RfCs linked about halfway through, is that the prior RfCs were imperfectly framed, and as a result conversations were bogged down by arguments over whether Singer himself was a vulture, not whether vulture should be a descriptor in any lead at all. The RfC certainly has broader implications than one biography, as the overall precedent on Wikipedia most definitely favors avoiding such descriptors in bio leads. Has anyone else been able to find a biography or corporation with an animal slur used in the intro? I tried with several creative search phrases, and have so far utterly failed. This RfC is far from perfect as well, but I do applaud its attempt to focus the issue away from Singer. Most constructive so far, in my opinion, is that the argument that excluding vulture from the lead equals censorship has been debunked several times. Leads are certainly not required to include every detail of a criticism section, and per prior arguments, any concept that could be carried across by "vulture" could also be carried across with an alternate explanation.
Note to whoever closes this RfC: However long this discussion needs to continue, I would like to note that there is obviously not a clear consensus in favor of keeping vulture in the lead, even though the reverts apparently leading to this discussion were founded entirely on the argument that prior RfCs had reached consensus. As such, I would like to note that all three of those reverts have been proven to have been without basis, even if they were done in good faith. A number of contributors, several of obvious neutrality and experience, have agreed that a slur of denigration is inappropriate in a lead when applied to a person or company, especially since both the criticism and the neologism can be fully explained with neutral and more conservative words. As such, the argument that there is a violation of the neutral tone mandated by WP:BLPSTYLE is at the very least plausible, however this consensus concludes itself. Until that time, however, the assessment that biography leads must be treated with extra delicacy is absolutely correct, and I agree with Yvarta's bold action to remove "vulture" when he/she did, just like I would have agreed with a decision to remove "rat" or "loan shark" or "pig." Basically, until something is settled, there is currently no consensus', and I believe "vulture" should be again removed until consensus is reached and the barn is built.Bbmusicman (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Here are examples of why I answered as I did, if anyone is interested:
My point is that when derogatory information *is true* then we are not required to pretend it's not there.
- btw, for a dispassionate take on what a vulture capitalist actually is. I think people should read vulture fund and vulture capitalist -- nothing there about animals. Hope that helps. Elinruby (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I highly encourage you to take some good examples to the RfC, where contributors can see them (this discussion isn't linked on that talk page anymore, after archiving). I'm a bit confused by your examples, though? Shrimp isn't very deragatory, except perhaps to a very short and insecure person, and "dictator" is actually a relatively neutral, especially compared to synonyms such as "tyrant" or "monster" or "fiend." Other phrases, like "mass-murderer," also have negative connotation, but they are clinical and exact, without cartoonish connotation making the phrases more loaded than necessary. Perhaps other examples? Yvarta (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Observations: (1) SegataSanshiro1, who opened this AN thread and who has written more than double the amount of text of the article than any other editor [9], is Argentinian (as noted on his userpage) and has a very strong POV and agenda about the article, since Singer's most controversial debt-funds are Argentinian. (2) In my opinion FoCuSandLeArN should not have closed the previous WP:RfC (nor should he have made the edit[s] presumed to be "consensus" -- at the very least, another editor should have made any edits springing from the RfC), since he started the RfC and has also been involved in the contentious debate(s). One can withdraw an RfC one has started, but one cannot close it. Only an uninvolved editor can formally close an RfC. See WP:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. (3) That said, SegataSanshiro1 has opened this AN thread in a very non-neutral, POV manner, and as Meatsgains commented above, SegataSanshiro1 had no problem with FoCuSandLeArN's 5-month-old close until now. (4) What seems to need to happen is for an uninvolved administrator to look at and close the current RfC that is now on the talk page awaiting closure. (5) I believe Collect, a neutral and highly experienced editor, has encapsulated the issue well in his three comments above. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron's editing restrictions - review[edit]

Range block admin needed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smoore95GAGA[edit]

Help wanted: If you know anything about range blocks, I'd appreciate a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smoore95GAGA. I believe that the IPs reported in the 156.12.248.* 156.12.250.* and 156.12.251.* areas are related to this sockmaster. I wouldn't mind a second opinion on it, but the recently reported IPs geolocate to an educational facility in Pennsylvania, and some of the other IPs that were reported months ago resolve to the same institution. A range block was performed several months ago and I'm guessing that another one might be necessary now if this guy doesn't quit the block evasion. I know nothing about range blocks, so your help is requested. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC) covers the range. (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Previous rangeblock was for the /16. I don't see anything outside the /22 for now, though, and since we're talking about 1024 addresses vs. 65K addresses, I've blocked for six months. If he edits outside that range, let me know and I'll block the wider /16. And if someone feels the length is excessive (I don't), feel free to reduce. Katietalk 12:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
A belated thank you, KK! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Page user:Michgrig/common.js[edit]

Sorry if this is a wrong page, I have not been able to determine another one where to leave my request. Please delete the page because it is not needed any more; I've added this script to global.js on meta.--Michgrig (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. If you had put a U1 speedy tag on the page, it wouldn't have shown up on the page, but the page would have appeared in the proper CSD category and would have been deleted. Deor (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Unable to Edit 'Everyone Is Gay' Page[edit]

The 'Everyone Is Gay' page has been restricted to administrators, in order to prevent vandalism. It has a name that could potentially be flagged as unusual or inappropriate. I believe the name is misunderstood. Everyone Is Gay ( is an advice website and community for LGBTQ people. I believe it is not inappropriate. It includes many verifiable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grace30132016 (talkcontribs) 03:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The page is not restricted because it is considered inappropriate - that's not how we generally do things here. It's protected to prevent vandalism (as you said). ansh666 05:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Try writing a draft at User:Grace30132016/sandbox; once you think it;s ready, please come here and ask us to move it to its proper location. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


Editor Marchoctober appears dissatisfied with the adminning service he is receiving from SpacemanSpiff and is restoring to name calling and baiting and soapboxing. Would anyone care to provide further edification?

This most recent behavioral flare up is the result of some problematic edits he made at Kabali (film) as documented here. His response to the correction was to revert and call me biased. I had to post a ridiculously detailed explanation just so he could understand what the problems were. After SS intervened, the user took a defensive stance and I think we're now dealing with his perceived persecution. Marchoctober is currently blocked for personal attacks and is lashing out. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

He should have been topic banned from the area last year under WP:ARBIPA but I gave him a last warning then after the ANI. This nonsense has gone on long enough, he's wasting the time of many other productive editors. I was in two minds as to whether a topic ban or a block this time but went with a block as I wasn't sure a topic ban would work right now in stopping the disruption. —SpacemanSpiff 06:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
See also: these thoughts where he is adamant that his talk page can be used as a soapbox. It might be time to revoke talk page access. (User has been notified of AN post, BTW.) Spiff, are Indian films covered under the ArbCom discretionary sanctions? I've always wondered. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Technically, anything under India is covered. IN this particular thing, it's not just films but he's trying to play ethnicities in BLPs and film articles and attacking others on that basis. I don't care what he calls me as that has nothing to do with the content area, but that's just what he does in the content area where he gets in disputes. There's a real case of a lack of competence here. —SpacemanSpiff 06:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the competence assessment, for the headache that his two edits and subsequent reversion at Kabali caused me. He didn't understand the International Business Times source material, didn't write a proper summary of it, didn't notice that the content he was trying to summarize appeared in the paragraph immediately below his addition, didn't seem to understand my admonishment when I told him that he couldn't refactor a quotation and that he'd misinterpreted IBT. And then he got pissy about it, somehow confusing a "you read the source material wrong" message into some kind of a message that implied bias on my part. This isn't the only instance that has caused competence concerns either. In September he flagged two Baahubali film articles[10][11] with {{dubious}} tags, apparently expressing doubt that the film was shot both in Telugu and Tamil, even though he was part of the conversation that led to the consensus that we include both languages in various articles. I suspect he didn't like the taste of Tamil being included in a film from the Telugu film industry, which would be demonstrative of ethnic warring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I've revoked talk page access for the duration of the block as Marchoctober is only using it to post personal attacks - I think it's in their own interest to help them put the spade down and stop digging. (I haven't looked closely enough to opine on any possible ARBIPA sanctions.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks BsZ. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
(Random musing) You know, occasionally I wonder why such people are not indef blocked by default. That kind of belligerent attitude and bad edits seems like something one would not risk having back on the project without an explicit appeal or an administrator explicitly deciding that the issue is resolved, rather than hoping that within N seconds the issue is resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Well, you know, good faith and all. When I find myself in positions like this, I often get really concerned about being "involved". I would have blocked him initially had it not been for the previous discussions I was involved with him at Kabali. And when he reverted my edit, where I removed his quote refactoring, plagiarism, and misinterpreted content, I was sure I was justified, but I'm paranoid about being considered involved simply because I've expressed an opinion about something. Any edification that experienced admins have about this issue for me, I'd appreciate hearing. If an editor starts calling you biased and lobbing insults at you, can you still administrate? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: I tend to think the same as you - if it's me being accused or attacked, I prefer someone else to deal with it. As for content involvement, I think reversion of clear policy violations (with no editorial opinion on the actual content) should be fine, but it can be borderline and some would see it as involvement - I think judgment on misinterpretation of sources, for example, can cross the line. Again, ideally, if it's not simply a clear cut policy violation then I think admin action is best left to someone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack in edit summary (&c) by Til Eulenspiegel[edit]

Could some mop-wielder remove this edit summary and possibly remove the comment itself? Thanx! Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the comment and rev-deleted the summary, and I've blocked the IP - it's a wireless one, so someone might want to consider a rangeblock if necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Didn't see your response here until after I saw what you did and responded on your talk page. Bishonen knows this shit best, I think, but I messaged her earlier today and pinged her on your talk page. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Til apparently doesn't understand that the US constitution's freedom of speech doesn't guarantee one the right to use privately operated platforms like Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
And if one of you nice admins could block the IP and RevDel their comments here, that would be much appreciated. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@RickinBaltimore: I don't think revdeling is necessary. Keeping this stuff on the public record is good because there are a lot of users who aren't as bad as Til but aren't all that pleasant wither who don't have admin access and who try to deny the stuff folks like me have to put up with. Actually what I meant above by "remove the comment itself" was simply delete it rather than remove it from the public records. I would have done it myself, but I'm on a 1RR restriction that includes an exception for unambiguous vandalism but I don't think technically includes an exception for block evasion and personal attacks. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Is Til under an indef block? Or community ban? Because if the former, I think its time to get it formalised under the latter given the serious nature of the personal attacks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

By sheer coincidence, I asked that exact question, but more discretely, on WT:ADMIN earlier today. I think it's a "de facto community ban", and I think any admin who would dare to unilaterally unblock their main account should be a candidate for desysop. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Sadly indef block is not a de facto ban. I could provide examples including one where I genuinely thought no admin would ever *dream* of unblocking without running it by a noticeboard first.
  • Due to personal attacks (including but not limited to sexuality-based insults) while socking, I am proposing Til Eulenspigel's block is converted to a community ban. I cannot see any length of time mitigating my opinion someone who calls other editors 'fairies' is not welcome here.
Support as proposer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see a reason to allow the user to return to editing at this time. Continued socking and the vulgar comments left here and in the example above show that the community should not tolerate this behavior. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for obvious reasons. I should correct OID on one point, though. The recent insults toward me were not sexuality-based (I'm not gay nor does Til have any reason to think I am, except apparently that I am a westerner who likes Japanese poetry). The words used were just arbitrary epithets, and the thing really offensive was that the "F" word is jut offensive in and of itself, in a similar manner to the "N" word. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • To digress, that you may/may not be gay is irrelevant really. The insult was based on sexuality - using gay etc as a perjorative makes it a sexuality-based insult. Regardless of the recipient's sexuality - in that it is likely to offend. Likewise if I call you 'nigger' its still a racist insult, regardless of your actual colour. (After years of xbox live, I have little tolerance for 'gay' insults) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • What a sad case. We're talking about someone with great potential. They claim, BTW, that a lot of socks are misidentified as theirs; I have not known Til to say the kind of stuff that Hijiri88 signaled above, but I don't know them or their socks that well. I think (Doug Weller, is this correct?) that they said some really terrible things from sock accounts, more so than from the Til account, as if socking were a license. Esp. Doug, but me too, were called racists at various times. Anyway, I don't know what to say here. Again, I think Til has/had great potential if they could only stop edit warring, insulting, and socking--but those are hardly minor points. I am not going to support banning them, though. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Support Not for the personal attacks on me, but for the stated intent to continue socking and the persistent fringe pushing as well as the personal attacks on others.- @Drmies: you may not be aware how fringe Til is. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Doug, that is entirely possible. You know them much better than I do. I looked at a few random edits earlier today and they didn't seem so bad--but some of the stuff you and I dealt with last year or so certainly was fringey. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Action required at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloucester dory[edit]

Yes check.svg Done (and already landed me on ANI, that'll teach me to help)  · Salvidrim! ·  17:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The above AfD has been running for a month - as I have contributed I cannot close it. Would an uninvolved editor please assess and administer where appropriate? Thanks Nordic Nightfury 15:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Action required at open category discussion of 8 June[edit]

The above CfD has been running for several months - as I have contributed I cannot close it. Would an uninvolved editor please assess and administer where appropriate? Thanks. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit suppression needed[edit]

Yes check.svg Done by Jo-Jo Eumerus. JohnCD (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

I need an edit removed from history as it contains personal info (i.e. phone number) from a user. The offending edit is this [12]. Thanks Nordic Nightfury 19:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nordic Nightfury: Please, never post requests for suppression or revdel on a public noticeboard like this because it draws unwanted attention. The edit notice for this page tells you how to make such requests, but please see WP:REVDEL and WP:Oversight. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

AIV backlog[edit]

Backlog cleared. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

There's a backlog at WP:AIV. Some reports are over 5 hours old. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Range block request at an old SPI case[edit]

Can someone who knows about range blocks look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JShanley98? It's been open for over two weeks now without any admin comment. There's one IP address that's stable and used often, another that's used much more rarely, and an admittedly wide IPv6 range that I've asked to be range blocked. JShanley98 was blocked for copyright infringement, but he's mostly making gnomish edits. It's not a huge deal, but his continued disruption has annoyed several WikiProject Film members. If I need to provide more evidence or something, it would be nice to get a message to that effect.

If someone said they were going to patrol WP:SPI cases, I'd support their RFA. Just saying. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The IPv6 range is too stale, plus it's big (a /41 range from Verizon Wireless). I did block the most recent IP for three months. Hope that helps, and I'll dig in to some of the SPI backlog as soon as I feel like I'm not going to blow the place up. ;-) Katietalk 02:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks both. The most frustrating thing here is that they want to contribute, but never acknowledged that their copyvio additions were a problem. Thankfully their editing style is easy to spot when they pop up from time to time. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 07:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Rise in racism/fascism/antisemitism on Wikipedia?[edit]

I've been a little more active on ANI lately, but has anyone else noticed this? Zaostao (talk · contribs) was active for months before anyone noticed his user page, so I am not sure if it's just a coincidence that so many similar cases are coming forward in rapid succession, or if this has always been the case and I'm just noticing it now. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

From my point of view it's about the same as always. The traditional Holocaust denial has ticked downwards, if anything, but frankly bigoted editors are perhaps a little more numerous, and there has been a general increase in overt misogyny over the past three or four years. There has been a consistent attempt by POV pushers across a broad range of related topics to push the notion that national socialism in particular and fascism in general were products of the left (apparently because "socialism"). More eyes on those subjects would be welcome. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes. "It was the Democrats who lynched blacks" and "Hitler was a leftist who killed more Christians than Jews". I guess if you've been seeing it for a long time it might just be me, but I've come across like four such on incidents (almost all on ANI) in like two or three weeks. I guess the distaste most good Wikipedians have for any kind of interaction with such problems makes it worse. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Betteridge's law of headlines. Kingsindian   08:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The joys of increased internet coverage. The wrong sort of people get to have it too. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I've been here 10 years, I don't see a rise. The example page was subtle, easy for most people to miss the connection. I missed it, had to go look up 88 and 14. Dennis Brown - 10:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I spend quite a lot of time on modern German history etc., so I have seen quite a bit of what looks like right-wing POV pushing in the past. In my experience there has been quite a decrease in this sort of thing over the last few years, though there may have been a slight up-tick recently, for instance (as Acroterion mentioned) related to the notion that Nazis were left-wing. Other articles that need scrutiny are those that relate to the Aftermath of World War I in Germany and Aftermath of World War II in Germany. --Boson (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I see a lot of this as a result of pushback and other actions that are a result of WP's trends towards favoring topics that lean left and/or eschewing those that lean right due to many factors beyond our control (the general left-leaning tendencies of Western media, the current election cycle, the culture war going on, etc.) and some factors within our control (our RS policy that tends to disallow right-leaning sources while allowing left-leaning sources without considering broad changes in the behavior of the media, and how some policies like NPOV are interpreted in far too literal a manner to incorporate consideration of the larger picture). And this unfortunately is a self-fulfilling cycle as it stands while the external factors spin farther out of control. We appear to propagate the left-leaning views to this point, hence why we see more people trying to promote (for better or worse) right-leaning topics to try to combat this apparent bias. I agree most of these attempts are half-hearted and non-constructive, but we also tend to group constructive attempts to address this problem with the bad faith ones, which we have to be careful not to do. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I have been on here for 7 + years and also do not believe it is on the rise. If anything, it has decreased to some degree; and frankly, I have never seen this editor's (Zaostao) posts or user page; some edits do slip through onto Wikipedia for a time as one cannot watch everything all the time. However, they are usually dealt with once discovered. Kierzek (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: It would be helpful to have a dedicated noticeboard, perhaps as “Far-right” or “Political spectrum”, similar to RSN or Fringe Theories noticeboard. It was lucky that enough people were watching the Jared Taylor page so that Zaostao could be contained, but I’m sure there are many pages that nobody is watching. I’ve recently been exposed to some areas of the project which made me wonder—is this Wikipedia or is this Stormfront? Here’s a sample.
I’ve also been recently harassed for my supposed anti-fascist and anti-Nazi views:
Like any online project, you are going to get a variety of opinions, but some are more problematic than others. Thus a noticeboard may be a good idea. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that might be a good idea, but it would overlap with NPOVN. On a related note, just this morning I found a trinity of articles that used the word "Negroes" unironically, and two of them don't have it marked as a quotation. The book is 200 years old, so there's no copyright concern, but I wonder about the kind of editor who would rake a sentence like that and not think twice before re-producing it in Wikipedia's voice... Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe an additional noticeboard is needed; just use the ones available which apply to the editor or subject matter at hand. And keep a watchful eye out, as best as one can given this massive project and limited time we all or most here have. Kierzek (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it was always like this. Certainly I have been reverting that sort of nonsense for as long as I care to remember. In some cases you get people who are genuinely ignorant or confused about what left and right mean, while others are fully aware and just seek to muddy the waters for their own ideological reasons. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance and stuff... --DanielRigal (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • We have always had editors editing from a far right perspective, but I do agree that there has been an increase over the past year or two concurrent with the resurgence of far right politics in broader society (Alt-right etc.) Unfortunately I think this is natural and unavoidable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest[edit]

Hey admins--this article has seen a couple of editors trying to insert some decidedly unencyclopedic content to the article--in short, POV accusations naming living people with YouTube videos and other unacceptable sourcing. For example, "The extensive video investigation reveals that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are involved in this “bird-dogging” and other provocative tactics through a web of consultants led by Robert Creamer"--sourced to Breitbart. As far as I'm concerned anyone who sticks that kind of partisan nonsense with that kind of sourcing in any article should be blocked on the spot, but I would rather have some more eyes on it. I handed out some templated AC/DS warnings. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It's the presidential election. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I suspect that this is just more of the usual anti-Clinton conspiracy theory silliness of the same sort as the accusations that the DNC was secretly backing Hillary during the primary season. Oh wait... Eh. In any event better sources are required. I wouldn't trust Breitbart as a reliable source for the current weather. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Well there are better sources out there. Arguably the 'sting' is relevant to the protest article given the conversations recorded. With one sacking and one resignation of two of the parties recorded, its certainly had an impact. Breitbart and Hannity obviously put a different slant on it to CNN or the Post which make it clear O'Keefe has form for video manipulation in the area. But when as an organisation you complain that you have been the recipient of a 'well organised spy operation' without substantially addressing what they were actually spying on.... well thats a crap defense. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, you can "well" all you like, but those sources weren't cited, and that sentence I quoted isn't verified anyway. I don't care about the organization or the defense; I care about what kinds of statements are verified by what kinds of sources. It's pretty obvious that that particular statement makes a fact out of an accusation, and we should be very, very wary of that. Otherwise Wikipedia will be a disaster, and many people are saying that this is the worst POV statement in the history of statements. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
And let me just thank MPS1992 and all other conscientious Wikipedia editors who make edits like this one--removing text which is clearly not verified by the source and spins our article completely. If you read the source, it turns out that "The crowd immediately cheered, chanted "We dumped Trump!" and assaulted and tore signs from Trump supporters" is not verified; in fact, the source states the opposite, that some anti-Trump demonstrators were assaulted. As far as I'm concerned, this article should go--it's a minor event and exists only because a. it's election season, as one commenter here said, and b. we are in fact the NEWS. And the moment you become the news, POV is just around the corner. But if we're going to do this, we better do it right. Thanks MPS. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
That article ought to be deleted. Will anyone care about the event ten years from now as more than a footnote? No. Of course it won't be right now because all the political POV warriors and "every word written about the U.S. presidential election must be documented somewhere on Wikipedia" types will show up. Try AfDing it a month after the election when they'll be too busy edit warring at the Hillary Clinton presidency articles. -- (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree, and I wish you good luck. Some of y'all may remember the explosion of Occupy XXXX articles a few years ago. Or the Celebrity X on Twitter shit storm. No, no, this is much more important! Look at how many papers reported this news! (Yeah, it's their job--it's the news.) In the meantime I'm creating [[Category:Controversies of the 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest]], just in case. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hm. It's interesting to me that you mention Celebrity X on Twitter, given how much Trump's use of Twitter has played a role in this campaign. Admittedly, I thought a few of those articles were precisely useful for the understanding the early rise of that communication technology and the role of unfiltered thoughts directly to the mass of people from the source, but I also think this campaign event can find some home not as a stand-alone article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Abuse filter going nuts[edit]

Fixed at WP:EFN - suspect updated software conflict with old configuration style. — xaosflux Talk 10:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The "your mom" abuse filter seems to be triggering all and any IPs and new users. Xuzsagon (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit) Zzuuzz disabled it. Xuzsagon (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It's quite a useful filter, so any input please here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Category created by mistake[edit]

The cat page was speedy deleted by zzuuzz per WP:G7. North America1000 14:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Hello, I erroneously created Category:Towers in Atlanta on, unaware that I wasn't on Commons. Could you please delete it? I apologize for the mistake and the disturb. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 10:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Just put {{db-error}} on the page and an admin will take care of it eventually. In the future see Wikipedia:Deletion process for what to do when you want a page deleted. -- (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I'll read it! -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 11:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Outside opinion requested at SPI[edit]

Seeking outside review of the case filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papaursa. This case involves a small set of accounts who have been investigated for sockpuppetry multiple times without a conclusive finding. I and some other users have posted new analysis which I think points strongly to a conclusion, but I've been looking at this too long. I invite fresh eyes to review the clerk notes section and determine if a conclusion is supported by the analysis given. Thanks in advance. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Signature change[edit]

This is Darkknight2149. Since my signature is being forged by a vandal, I had to change it. If you see anyone using my previous signature ( DarkKnight2149 ) on 20 October 2016 or later, then it is NOT me. As such, I won't be revealing my new signature here in case the vandal sees this. You can use the edit history to verify that this is me. 18:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

From looking at your edit history I can see it's been an IP doing this, if it starts happening again report it to AIV. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested edits backlog[edit]

There is a backlog on conflict-of-interest edits that dates back over a year: Category:Requested edits. Zbergermww (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a very bad thing. Perhaps it would be beneficial to ask of future requesters for adminship whether they are aware of the impact of such backlogs on the very serious problems of COI editing that Wikipedia faces, and, if they are aware, what steps they have taken in their editing career prior to their RfA to deal with such backlogs. MPS1992 (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding GamerGate[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In May 2015 administrator Zad68 imposed extended confirmed protection of Talk:Gamergate controversy as a discretionary sanction in response to this AE request. The Arbitration Committee notes that Zad68 is currently inactive so the sanction cannot be modified without consensus or Committee action. Therefore the Committee lifts the discretionary sanction on Talk:Gamergate controversy (not the article) to allow the community to modify the protection level in accordance with the Wikipedia:Protection policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding GamerGate

Sudden change of editing font[edit]

Moved to VPT for followup. — xaosflux Talk 10:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

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

  • As I was editing a file just now, I caught a key (A?) accidentally, and the font used in the edit displayed in the edit window changed from the usual proportionate-width font to a typescript font with every letter the same width. Please how can I change it back? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Anthony Appleyard, the font in my edit form is always monospaced. I use the default skin (vector) and as far as I remember I have no special configuration to force the monospace font (I could, because I prefer it, but I think I don't and just checked whatever I remembered could influence it). So... maybe you have some configuration that changed it, either using a different skin, or some browser configuration? - Nabla (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

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