Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

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

 Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

Talk:Turkey#RfC on massacres and genocides in the lead

(Initiated 186 days ago on 8 October 2024) reopened RfC, has been stale now for almost 2 weeks. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Kshatriya#RfC: Should we mention "Rajputs" as most successful claimants of Kshatriya status?

(Initiated 105 days ago on 28 December 2024) CharlesWain (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#RfC on the explanation of SPS

(Initiated 76 days ago on 26 January 2025) It's been open for a month, and the RfC tag was removed on 25 February. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:Fringe theories/noticeboard#RFC about the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine and FRINGE

(Initiated 69 days ago on 2 February 2025) Discussion's been open for a month and mostly stagnant, rfc tag was just archived by legobot.Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

 Doing... DocZach (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Done}}, I have closed the discussion and wrote a summary of the arguments and the overall conclusion. DocZach (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Unarchiving/relisting here as the close was overturned as a WP:BADNAC by an WP:INVOLVED editor per this close review Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• After the mountain of bullshit I got from The Telegraph RFC close, I'm not touching this close with a ten foot barge pole, but I'll opine here that this is a very nasty trap for the inexperienced closer. The discussion isn't hosted on WP:RSN, which I think means that even though there's consensus that this outlet is advancing a fringe narrative, nevertheless the outcome shouldn't be the effective deprecation of a source.

This wants a triumvirate close, made by people who have high bullshit tolerance and asbestos talk pages.—S Marshall T/C 13:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 104#Puberty blockers in children

(Initiated 68 days ago on 4 February 2025) This was archived by the bot, but I think it needs formal closure. JonJ937 (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'm intrigued. Why does it need closing? The consensus is very clear indeed, and there are good reasons why we don't normally close discussions that have been archived.—S Marshall T/C 23:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Yasuke/Archive 10#RfC on Infobox Image

(Initiated 64 days ago on 7 February 2025) Discussion has slowed. Last !vote was two days ago and before that was 19th of February. TarnishedPath^talk 01:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Far-right politics#RfC lead image

(Initiated 62 days ago on 9 February 2025) Some1 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 217#Should other groups be able to use 2FA by default?

(Initiated 60 days ago on 11 February 2025) JJP_Master (she/they) 01:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC about the pathologization of trans identities

(Initiated 55 days ago on 17 February 2025) This was listed here, closed, taken to AN as a bad NAC and re-opened by the closernoticeboard&oldid=1278648147#Improper WP:NAC at FTN, and automatically archived from this boardrequests/Archive 39#WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC about the pathologization of trans identities. Aaron Liu originally listed it here with the comment "Fizzled out, round in circles, consensus seems clear" which I find sums it up well apart from "consensus seems clear" downplays just how overwhelmingly clear it is. Reposting it as it still needs closure. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm considering closing this, but don't want to blunder into an area I haven't interacted with before. Could somebody please explain what the function of the fringe theories noticeboard is, and what impact an unqualified "yes" consensus could be expected to have? I'm trying to wrap my head around the couple of procedural opposes. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I think after the previous closure I'd prefer trying to get an admin in, but: WP:FTN is mainly for editors to point out when someone is trying to make edits pushing "fringe theories", i.e. theories that are clearly outside the mainstream. Or at least that's what easily 90% of topics are about.

The point of a "yes" consensus here is to have something to point to when someone tries to make edits pushing certain types of anti-trans misinformation, such as that trans identity is a mental illness.

There's a bunch of active RFCs on similar topics on that noticeboard right now because a) someone tried to revisit the status of a certain organization (SEGM) as widely considered WP:FRINGE and b) during that discussion someone pointed out that what it means for an organization to be WP:FRINGE wasn't well defined and maybe it would be better to try to nail down what actual theories were WP:FRINGE instead. Loki (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

TL;DR: it means it is a fringe theory covered by the Wikipedia:Fringe theories policy. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll second that I think it's better for an admin to close, but also want to note that wrt an area I haven't interacted with before: you did perform an overturned NAC on the Telegraph on trans topics RFC, where the Telegraph's pathologization of trans people was heavily discussed.talk:Compassionate727#Telegraph RFC Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

By "area" I think he meant the Fringe theories policy. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe one of the main disputes underlying this discussion is what the impact of an unqualified "yes" consensus should be. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 201#RFC: Allow for bots (e.g. Citation bot) to remove redundant URLs known to not host a full freely-accessible version.

(Initiated 54 days ago on 17 February 2025)

Closure seems fairly obvious, but this area has been contentious in the past, so formal closure would be appreciated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AI images#Relist with broader question: Ban all AI images? (!vote here)

(Initiated 43 days ago on 28 February 2025) Some1 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

This one was quite active for 3 months, but as of yesterday it's gone quiet. Might be time to close? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC on Unite the Right Comments

(Initiated 32 days ago on 11 March 2025) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	1	28	103	132
TfD	0	0	11	1	12
MfD	0	0	4	2	6
FfD	0	0	9	2	11
RfD	0	0	10	38	48
AfD	0	0	0	23	23

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 28#Category:Redirect-Class 20th Century Studios articles of Low-importance

(Initiated 16 days ago on 28 March 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 28#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios articles of NA-importance

(Initiated 16 days ago on 28 March 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Muhammad Ali (writer)#Requested move 30 January 2025

(Initiated 72 days ago on 30 January 2025) TarnishedPath^talk 00:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Burzenland#Requested move 5 February 2025

(Initiated 67 days ago on 5 February 2025) TarnishedPath^talk 00:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Denver Outlaws#Merger proposal

(Initiated 65 days ago on 6 February 2025) Two users, who may be sockpuppets, were for the proposal, while three (including me) were against and have formed a consensus that the articles cover two different teams, and should be kept separate. No further discussion has taken place in two weeks, so I think this has run its course. — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

It has now been six weeks without any further discussion. — AFC Vixen 🦊 06:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Imjonseong Fortress#Requested move 9 February 2025

(Initiated 62 days ago on 9 February 2025) TarnishedPath^talk 00:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Iranian revolution#Requested move 18 February 2025

(Initiated 54 days ago on 18 February 2025) TarnishedPath^talk 00:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February#Big Five game

(Initiated 53 days ago on 18 February 2025) – Please help and consider evaluating the consensus in this review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February#Tour of Flanders (men's race)

(Initiated 53 days ago on 18 February 2025) – Please help and consider evaluating the consensus in this review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February#1925 tri-state tornado

(Initiated 51 days ago on 20 February 2025) – Please help and consider evaluating the consensus in this review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#German Federal Intelligence Service 2020/2025

(Initiated 31 days ago on 12 March 2025) A discussion on if and how to include reports that the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) considered a laboratory accident in China as the cause of the pandemic. 180.249.186.47 (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:WarnerMedia#Requested Split 15 March 2025

(Initiated 28 days ago on 15 March 2025) As one of the main editors involved in this discussion, which has seen no activity in 12 days, I am requesting an uninvolved party to review and close this discussion so this can be formally settled. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025#Requested move 20 March 2025

(Initiated 23 days ago on 20 March 2025) Overall discussion started on the 20th, but a refresh to consolidate discussion and vote was made a bit later. Involved editor, but seems as though the Option A here has emerged as the narrow consensus here. No new discussion in last 3 days. Still need non-involved editor/admin to assess separately and close here though. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I should probably note now that any uninvolved that assess this come to a consensus not just based off the option choices, seeing as in the time since I posted this it’s gotten close vote wise. Right now, looking at the broader picture, there appears to be broad consensus taking shape to keep a date range in the title. (and if you’re trying to be specific, as I’m typing this, the date range choices combined are leading over the simple titles). I say this just so we don’t end up with a contested closure like the one that befell the Tri-State tornado page above it seems. Hope that helps! MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 04:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Concensus seems to have shifted to E/NC based on a vote yesterday. — E_F⁵ 14:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually no. The date range options (A B and C) combined outweigh the non-date range votes (D and E) combined by a lot (12-9). Saying it shifted to E would probably be improper consensus as the majority so far want to keep the date range and would pretty likely get contested like the Tri-State. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

MarioProtIV, you can't close something as "ABC". It's either "A", "B", or "C". This isn't the place for further arguments on this anyways. — E_F⁵ 15:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I participated in this discussion, but will try to give a list of votes not clumped together in an unbiased way.
A - 6
B - 3
C - 3
D - 3
E - 7 (see below)
It's clear that there isn't consensus. On Mario's point of the clumped votes, I counted one user who supported the date ranges but didn't give a letter-based vote (@Tornado Tracker2:) and one user (can you ping IPs?) who opposed A through C but never voted in support of not having a date range. I also counted one user who opposed the refresh as a whole (@Fram:), but I'm not going to interpret their comment one way or another as that would be biased. Pinging both users because you obviously don't want to misinterpret a vote. — E_F⁵ 18:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

But there is broader consensus to keep the date range. And out of the options that have those, A leads them. This isn’t biased, this is simply evaluating the options to see where consensus is. As stated before, choosing E would be biased bc there are more votes that call for a date range then for that single option alone. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

MarioProtIV, A and E both have six votes, meaning that both are on the same level. If this discussion was just about a date range or not, why did you give five different options, just to later clump them together as some sort of WP:SUPERVOTE? As stated, I counted one IP who opposed A-C, and that comment is easy to find. — E_F⁵ 18:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

There were 5 options because several other people suggested them in the earlier parts of the discussion. But as the vote continued I realized they were getting very close and was concerned that an improper consensus would be formed that would actually not represent what the majority of users voted for, in this case keeping a date range on the title. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

...so you were concerned that consensus would shift and as such decided to clump them together to avoid the "refresh" closing the way you hoped? Last comment here, but that's exactly what I thought the refresh was trying to eliminate. — E_F⁵ 18:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

You are twisting my words here. I became concerned that it would close with a result that was not representative of the vote at large (more people want to keep the date range vs no), and would be contested by users afterward, seeing that E was a title that somewhat WP:UNDUE in nature given the main weather event (the tornado outbreak) that was WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. At this point the discussion has shifted from the inclusion of the California tornado or not to trying to do away with the date range. I saw what happened with the whole Tri-State move saga, which is what I want to avoid. I did a refresh to consolidate discussion because people kept bringing up more options in subsequent talk sections and I was not wanting to have this all over the place. At this point it’s gotten so contentious I wonder if it’d just be better to close it as no consensus seeing where we’re at and just start a new RM for moving it to be "Tornado outbreak and dust storm of March 1x–1x, 2025" or something seeing how that is the primary issue right now. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I already gave my !vote before the irregular "refresh" partway through the RfC, but you can add me to the count for "E" (with "D" second choice: A, B and C don't even match the actual contents of the page, which just lists tornadoes of the 14th and 15th!). I don't think involved people are supposed to pre-indicate consensus anyway, that's a conscious or unconscious attempt to influence the voter, but since we are here anyway I left my comment as well. Fram (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll stop commenting. — E_F⁵ 18:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Requested move 20 March 2025

(Initiated 23 days ago on 20 March 2025) As the OP of this one I made the decision to withdrawl given a broader RfC was opened on the date ranges and basically rendered this specific move discussion moot. Requesting a closure with the discussion withdrawn here. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Puelche language#Requested move 31 March 2025

(Initiated 12 days ago on 31 March 2025) I have proposed here to rename the page to a more commonly used name The discussion has emained stale for over a week now. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

 Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (58 out of 11567 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Renaissance Technologies 2025-04-12 16:13 2028-04-12 16:07 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry (See talk page of the latest sockpuppet) JBW Shuja Asad 2025-04-12 10:59 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Sahil Gupta 2025-04-12 10:40 2025-04-19 10:40 create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Czech Republic 2025-04-12 10:38 indefinite edit,move reinstating indef move protection; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD Tammun 2025-04-12 10:23 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Palestinian Popular Struggle Front 2025-04-12 10:22 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Webgeosolution 2025-04-12 03:33 2025-10-12 03:33 create Repeatedly recreated A7 article Anarchyte Lizzy Savetsky 2025-04-12 02:49 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Patrick Lancaster 2025-04-12 02:37 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Ada and Ẹbẹn 2025-04-11 18:34 2026-01-17 11:39 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry CambridgeBayWeather Adà vbé Ebén 2025-04-11 18:33 2026-01-17 11:39 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry CambridgeBayWeather Ada vbe Ẹbẹn 2025-04-11 18:32 2026-01-17 11:39 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry CambridgeBayWeather Emuoboh Gbagi 2025-04-11 14:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD RT (TV network) 2025-04-11 12:34 indefinite edit WP:RUSUKR - WP:RFPP request Anarchyte Denali 2025-04-10 21:02 2025-06-25 21:28 move Persistent disruptive editing; requested at WP:RfPP Ymblanter Khatri 2025-04-10 19:31 indefinite edit Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Template:Time signature 2025-04-10 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2557 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Draft:Southeastern Europe protests (2024–present) 2025-04-10 17:52 2025-07-10 17:52 move My mistake Liz Palestinian Fedayeen insurgency 2025-04-10 17:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Hurva Synagogue 2025-04-10 16:56 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester White Paper of 1939 2025-04-10 16:56 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Palestine Papers 2025-04-10 16:56 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Palestinian Mujahideen Movement 2025-04-10 16:56 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Palestinian National Salvation Front 2025-04-10 16:55 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Abu Hamza (spokesperson) 2025-04-10 16:55 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Mahasen al-Khateeb 2025-04-10 16:55 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Gaza war protests in New Zealand 2025-04-10 16:55 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Quneitra Governorate 2025-04-10 16:55 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Tubas Governorate 2025-04-10 16:55 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Tulkarm Governorate 2025-04-10 16:55 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Ramallah and al-Bireh Governorate 2025-04-10 16:55 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Jericho Governorate 2025-04-10 16:55 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Jerusalem Governorate 2025-04-10 16:55 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Bethlehem Governorate 2025-04-10 16:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Hebron Governorate 2025-04-10 16:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Council for European Palestinian Relations 2025-04-10 16:50 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Yitzhak Shapira 2025-04-10 16:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Ahmad Manasra 2025-04-10 16:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester La Grange Declarations 2025-04-10 16:45 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Palestinian National Covenant 2025-04-10 16:45 indefinite edit Arbitration enforcement Swatjester The Palestinian Museum 2025-04-10 16:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Swatjester Ms. Rachel 2025-04-10 16:04 2025-04-24 16:04 edit Temporary ECP (Arbitration enforcement) on ARBPIA related content due to current events (also on a BLP.) Swatjester Nana Ama Poku 2025-04-10 14:28 indefinite create Ugh Pppery Draft:LaFrance-Republic (company) 2025-04-10 12:39 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated as a way of gaming a previous draftification; if the subject is covered, it doesn't need this disambiguator anyway BusterD Draft:LaFrance-Republic 2025-04-10 12:25 2025-05-10 12:23 move third attempt at move protection; just getting my tea... BusterD Mike Johnson 2025-04-10 07:19 2026-04-10 07:18 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/AP, +1 year ToBeFree Plasma moon 2025-04-09 20:34 2025-04-16 20:34 create Repeatedly recreated Liz April 2025 Shuja'iyya massacre 2025-04-09 20:33 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I ToBeFree 2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites 2025-04-09 20:24 2026-04-09 20:24 edit,move WP:GS/SCW ToBeFree User talk:159.192.20.133 2025-04-09 20:09 2025-04-19 20:09 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:174.83.216.131 2025-04-09 19:33 2025-04-23 19:33 create HJ Mitchell Negi (surname) 2025-04-09 17:07 2026-04-09 17:07 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Ahluwalia‌ 2025-04-09 15:31 2025-09-09 18:43 edit Discospinster L2: Empuraan 2025-04-09 13:41 2025-04-16 13:41 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD Deir al-Balah Governorate 2025-04-09 01:21 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Security Cabinet of Israel 2025-04-09 00:49 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case User talk:117.2.185.212 2025-04-08 21:24 2025-04-22 21:24 create HJ Mitchell Valle de Ángeles 2025-04-08 19:58 2027-04-08 19:58 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Perennial problem Yamaguchi先生

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Associated points to note:

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

* All deletion activities are reviewable at WP:DRV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not currently proposing to look at non-article pages. I have looked at the deleted pages and have a plan of action at User:Stifle/I need to DRV these. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. For reference I bolded the five the needing review. I think this is important, GS/Crypto speedies could be unreasonably excluding notable topics, and chilling experienced Wikipedians from even trying. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I still don't see how these speedies of articles where the initial creation is at odds with GC/Crypto can in any form preclude the re-creation of such an article by neutral, experienced editors when the subject is notable. To me, this initial deletion is similar to nuking the contributions of banned editors. Those articles can also be re-created by others, but I oppose giving any credits to the banned user. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Biography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@NinjaRobotPirate: Well I had a go at improving the sidebar for ease of access to the AfDs on the project page, but still could do with someone who is better at need coding to review the project. The front page could do with an overhaul, anyway. Hope it helps those users that visit the project. Govvy (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Periodic Table of Cryptocurrencies - Blockchains deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unarchiving this - I'd like an answer to the broader question of whether admins can delete pages under GS that do not fall under a CSD criterion without discussion. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are quite right, the main topic article does not exist now, but killing the topic was the main point of the nomination and was explicitly declared as such (The article as it stands is a WP:COATRACK that amalgamates several semi-related campaigns of persecution into one, when there is no evidence of Ustasha, Wehrmacht, Albanian, Honvédség and Bulgarian coordination.). That's clearly what the editors agreed with, it's not a some sort of underhanded move. Speaking of "inconsistencies": your claim above (to ban any future attempt to create splinter articles) completely misconstrues the RM, because RM discussions cannot do that. GregorB (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the main topic article doesn't exist; the topic as a whole has been spread out over several articles. Was a move request the best way to do this? Possibly, possibly not. WP:PROSPLIT mentions a "split discussion" but there isn't really a set procedure or templates for that. Either way, the consensus at the move request is valid. (FWIW, the close itself was one of many bad closures that resulted in the closer's pagemover right being revoked). ansh666 19:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your "murder confession" GregorB. Killing the topic article is exactly what is the issue here. It is impossible to kill the topic without killing the article. There is no doubt that it is obvious that the article about "World War II persecution of Serbs" is the main topic article because of the victims, not because of the coordination between their (pro)Axis persecutors. Therefore I think there is no evidence of Ustasha, Wehrmacht, Albanian, Honvédség and Bulgarian coordination is one of the poorest DELETE arguments I have seen on wikipedia.

I simply think it is not allowed to kill any main topic/article without following requests of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Do you GregorB really think that it is possible to use such weak (or any) RM discussion to kill this (or any) kind of main topic article? If you do, what wikipedia policies your opinion is grounded at? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

"I simply think it is not allowed to kill any main topic/article without following requests of Wikipedia:Deletion policy." I believe you're mistaken here. Moves and merges are fully within the scope of WP:BOLD (within reason, of course). I don't think RMs such as this one can be disputed on procedural grounds. If you disagree with the outcome, you're free to open a RfC and see how it goes. GregorB (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

GregorB, I most sincerely apologize if I am mistaken here, but I think that it is you who got it all wrong. This discussion is about the murder of the main topic article, not about the name of one of its splinter articles. You admitted that the main topic article does not exist because you killed it. What wikipedia policy says that it is possible to use such weak (or any) RM discussion to kill this (or any) kind of main topic article without following any request of Wikipedia:Deletion policy? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Antidiskriminator:, your opening statement contains a lot of untrue statements. That was an RM in which it was generally agreed upon that the current state of the article as it stands is a WP:COATRACK, the discussion was open for a little over 9 days with every single participating editor supporting the move. Peacemaker suggested that unlike what was proposed in the RM (which is not within the jurisdiction of RM by the way), a couple of articles need not be created, and that their content be moved to an already existing article - which he did after the closure (a couple of editors hinged their support on that and the OP not having any problem with it) . Obviously the consensus was for the page to be moved there's no disputing that (if you have a contrary opinion please reopen another RM or use Move Review). So as regards your questions * No article was deleted, nobody mentioned deletion. The standard during RM is to leave a redirect during moves which I did, if you want it to redirect somewhere or you are against the redirect, please ask at the talk page. * NO RMs CANNOT ban creation of splinter articles, but seeing that a couple of editors already don't see it necessary, it would be a good idea to start an RfC expressing what you think. I really do understand you Antidiskriminator, and I really apologize for not responding earlier. Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I strongly suggest dropping the "murder"/"killed" commentary. It's an article, not a person. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The killing term was introduced by other party. I will use "not exist" instead of killed, as per above suggestion.

Note to uninitiated editors: page mover rights of Mahveotm were revoked because of multiple issues with their recent move closures link a day after they closed this "RM discussion".

Mahveotm, the discussion lasted for two days, between this edit and this edit. There was no discussion after this last edit. From some unknown reason it was not advertised at related wikiprojects so only a handful of editors who all share the same point of view at related articles, participated in this discussion.

@Mahveotm:, There is something else behind RM discussion. Please read the above confession: the main topic article does not exist now, but killing the topic was the main point of the nomination and was explicitly declared as such. The RM discussion was actually about reaching consensus that the main topic article should not exist.

It was decided that (12 years old) main topic article about persecution of millions of people and murder of dozens of thousands of people should not exist, without following Wikipedia:Deletion policy. On the other hand I am, somehow, expected to strictly abide to procedures and to initiate RfC (Move Review or Wikipedia:Deletion review?) if I want it to exist. If I am the only one who thinks there is something wrong here then this will be my last comment here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, the possible solutions are:

1. Promote more admins.

   Yeah right.

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

   In my dreams

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

   I refer you to the answer above

4. Get some more existing admins to frequent ERRORS

   See the next but one section

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

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

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

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

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

  And it would be easier to do so with a more collegiate approach that doesn't actively deter people from wanting to help. You know this. Fish+Karate 08:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Pretty please

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just stumbled across this edifying discussion. Would one of you gentlemen be so kind as to inform me why my username is cited here, in what context? Sca (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You missed the point again. It’s got nothing to do with how I “feel”. It’s about fixing the myriad issues on the main page every day. If you all know that issues exist every day yet choose to ignore it, that’s a shameful situation regardless. Anyway, I can see this is pointless with the some of the current group of admins, so I suggest someone closes these threads as a waste of time, and some of us will get back to trying to guarantee the quality of the main page for the 20 million views per day it receives. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Beeblebrox is missing your point at all, I think he's just making an additional and apt point. I get that it's not about what you feel, TRM, and it shouldn't be about any personal likes or dislikes, but that it should be about the simple fact that main page errors need to be fixed quickly. I agree with you completely on that. But how to actually achieve the desired state of affairs is every bit as critical as that first principle. You seem to think you can do it by being shitty with people and making demands about their apparent duty, while I (and certainly at least a few others here) think it would be more effectively achieved by being civil and friendly, and making requests rather than demands. I've observed the ERRORs thing, and a good number of main page discussions, and what I see there is a frequently toxic atmosphere with some regulars appearing to see it as their own domain and treating newcomers who want to help like shit. If admins don't like it and don't want to work there, TRM, it's because of what *you* and other regulars have made it - and you will have little success in attracting newcomers by carrying on with the same shittiness here. I think just about everyone can see that, except for you. And don't forget, you could have still been fixing these things yourself had you not been taken to Arbcom because of your own chronic shittiness. Losing you from the admin ranks was a disappointing blow, but it was 100% your own fault - your shitty approach didn't work then, and it is still not working. But you, apparently, are the only one who can't see it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I have to agree with Boing. And I say this as someone who is themselves sometimes too aggressive although fortunately it's perhaps a bit less of a deal with the stuff I do. While it's fully reasonable to disagree with someone, and reasonable to feel that errors are very important, if you respond in a way that comes across as extremely aggressive and angry, you put people off helping or getting involved point blank. Actually worse than that, even if someone may actually have agreed with you if you had been more friendly, some people may unconsciously reject what you said, even if the core of it was reasonably simply because you annoyed them too much with your unreasonable approach. As they say, being right doesn't mean you have to be an arse about it. Or to put it a different way, is it better errors are fixed most of the time and quickly, probably often in the way you wanted but not always? Or is it better errors are allowed to languish because no one wants to help because it simply isn't worth the grief? The evidence suggests it's currently the latter, and some basic understanding of human behaviour, interactions and emotions suggests it isn't surprising when responders are too aggressive. I see from below TRM has decided to stay away from ERRORS now. I find this unfortunate since it sounds like they generally do good work, if only they were able to modulate the way they respond things would be a lot better for everyone. Nil Einne (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't abolish ERRORS. I need something like ERRORS so people like JennyOz can tell me about unambiguous errors I missed, despite the major distraction described above. Art LaPella (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we have an admin roster, so there is always one on duty? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Because WP:VOLUNTEER. That sums up this whole issue, really. ansh666 08:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Everyone here is a volunteer and that includes the admins; everyone chooses where they want to work, and when there are 62,918,373 alternative places one could be working, you're going to be hard-pressed to persuade people that "come and work on a page that a couple of cranks see as their personal fiefdom and scream insults at anyone else who dares to touch it" is the place to be, let alone persuade them to sign up to a roster and commit themselves to being ranted at for the duration of their appointed timeslot. ‑ Iridescent 09:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Other volunteer organisations have rosters. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a weak argument. Admins could volunteer to be on a roster, just as they volunteered to be admins. It's not for any of us to say that none would, let alone cite VOLUNTEER as some Wikipedia high principle that precludes such a roster. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• I really think we need a clearer definition of what errors are in order for WP:ERRORS to serve its function normally. Others may disagree but I have always understood the main focus to be unambiguous errors, not a place for litigation of potential content dispute. It's nice that there is a notice about existing consensus for WP:ENGVAR; perhaps a consensus is needed to establish what an error report should consist of. Alex Shih (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• I have spotted errors before. Knowing that I am likely to make a mistake and get screamed at, I avoided correcting it myself and let the report sit for 30 mins before someone had the courage to fix it. Error correction is one of those high-risk, low-to-no reward task that many admins actively avoid. Side note, it's hilarious how we have this topic and the banner is displaying "How would you measure the health of your Wikimedia community?" OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• I actively clerked DYK prior to my RfA and had intended to participate at ERRORS, among other DYK-related tasks, after receiving the bit. I too was chased off from anything Main Page related. If I recall correctly, I noted that I saw part of the purpose of DYK as promoting content creation by recognizing solid new articles and had my head bitten off for it. I had assumed the problem of being driven off by a single contributor was not as widespread as this, though. If we have boatloads of high-activity admins being driven out of an area in need of attention by a single contributor, a topic ban sounds like the solution (and may fulfill the initial request for more eyes on the main page). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  Not required. I will never edit ERRORS again. Keep it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

With please comes thanks

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

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

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

I've been helping out on there quite a lot since I came back (only 35th but I'm on the rise!), and I would urge anyone else who is able to ignore TRM's occasional snippyness and focus on fixing the errors he and others point out - because most of what's pointed out there are errors - but also some of this could be fixed at source without having to make it to the main page before being fixed if DYK had a slower turnover rate to enable more quality checking. Fish+Karate 08:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Occasional snippyness? You've got to be joking! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I am employing understatement in the interests of defusing the issue rather than exacerbating it. Fish+Karate 09:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Fish and karate. Really appreciate all help. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

How about we all (all - several people on this page have been unnecessarily "snippy" on this) admins and non-admins, take a week of trying to help out from time to time at ERRORS without being "snippy". And see how it goes. That doesn't mean everyone needs to agree with each other. It's a place where we work as fast as possible to fix things and disagreement is part of it. But let's give it a try? I'm in. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional proposal

How about we all more admins keep an eye on WP:ERRORS and start issuing blocks for toxic incivility? And I mean long-term - a week is no use. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support in principle, although you know the answer to "why don't we issue blocks for toxic incivility" as well as I do unless you have a blinding urge to have the friends of whoever you block screaming abuse at you for the next month. Personally, I wouldn't be averse to trying the "topic-ban the problem editor(s)" remedy that finally brought order to the Reference Desks; that way it instantly solves the "toxic environment" problem, without losing the positive contributions that the problem editors make elsewhere. (If the errors are really that glaring, someone else will no doubt point them out; if nobody but the WP:OWNers of WP:ERRORS spots them or considers them worth raising, that says to me that the errors weren't that significant to start with.) Invoking such a remedy would mean either a full-blown 30-day RFC or an arb case, since at least one of the problematic editors would never accept such a ban voluntarily, and such a lengthy acrimonious debate may well be more trouble than it's worth. ‑ Iridescent 15:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  Yep, I get what you're saying on all those points. I was thinking about topic bans too, but as you say it would result in lengthy acrimony. But it might be needed some day. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Why not just start with the known quantity and apply a sanction for the problem? Restrict TRM from making more than one comment about any particular line item; specifically, permit him to make an initial report and no other comments. Four or five admins above have already said he's (one of) the issue(s), while one has said his reports are usually on point. --Izno (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• What a predictable and sad outcome. You want to avoid solving the actual problem. Well done all of you. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• I tell you what I’ll do, I just keep my own errors record and not go near your precious and sensitive ERRORS. That way you can all go on avoiding the main issue and I can keep a robust record of the ongoing main page negligence. Of course this will not incur POLEMIC because it will just be a r cord of factual issues. End of (your) problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Izno: how is that supposed to solve anything? Scenario: TRM reports an error, someone attempts to fix it, but has introduced another error in the process (or didn't quite understand the problem, or whatever), and now TRM is prevented from saying anything further about it? Since I don't recognize your username from ERRORS, I'm going to assume you're not very familiar with the day-to-day workings over there (unless you're a lurker, I guess), so you get a pass for not totally thinking that idea through. @Iridescent: if nobody but the WP:OWNers of WP:ERRORS spots them or considers them worth raising, that says to me that the errors weren't that significant to start with ... or another possibility: nobody else is paying close enough attention. TRM finds a lot of things in OTD because frankly, I don't have that much time to complete my task so I don't go through them with a fine-toothed comb like he does. We don't always see eye to eye, but he's more often right than not (much more often). I agree that he could stand to tone it down a bit, but if we're more concerned with people's feelings than we are with fixing the problems, then we are failing our readers. Not that everyone should be Vulcans either, though. However, from my observations there are a lot of times when people would rather spend their energy defending poor phrasing or misleading claims or what-have-you rather than fixing the problem. So I understand why he gets frustrated. I'm not excusing him, but when one repeatedly gets told off, it's not surprising that he starts pushing back. Anyway, I'm already late with doing my OTD edits for today, so I'm gonna get back to it. —howcheng {chat} 22:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I took it on good faith that his initial observations were usually on point. However, it should be obvious to you that his follow up commentary is toxic. Rather than see him be removed from ERRORS or from Wikipedia entirely, I thought I might throw out a "he may only leave one comment per line item". (There is another editor who has a similar restriction at RFA and that seems to have helped that editor there.) We can adjust from there (no more than 50 words, for example). Presumably, he will be more able to communicate the issues he has if he were only able to make a single comment without followup. Other users can figure out the best change (above, there are a half dozen admins who would be willing to work on ERRORS if they didn't have to deal with the toxicity). He doesn't need to white knight for the page nor be the single point of failure it seems he thinks he is. --Izno (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I've taken some random dips into ERRORS history from the past few months, and in addition to just seeing errors reported and fixed, I've also seen a bit of bitching about how errors got there in the first place and bitching about the people involved - none of that is needed, just report and fix, and I presume it's the kind of thing that Izno had in mind. Additionally, a lot of it is not so much clear errors, but imperfections, suggested improvements, failure to comply with strict DYK rules, etc. There's nothing wrong with wanting to improve those things, but most of is is not "Arrrgh, losers, your encyclopedia is a disgrace" failures. The sky is not falling. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
      • One more point... A one-comment restriction would be ineffective for someone who starts their commentary with gems like "I know this is a waste of time because no-one gives a toss about...". The more I look at it, the more I think a full topic ban is eventually going to be needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Please, stop wasting time. I've already said I'll no longer contribute ever again to ERRORS, you've got what you wanted and chased me away forever. I hope the myriad errors which beset the main page don't ruin the experiences of 20 millions readers every day. Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
          • You might not believe me, but I have not got what I most wanted. What I most wanted was for you to carry on doing your great work on main page errors, but change your persistent derogatory attitude to other volunteers. I do think that your removal from ERRORS is probably the second-best outcome given that you are apparently not prepared to adjust your attitude, but I'm disappointed we could not achieve the best outcome. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• It seems this is a moot point, as the person whom most of you are referring to has self-imposed a voluntary topic ban from this area of Wikipedia. --WaltCip (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• There is one point that I would like to comment on. The Rambling Man's approach to WP:ERRORS, is indeed in the manner of "fine-toothed comb" as Howcheng puts it pleasantly. Others may disagree it as nitpicking, but that is beyond the point. My opinion is that while this approach is perfectly fine for the final copyediting stage of a book about to be published, this is not a sustainable approach with the current reality our Main Page with limited volunteers. Across the project, the "fine-toothed comb" approach suits perfectly with WP:FAC, and if I am not mistaken, it has already been the standard approach. We are all aware of the importance of the Main Page and the necessity of not failing our readers, but we also must be realistic, and to realise that the only way to improve the readability of the Main Page is by working together.
  I disagree with howcheng on how TRM "repeatedly gets told off"; replace "told off" with "disagreed with", and that will probably be closer to reality. Many of the "errors" brought up by TRM, to quote their own words out of context with apologies, are simply instances where the content/blurb "could have been better, less misleading" ([2]). Whenever TRM brought up unambiguous errors, I am pretty sure most of us have been and are more than willing to fix them in a timely manner. But when it comes to questionable content, a simple query from a patrolling admin/editor are often met with hostility (especially for those admins that have history with TRM). We should not be personalising discussions; this is agreed by all editors that have commented so far. If we were to look back last 5000 revisions on ERRORS, it should not be difficult to find out which particular editor has been consistently initiating the personalising of discussion approach. It is frustrating because TRM is perfectly capable of working in a collegial manner; I have seen it, and I have read about it. This is not about sensitivity, nor is it about any one individual; but if any editor deliberately chooses to be belligerent toward another human being, their presence is not compatible with the project and needs to be removed from the topic area. Alex Shih (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Update

I've popped in at various points over the past few days, including over the weekend, when I don't normally edit, and found that issues are being resolved swiftly and without bickering. Maybe I've missed periods when that hasn't been the case (I've not exhaustively checked the diffs). But, for what I've seen, thank you everyone who's involved themselves so far. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Same here, and my thanks too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

From my point of view, the "duck boat" argument was a bit of a farce.--WaltCip (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

All the real errors are being dealt with elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're helping deal with it in your user space too, you also have my thanks - but we do need the established forum to be welcoming and friendly and free of snark and bitchiness. I still hope you might come back to it some day with a refreshed attitude. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

No, thanks. You and your colleagues have made it abundantly clear that robust discussion has no place at ERRORS, so I'll just do it my way. I'm glad to be away and just watching the complete farce that's left. I'm very pleased to be no longer part of it and note that it's rendering your page obsolete. You guys focus on how to describe a "duck boat", and I'll pick up the rest of the crud. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I think a bit of over-discussion of relatively minor issues is an inevitable part of consensus-based discussion. But it was civil and friendly, and I think it's something we have to accept if we want people to join in and help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It was a complete timesink joke that underlines the fact that ERRORS needs hard and fast decision-making, not dithering and filibustering. You even managed to insult a newcomer to the page, so that's really improved the atmosphere. The whole show was, frankly, dismal. If that's what we're upholding as an example of how ERRORS best works, good job I'm doing my own. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

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

IP hopping abuse

G'day all, an IP hopper is alternately reverting edits and warning people, changes IP as soon as blocked. A few extra eyes at the vandalism board would help. Not sure what the solution is other than whack-a-mole. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Err—right. Thanks for letting us know :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

If the word 'derp' means anything to anyone reading this, this is derp. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly standard note from an admin to their colleagues alerting them to a particularly troublesome editor to me. Jumping on this clown quickly when they cause disruption will help to persuade them to give up. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I do believe that zzuuzz was referring to the perp, not the reporter. Favonian (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, a standard response to more colleagues. Yes please keep an eye on recent changes and block the IPs as soon as. We have three edit filters dedicated to the derp vandal: 819, 875, and 876. I'll try and get them activated, but I'm a bit busy. Maybe someone else would? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for not understanding your meaning: 'derp' obviously didn't mean the same thing to me! Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Filter 249 catches this stuff pretty well. There could also be another simple filter but beans. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Beans indeed. A reminder to all that they are very likely reading this. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• No, I'm not. Abusive IP hopper (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Streamline unblock requests for missing IP information

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

---

Unblock requests that follow the instructions from the following templates are almost always missing the necessary IP information for the requests to be actioned:

• Template:Blocked proxy
• Template:Colocationwebhost
• Template:Webhostblock

(Have I missed any?)

The missing data always prompts an admin to have to ask for it and delays those that might be unblocked. It is frequently the reason for the first unblock decline.

A few examples
1, 2 by 331dot 3, 4, 5, 6 by Yamla who is using Template:Forgot ip which exists just for this reason. Are they forgetting to mention their IP? Where did we request it from them? 7, 8, 9 by JamesBWatson 10 by Boing! said Zebedee 11 12 13, 14, 15 by SQL

Wouldn't it make sense to work the IP request into the templates to save time? I had discussed this with Yamla a few months back and he brought up good points to consider.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly endorse. As someone who spends a lot of time reviewing unblock requests, this is a great idea and would make it a lot easier on these users. One single request followed by an unblock or a confirmation that the IP is a proxy or whatever, rather than several back-and-fourths with admins. You may have forgotten Template:Zombie proxy, though I've never seen it used. --Yamla (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have just looked at Template:Blocked proxy, Template:Colocationwebhost, and Template:Webhostblock and I was astonished to find that they do not tell the blocked editor to include their IP address in their unblock request. I had always thought that they did say that, and it had never crossed my mind to check. If I had done so, I would have just added that instruction to the templates, rather than start a discussion here about it. Am I missing something, or is it so blindingly obvious that the change should be made that nobody could possibly have to even think about it even for a second? Also, yes, change functionaries team to UTRS, obviously. I don't like "Forgot ip", because the editor usually didn't forget anything: he or she had just never been told it was needed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely feel free to delete Template:forgot ip. Note that many people won't know their IP. I tend to point them to WhatIsMyIP, but that's a commercial site and there may be better options. Note that users sometimes get their IP address incorrect even when I link to that because they post their private network address instead, ignoring the link. --Yamla (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually Yamla, that template would have a new and proper meaning if these changes have consensus because you would be using it in cases where they did forget after having gotten the message in the (changed) blocking template. Haha James, yes it looks obvious to me but the last time I made an obvious change it led to this thread and this RfC so I thought I would take the conservative route and get consensus. 8^D
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yamla: - Here lately I've taken to suggesting that the editor googles "What is my IP". It should be the first hit in the results. SQL^{Query me!} 20:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Strong endorse - I think this came up a couple days ago at ANI as well. The templates need tweaked as JamesBWatson suggests. SQL^{Query me!} 19:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse, yes, I really hadn't realised the templates didn't actually say to provide your IP address - I guess that explains why almost nobody ever does. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse. Sounds like a good idea. Thanks for the work on this. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Beyond this issue, these templates seem confusing for some non-admins/non-IT workers. When they appeal the block, they sometimes misinterpret the webhost block as a behavioral block. It's fairly common for someone to say, "Why am I blocked? I haven't done anything!" This leads to the same problem as above: "you're not blocked" "yes I am" "copy the message" "it says it's a webhost block" "well, what's your IP address?" NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• Hell yes for all the obvious reasons. This wastes administrator time. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• Just do it already. MER-C 09:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse per above arguments. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Changes made. Feel free to tweak or reword as necessary. MER-C 20:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

IPs running Bots?

Is it me or has there been a lot of IPs running some kind of interference automated programs? Govvy (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Govvy, see above thread "IP hopping abuse". Home Lander (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I read through that earlier, sounded similar, but wasn't sure, anyway, it feels very automated, I bet someone has written a bot for this so called IP hopping. Govvy (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. Home Lander (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

O well, guess Admins will sort it out, or either stick wiki on extended confirmed user lockdown to stop an IP onslaught!! Govvy (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there have been issues with vandal bots recently. Several admins are working on it, but the situation is not well-suited for public discussion per WP:BEANS, so there probably won't be a public "resolution". If you see vandalism from a bot or otherwise, report to WP:AIV or WP:RFPP as usual. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User_talk:Timathom/Archive_1

I attempted to break up the archive for User_talk:Timathom, but was unsuccessful in doing so. Can you please advise me on how to go about breaking up this archive, if I can not get the talk page deleted? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Bump --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not certain what you're asking for. The current split, while irregular, seems fine. Killiondude (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Reply - @Killiondude:, ideally, the archives should be User talk:Timathom/Archive 1, "User talk:Timathom/Archive 2", "User talk:Timathom/Archive 3", etc. Someone refused to delete the page such that this could be done. Additionally, User talk:Timathom/Archive 1 is over 200 kB, and the bot is not splitting it properly. Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• As far as I know it is up to the "owner" of a talk page to archive the page. Not somebody else. The Banner talk 14:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Reply - @The Banner:, as it turns out, on behalf of the user, someone else already archived the page here without splitting it into multiple pages. I changed the archive period, which caused the talk archive to be further split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Reckful has been scheduled for deletion since 2012

Back in 2012 Reckful was marked to be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reckful. It is still here - I guess it should be deleted or the template be removed...

If I'm in the wrong place I apologise and ask to be pointed in the right direction. --Baerentp (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• It was later recreated, which is why it still exists. There was substantial new coverage, so if you still think he isn't notable, I'd start a new AfD. I don't see a template anywhere on the page? There is a template on the talk page to note the past deletion, and that should stay there. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I missed that completely - sorry about that! Thanks, --Baerentp (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

A good way to check things like this is to look at the article's log, which I think that all editors can access via the article history page (for instance, [3]). Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The other quick n dirty way is to look at the editing history page and see if there are any large gaps (in this case 2013 - 2018) which may indicate it wasnt available for editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You can go to Special:Log and type "Reckful" in as the target - you'll see that the page was deleted in 2013, restored and userfied on 18 March 2018, and then the userfied version was moved a day later, from User:Valoem/Reckful back into mainspace (via Byron Bernstein for some reason). Fish+Karate 12:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock, anyone?

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

---

See the history of Vladimir (name). I’m no expert on the subject but it looks like closely related IPs. They are POV pushing and have been blocked before for the same thing. Is a rangeblock feasible here? (I may not be around for the ext few hours, if a rangeblock is not going to work the page should probably be semi-ed) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

To be going on with, I've blocked the tiny 83.169.216.0/25 range, that a clutch of them come from. Bishonen | talk 19:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC).

thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Please review this block

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

---

Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I've blocked this user indefinitely for continuing after a warning to disrupt the area of waterboarding with false claims of BLP against someone who is not mentioned in the article. I am posting here to avoid any appearance of involvement as I have participated in the ongoing RfC at Talk:Waterboarding. The last straw for me was when I saw that, not content with false claims of BLP to bolster a counter-factual position at the article talk, the editor had started chipping away at Enhanced interrogation techniques, changing sourced information to conform with their POV. The length of block seems unavoidable given the user's extensive pre-existing block log. As ever, I would have no objection to an unblock if the user is able to indicate their understanding of their mistake and undertake not to repeat it. --John (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Good block - P&W was adequately warned prior the block,[4] however he continued to carry out the objectionable WP:DE. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• Good block. "All of the sources I've read, which are not clearly biased in favor of the left, describe this as "enhanced interrogation" or "harsh interrogation"" - ie " All of the sources I've read, other than those I disagree with...". Obviously unacceptable POV approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  I'll add that I have declined an unblock request, which was little more than an attack on the blocking admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Good block - I totally agree with Boing! said Zebedee decline rational. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Looks fair enough. The spurious claims of BLP violations (e.g. [5] [6]) are particularly bad. Hut 8.5 19:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• I can't find any objections, either. The warning was fine, the block log necessarily predicated the length of block time, and the changing of consensus was egregious; attacking the blocking admin was additional poor judgment, to say the least. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm involved in the discussion at talk: waterboarding, so take my opinon cum grano salis. I took this block as an occasion to look over the user's contribution. Over the last year or so, the user nearly exclusively debated some few political hot-button issues. From May 22nd to now it's waterboarding, from November 2017 to February 2018 it was Al Franken (where he was much less concerned about WP:BLP). His primary concern is so-called "liberal bias" - where "liberal" is everything outside a very narrow cone of perception (apparently the Guardian, Forbes, Salon (website) and Slate (magazine) are "the left-wing fringe"). The last significant content contributions, apart from a bizarre edit war on Ugg boots, were in 2015. As far as I can tell, the user is WP:NOTHERE. Im sorry, but good block. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Reconsider - I am also involved in the RFC discussion at talk: waterboarding, very much on the opposite side of this editor. I find his position on BLP unsupportable, if not ludicrous. Nonetheless, I would like to permit him to continue to contribute to the ongoing RFC there. I would much rather have his views dealt with on their merits and not create any basis for claims that Wikipedia will not tolerate right-wing voices. The edits he is being blocked for, while arguably disruptive, reflect an opinion that has many followers and were not, in my opinion, made in bad faith. The articles in question are closely watched and any edits he makes against consensus can be and were promptly undone. Therefore the risk of allowing him to continue to edit at least talk pages on this topic are very low and blocks can be quickly replaced if warranted. I don't want to silence this voice, though I heartily disagree with it.--agr (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• "I would have no objection to an unblock if the user is able to indicate their understanding of their mistake and undertake not to repeat it", as noted above. He can be unblocked pretty quick once he confirms that he understands what he did wrong. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Close review please

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

---

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table Rock Lake duck boat accident. It was closed as speedy keep because the article is currently linked to the main page via ITN. That rule invoked, WP:SKCRIT#6 seems perfectly clear on the matter to me, but I have been editorially involved in the article so I’d like someone else to review the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaand while I was writing this the original closer re-instated the close, so never mind. Might turn into an edit war though. We’ll see. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The rule is perfectly clear and I assume the new editor who nominated the page was un-aware of it. I've restored my Speedy Keep close and posted on their talk page, and expect they will be blocked if they edit-war in clear violation of policy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a guideline not a policy or rule. It's also functionally irrelevant since any AFD opened while it's on the front page won't be closed until its off. Its just to prevent tags on the article which would disqualify it from the various main page criteria. But ultimately if the legitimacy of an article is in question it shouldn't be on the main page until that is settled. And a guideline for 'speedy keeping' does not supersede the actual deletion policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be ignored, even if it is just a "guideline". There's no reason not to discuss on WP:ERRORS or to wait until the page is removed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I am suggesting you dont say things are in violation of policy and talk about getting editors blocked when the actual policy that governs deletion doesnt say that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Irrelevant aside: It took quote a few seconds for the title of the article in question to cohere in my mind as a phrase, as I kept seeing it a disconnected list of words: table, rock, lake, duck, boat, accident. My question is: what kind of psychological or neurological specialist should I see? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hyphenating “duck-boat” would help. --Calton | Talk 09:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• It sounds like a variant of Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• blah blah Wikipedia blah blah medical advice blah blah blah... ansh666 18:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• It doesn't help that they're all capitalized, as sentences usually aren't. Natureium (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, try saying this: "Duck takes licks in lakes Luke Luck likes. Luke Luck takes licks in lakes duck likes." Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Wow, that's really hard. On a more general note, they turn off the WiFi here at the Sanatarium pretty early, so I won't be around as much as I have in the past. Fortunately, there's an ex-Wikipedian ward here, so there's plenty of people to talk to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The AfD nominator Vanrich has been blocked as a sock. This can probably be closed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Purpureocillium lilacinum

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

---

Could we please have a WikiData page for Purpureocillium lilacinum (an economically significant species)? I have moved content from the genus (which is no longer monotypic) page ... I think that the SV:WP and other language pages should also point to the species, not the genus.Roy Bateman (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean; there's a Wikidata page for it here. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

OK - many thanks - it didn't seem to come up when I did a search the other day ... Roy Bateman (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It was created just a few hours before your initial post here. WikiData works in mysterious ways. Killiondude (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Who's the LTA at User talk:The Rambling Man?

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

---

User talk:The Rambling Man (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) might also need protection. I've left it open to collect IPs, but that might not be the best thing to do. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Vote X again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Concur, it is rather self-evidently Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. The edit summaries are a dead give-away, coupled with GB-based public-access IPs. --Jayron32 13:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-ed for a day. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I got name-checked from three years ago :D Doesn't time fly when you're having fun.... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure it's yet another one of my sockpuppets. I think I was blocked once for responding to the IP as it was considered "facilitating a banned user", even though I had no idea at the time who it was. Some admins, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Abandoned discussion at Talk:Comic Con

Can anyone close this discussion, please? 189.69.68.249 (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Which discussion? There are several discussions on that talk page. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That about the merge. 187.26.160.124 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Backlog-that-is-not-a-backlog at WP:UAA

There are several usernames that have been globally locked – I assume the bot has not removed them because they are not blocked locally, though. There are also quite a few requests that have been replied to as "wait until the user edits". Would it be proper for a non-admin to clean those up, or would it be better to have an admin do it? –FlyingAce^✈hello 22:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Anything marked to wait can be moved to the holding pen. And yes, you can just remove anyone who is globally locked. This sort of thing is one of the few ways non-admins can really help at UAA and is always appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Fault in page Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or one of its subpages

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T200402

In Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, each listed subcategory is accompanied by a count of how many pages are in that subcategory. But for at least the last several days, the number with the link to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions, is much more than the amount of pages listed when I look at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that too; the cat_pages entry is out of sync. -FASTILY 06:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I saw it too. A few days ago the count was over 150 and stayed there but the category was empty; at the moment the count is 294, still empty. – Athaenara ✉ 08:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a recurrence of this problem from May.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T195397

BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

request for revoking TPA

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

---

Would somebody kindly revoke TPA of User talk:Clarkzero? Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Done, and talk page nonsense blanked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• I realize User:Clarkzero is now indef blocked with TPA revoked, but why does he still have rollbacker and pending changes reviewer rights [7]. How on earth did someone with a track record like this get them in the first place? . Voceditenore (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  On the off chance that he can get himself unblocked, I have removed those two rights. There's no way a serial copyright violator should have them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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

ASR VISIONS

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

---

Vandalism as first edits. —Heating172 (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2018.

(Non-administrator comment) @Heating172: Unless there are deleted edits, I do not see how the user's edits to their talk page constitute vandalism. Self-promotional, yes, but not all disruptive editing is vandalism; please take a moment to read WP:NOTVAND. In any case, if the edits were vandalism, the proper channel to report is WP:AIV. –FlyingAce^✈hello 13:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

While not vandalism, the account is a promotional one, with a promotional name. I've blocked the account on these grounds, and they are more than welcome to request an unblock with a name change, and what they plan on editing outside of their organization. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Attapeu dam collapse

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

---

Please could someone look at the requested move here, as it's on the mainpage right now. I have commented on the move myself. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks John. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles closed

An arbitration case regarding BLP issues on British politics articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Philip Cross (talk · contribs) is warned to avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest. Further, he is warned that his off-wiki behavior may lead to further sanctions to the extent it adversely impacts the English Wikipedia.
2. Philip Cross (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in May 2018.
3. KalHolmann (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from linking to or speculating about the off-wiki behavior or identity of other editors. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter. All appeals must be directed toward arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org.
4. The community is reminded that publicly posting details or speculation regarding an editor’s personal information or off-wiki behavior violates the policy on outing, unless the information has been disclosed on-wiki by the editor in question. Concerns regarding off-wiki behavior are best reported through an appropriate private channel rather than on community noticeboards.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles closed

Topic ban appeal

Back in January, it was voted upon to indefinitely topic-ban me from XFD.

I admit that XFD has been a major sticking point for me over the years, and the above discussion wasn't my first go-round there. This one seems to have been instigated by my attempts to clean up Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field. I clearly bit off more than I could chew there -- I was plowing through a ton of articles that seemed incredibly abandoned and non-notable on first glance, only to be proven wrong by one AFD too many. I was frustrated to no end by a constant barrage of !votes that seemed to me like WP:ATA and a lot of what I perceived as WP:SEP behavior. It was driving me to become far more angry and confrontational than I needed to be. I think it was clear that taking on such a huge task was only exacerbating my problems in previous XFDs. When this happened, I was told that it would be possible to appeal later on, so here I am. I went overboard and kept provoking myself instead of stepping back, and I think the topic-ban was justified since it cleared my head of the XFD process and frustrations thereof for a while.

Recently I was asked to take a look at Beader. This article seems like a surefire AFD candidate. No sources that I have found, including Merriam-Webster or Wiktionary, support the article as written. An AFD would be a good way to decide whether to delete it outright, redirect to beadwork, or rewrite it to be about something else. I also found Template:Angaleena Presley, a template that navigates only three articles and isn't even used on its parent article, thus failing WP:NENAN. Thirdly I found Real-time multimedia over ATM, a completely contextless essay that doesn't seem to have any reason to exist. And finally I found Sports Overnight America, a show that airs on a non-notable SiriusXM channel, and extensive Googling of which does not turn up anything but reposts of episodes. I would like to use these four as a trial basis for reverting my XFD topic-ban. Perhaps some sort of soft limitations can be placed to make sure I don't go overboard again (limit on number of XFDs per day/week, one-strike rule on bad XFD behavior, etc.). Whatever it is, I would like to acknowledge my reckless behavior and be given a chance to appeal my topic-ban. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the TBAN placed approximately 6 months ago both prevented TenPoundHammer from nominating articles for deletion, and from commenting/!voting on other people's nominations. As this user has followed their TBAN and contributed constructively elsewhere, I'm inclined to support loosening the topic ban, with some restrictions for at least 6 more months. Based on the appeal statement, they seem more interested in being able to nominate articles than in voting, but it feels backwards to allow TPH to nominate articles for deletion but not to comment on other people's deletion proposals. A limit on the number of AFDs per day seems necessary as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I find your topic ban appeal inadequate in several ways, TenPoundHammer. The severe behavioral problems that led to the topic ban go back well over a decade, and I expect you to acknowledge those disruptive behaviors and make specific pledges to avoid specific behaviors. Let's take for example your long-term behavior of profanely insulting and berating editors who provide links to reliable sources showing notabilty in AfD debates. I speak as an editor who lists about 100 examples on my user page where I saved articles from AfD by adding sources. You seem to believe that such editors are obligated to add those sources to the article, even though there is nothing whatsoever in policies or guidelines that requires that. I recommend that you have a specific editing restriction that obligates you to add properly formatted references to any article you nominated for deletion whenever any other editor finds a good source. You should also be restricted from using the "f-bomb" or any other profanity or personal insults in XfD discussions. You have failed to address your misleading edit summaries which seemed intended to deceive other editors. You must make a firm commitment to informative, truthful edit summaries. You have repeatedly admitted that your Google skills are inadequate to properly complete WP:BEFORE. Since this problem has persisted for well over a decade, I want to know which specific and concrete steps that you have taken to improve your Google search skills in the past six months. I have a very strong suspicion that lifting your topic ban without specific restrictions on your behavior, and specific ironclad behavioral commitments from you, will lead straight to further disruption, and further blocks or bans. So, convince me that your long years of repeated disruptive XfD behavior will never, ever happen again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)