Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:31, 23 July 2018

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages 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.

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

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

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 26 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 24 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 93 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 72 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 63 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 54 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 47 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine

(Initiated 32 days ago on 7 December 2024) slowed for a while Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 20 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 106 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 84 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  20:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 72 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 63 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 42 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Request narrowing of ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is disagreement about whether Misplaced Pages:Deletion review is the correct venue. The speedy deleting admin recommended a speedy close, writing, "wrong venue. General sanctions must be appealed at the Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies#Page level sanctions are:

1. Payment21 deleted as undisclosed native advertising (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mar11). MER-C 15:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
2. NAgriTech International Distributors Ltd. deleted as undisclosed native advertising (Misplaced Pages: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 (Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Sn6054884). MER-C 11:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
7. Draft:Cashaa Alternate deleted as undisclosed native advertising (Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Sn6054884). MER-C 11:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
8. Viberate deleted as undisclosed native advertising (Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages: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 (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Kleubay). MER-C 11:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
22. Larson&Holz deleted and salted as deliberate abuse of Misplaced Pages as a marketing medium (). 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 08:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SPI

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

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

WP:WikiProject Biography

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

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

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

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

The limit of 2 MB for post‐expand include size refers to the fact that Misplaced Pages'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, Misplaced Pages: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

Draft:Periodic Table of Cryptocurrencies - Blockchains

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages's reputation as keeping the articles live. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
• Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol had a majority for overturning and was closed with no consensus but was not overturned. This is the correct outcome only if WP:GS/Crypto authorises deletion and it looks like there's no consensus that it does. Even if there's consensus to apply it to content, there could be a dispute where there is 60% support for one proposal and 40% for another, and an administrator would be able to use GS in favour of the 40% that the 60% would not be enough to overturn. Peter James (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

UK technology articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"If"? You mean you haven't?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chintu6 WP:3X

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

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

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

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

Otomat and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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: 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 Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy. On the other hand I am, somehow, expected to strictly abide to procedures and to initiate RfC (Move Review or Misplaced Pages: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)

File:Metal Detector.jpg

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

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

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

WP:ERRORS

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

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

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

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

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

  Sheesh, chill out. Erpert 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 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 - Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ealdgyth - and looking back at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 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)

Request for merge discussion closure

Will an uninvolved administrator please determine the consensus at this merger discussion? THE DIAZ 23:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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 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 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 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 62,227,991 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. --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" (). 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)

An interesting new form of abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 10:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

If the word 'derp' means anything to anyone reading this, this is derp. -- zzuuzz 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 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_Contribs 12:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

An idea to help track ERRORS - dashboard on AN

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

On WP:BN, we have a little "Crat tasks" dashboard in the top corner, which helps us Crats track the areas of responsibility we have. I've seen various versions of admin dashboards over the years. Could we have one on this page, below the archives? If so, it would be great if the status of ERRORS was included somehow - it's currently empty, thank you. PS Apologies if this is a PEREN. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea, nor do I think it will change anything as ERRORS already receive enough coverage as it is being part of Talk:Main Page. Finally, I really don't think we need now three threads about ERRORS, when the issue apparent is not about the lack of awareness, rather than the cultivated culture of toxic atmosphere from the clash over the definition of "errors" when the likely intended original purpose of such noticeboard should have been about unambiguous errors. Alex Shih (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. If we were to give such priority to a noticeboard, surely it should be one associated with BLP violations? Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Much as I applaud suggestions for getting more people to work on main page errors, I can't help seeing this as missing the core problem. And that's the toxic atmosphere cultivated by a small number of regulars. The illness needs to be addressed, not the symptoms. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC) PS: I'll add that I apologize for not having any real idea of how to address the illness. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I've led there to be too many threads here. This one's a non-starter, clearly, so can be closed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Streamline unblock requests for missing IP information

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.

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 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 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 08:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• Just do it already. MER-C 09:02, 21 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 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)

Reckful has been scheduled for deletion since 2012

Back in 2012 Reckful was marked to be deleted as per Misplaced Pages: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 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, ). 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)

Requesting Block Review

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

Usman47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hassan Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hassan Guy

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hassan Guy/Archive

Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Hassan Guy

I recently blocked Usman47 as a duck sock of LTA Hassan Guy. See their talk page and the above links. Currently they are appealing their block and denying any connection to HG. While I still think there is a very strong likelihood that they are either a sock, or a meat puppet, out of an abundance of caution I would kindly ask one or more experienced editors to have a second look in case I am missing something or there is a difference of opinion about the level of evidence. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:03, 21 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)

Please review this block

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, 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. ) 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Oct13

Please rename User:Oct13/sandbox to User talk:Oct13. Rename this in order to correct my mistake and preserve history of the talk page. I thought that the page was only a sandbox, I was wrong. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. You might want to still copy/paste the "draft" into a sandbox page. Killiondude (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Close review please

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

At Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog