Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators. Sections older than six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Issues appropriate for this page include general announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices. If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wpwikimedia.org directly with your concern. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Click here to start a new discussion

Centralized discussion Merging "Infobox single" and "Infobox song" Combining AfC reviewers and new page reviewers Applying proposed-deletion procedure to files Guidelines for "joke" categories on user pages Expansion of qualifications for IP Block Exemption "File autopatrolled" user right proposal Future years – how far is too far?

Noticeboard archives

Requests for closure

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

See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves § Backlog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

RfCs

Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for comment on our proposed policy for users remaining in redlinked categories

(Initiated 70 days ago on 6 January 2017) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer)#RfC: Assassin or not?

This RfC (Initiated 73 days ago on 3 January 2017) finished after 30 days of discussion, and I have now closed it to prevent the discussion from overrunning. This was merely a housekeeping closure; I have not determined a result, so I would like an administrator to override my closure with a result. Thank you. Linguist^talk|contribs 14:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Multi-part RFC on Wikipedia:Recent years

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Multi-part RFC on Wikipedia:Recent years (Initiated 64 days ago on 13 January 2017)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox unit#RfC: capitalization rule for name parameter

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox unit#RfC: capitalization rule for name parameter (Initiated 69 days ago on 8 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Workshopping an RfC on the inactivity policy

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Workshopping an RfC on the inactivity policy (Initiated 81 days ago on 27 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Fake news website#RfC: merges of related pages

A close here would be good as the articles in question are high-traffic. (Initiated 52 days ago on 25 January 2017) 121.218.198.209 (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to submit blockers on replacing our wikitext editor

The uninvolved closer is needed to evaluate the consensus. (Initiated 60 days ago on 16 January 2017) George Ho (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC on G13

This discussion (Initiated 56 days ago on 20 January 2017) also needs an uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Y Partly done - Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Should there be a PROD-like deletion process that can be used as a G13-replacement? still needs a close, and I have no idea what it should be, so I left it alone. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 World Rally Championship#RFC

Would an experienced and uninvolved editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 World Rally Championship#RFC? (Initiated 54 days ago on 23 January 2017)? It would also be advised to take the subsequent discussion, Talk:2017 World Rally Championship#Top-level article into account when closing this one, as the RFC participants posted contributions relevant to the RFC question in that discussion as well. Thanks, Tvx1 22:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Timothy Winter#Request for comment on "controversies" section

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Timothy Winter#Request for comment on "controversies" section (Initiated 56 days ago on 21 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tom Brady#RfC: Should the lead mention Deflategate?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tom Brady#RfC: Should the lead mention Deflategate? (Initiated 51 days ago on 26 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:British Empire#RfC Laissez-faire link

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:British Empire#RfC Laissez-faire link (Initiated 60 days ago on 17 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Nissan Caravan#Useless dab tags

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nissan Caravan#Useless dab tags (Initiated 63 days ago on 14 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC about attributing accusations of selective editing and Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC on adding latest video about Trump inauguration

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC about attributing accusations of selective editing (Initiated 58 days ago on 19 January 2017) and Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC on adding latest video about Trump inauguration (Initiated 57 days ago on 20 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 137#RFC on WP:RESTRICT

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 137#RFC on WP:RESTRICT (Initiated 52 days ago on 25 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Kfar Ahim#RfC: Arab vs. Palestinian?

Could some brave admin please assess the consensus at Talk:Kfar Ahim#RfC: Arab vs. Palestinian? (Initiated 73 days ago on 4 January 2017)? One editor tried to close it, but it was reopened, hope we can finally close it soon, thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a note to the closing admin, when you do close, you should make sure that you specify that it's only for the specific page, a multipage RFC can't be dealt with at one article's talk page. It needs to be in a central location and prominently advertised. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This issue is addressed at the above talk-page, Huldra (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ben Swann#RfC: description of RT (TV network) in Ben Swann

Is anyone willing to assess the consensus for this RfC (Initiated 37 days ago on 8 February 2017), which was just de-listed after 30 days? Thanks. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RFC on Russian Interference Opening - Conclusion versus accused

Could an experience and uninvolved editor close the following RFC. It relates to the wording in both Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections and United States presidential election, 2016. (Initiated 10 days ago on 7 March 2017) Casprings (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: After just over four days? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Yeah, you are right.Casprings (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#Proposed merge with Dangerous (book)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#Proposed merge with Dangerous (book) (Initiated 25 days ago on 21 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Reza Aslan#Aslan on Ahmadinejad

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Reza Aslan#Aslan on Ahmadinejad (Initiated 40 days ago on 6 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Emmett Till#Emmett Till lead sentence RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Emmett Till#Emmett Till lead sentence RFC (Initiated 40 days ago on 6 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:MAKS Air Show#RfC: Details

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:MAKS Air Show#RfC: Details (Initiated 59 days ago on 18 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar#Request for Comment: Spanish Position Section of Article

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar#Request for Comment: Spanish Position Section of Article (Initiated 43 days ago on 3 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Nintendo Switch#SoC details RfC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nintendo Switch#SoC details RfC (Initiated 44 days ago on 2 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Armenia#RFC for Western Asia vs. Eastern Europe

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Armenia#RFC for Western Asia vs. Eastern Europe (Initiated 45 days ago on 1 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC on 5% threshold

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC on 5% threshold (Initiated 43 days ago on 3 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Melbourne car attack#Inaccurate capitalisation and spelling

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Melbourne car attack#Inaccurate capitalisation and spelling (Initiated 50 days ago on 27 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Future years- how far is too far?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Future years- how far is too far? (Initiated 31 days ago on 15 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Future of magic links

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Future of magic links (Initiated 43 days ago on 3 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Backlog of unpatrolled files

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Backlog of unpatrolled files (Initiated 34 days ago on 12 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Edit filter#RfC: use of edit filter against unreliable sources

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter#RfC: use of edit filter against unreliable sources (Initiated 37 days ago on 9 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure

The backlog has been growing again, currently some 150 open discussions, the oldest is almost two months old. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• The backlog has now decreassed to just over 100 open discussions, thanks to User:BrownHairedGirl's recent efforts. Regardless of this, it's pretty important that more admins should regularly close discussions here. Without further admin involvement, we'll be back at 150 in two weeks. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Marcocapelle. There is a longstanding need for more admins to undertake this task regularly, and it now seems to be getting critical. BU Rob13 became an admin about a year and did great work closing many discussions, but has now stepped down as an admin, leaving a big gap. Rob's contribution was v welcome, but Marcocapelle is right that we need multiple more admins to help out.
    I have been thinking about how to persuade admins more to help, and my best idea so far is to routinely add CFD-close questions to WP:RFA candidates. They are already closely questioned on AFD closures, which ensures that new admins are usually up-to-speed on that. It seems to me that doing the same thing for CFD would encourage more new admins to learn CFD before putting themselves forward, and also maybe tempt some existing admins to join in.
    Any thoughts on that idea? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @BrownHairedGirl: I doubt that would convince candidates to jump in or convince experienced admins to try their hand at CfD. Instead, it's likely to cause more people to fail RfA ("You don't know WP:OVERCAT? Clearly needs more polish!" despite not wanting to work in CFD). Personally, I see the way forward as a combination of promoting from within (Marcocapelle would qualify for admin if he wanted it) and being more consistent in our activity (when we go a week without closing a discussion, it's hard to catch up. If all active closers close two discussions a day, it's easy.) Unfortunately, the paid editing/outing situation has caused me to largely withdraw from admin areas, so I won't be of much help. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @BU Rob13: good points. Will you help me try to persuade Marcocapelle to accept an RFA nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
        •  :-) User:Fayenatic london tried that as well. Most importantly it wouldn't solve the problem because I'm already closing discussions and we need other people to join. Second, I would surely not pass the exams to become an admin since I'm only active in categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
          • Marcocapelle, I don't know whether having the tools is useful at CfD, but looking at your contributions history, yes, you'd probably struggle to pass at RfA at this time. But that could be helped by you creating a handful of decent articles. Once done, you could check things out via WP:ORCP. You may be closer to it than you think. If that could be of interest to you, let's take this discussion to your talk page. Schwede66 08:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Beheading in Islam#Merge/split/renaming discussion, part 2

Can an experienced user assess the consensus in this discussion? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog

Close to 60 in backlog and elapsed. Dicklyon (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Colin Heaton's biography of Hans-Joachim Marseille

Would appreciate a formal close by an uninvolved editor or administrator. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (20 out of 621 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sro23 2017-03-17 20:24 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NeilN Peter Beter 2017-03-17 03:30 2017-03-24 03:30 edit,move Persistent vandalism Bongwarrior Antoine Ramy 2017-03-17 03:13 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BU Rob13 Big Brother 15 (U.S.) 2017-03-17 01:27 2017-03-24 01:27 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Coffee Gustavo Grams 2017-03-16 20:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated There'sNoTime Tom Crean (basketball) 2017-03-16 19:55 2017-03-26 19:55 edit after what I just saw, it's clear another level is needed Enigmaman Wikipedia:FAQ/Administration 2017-03-16 19:14 indefinite edit,move Persistent vandalism: RFPP El C Ivanka Trump 2017-03-16 19:10 2017-05-19 05:31 edit,move Arbitration enforcement: up a notch El C Gilgit-Baltistan 2017-03-16 19:05 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement El C EJIDA Studios 2017-03-16 16:00 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Fabrictramp Sedat sonmez 2017-03-15 16:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by sockfarm under alternate spellings Yunshui Kenan tosun 2017-03-15 16:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by sockfarm under alternate spellings Yunshui Adem Atbaş 2017-03-15 16:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by sockfarm under alternate spellings Yunshui University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2017-03-15 06:27 2017-03-22 06:27 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts CambridgeBayWeather Pradeep jakuraa 2017-03-14 22:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Amortias Jindua 2017-03-14 21:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Amortias Spider-Man: Homecoming 2017-03-14 02:34 2017-03-18 02:34 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: RFPP El C ReklamD 2017-03-13 16:50 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated There'sNoTime VCU Rams men's soccer, 2000–09 2017-03-13 14:19 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Fenix down Ali Khan (Astronaut) 2017-03-13 10:12 2017-03-20 10:12 create Repeatedly recreated There'sNoTime

Review of an improper RfC closure

An RfC at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#RfC: Hosting content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S. was initially closed by an involved editor without discussing the arguments made in the discussion. I left a comment on the closer's talk page explaining that WP policies require that only an uninvolved editor can close the discussion and that, when closing, a summary of the consensus needs to be given. I then boldly undid the close given the clear violation of policy, but that was later undone by another editor who didn't vote in the RfC, but had left comments expressing a view on the subject and was also the editor who had nominated an image for deletion (see notifications on my talk page for speedy delete nomination, then file for discussion) that led to the RfC. That discussion between me and the second closer was at File talk:Isfahan Metro.jpg, which has since been deleted, but can't admins view the old content of the page? I tried to address the problems with the closure on the talk pages of both editors, but neither was willing to address them (see [1], [2], [3]).

In addition to the issues with the closure by the involved editors, the closure was not made correctly for several reasons. The consensus is not strictly determined by the number of votes. Per WP:RFCEND: The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome. Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." When closing, a summary of the arguments should be given (see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus) and "arguments that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" should be discarded (Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus).

First, most of the oppose votes raised the issue of the images possibly being subject to copyright in the future if the country of origin joins the Berne Convention, but did not respond to comments that templates could be made for those individual countries therefore allowing easy deletion of such images when a country joins the Berne Convention. Second, many raised the issue of the reusability of the content outside the US; however, as mentioned in the general discussion section, this is logically fallacious because 1) the images are free of copyright in most Berne Convention member states (currently 174 of the roughly 200 sovereign states) since copyright is based on reciprocity and countries like Iran and Somalia aren't party to significant other copyright treaties, 2) copyright exceptions (fair use & fair dealing) vary considerably from country to country and so Wikipedia articles containing fair use images already can't be freely reused in the many countries that don't have liberal copyright exceptions like the U.S. fair use, and 3) such a policy is inconsistent with other policies on WP, like allowing images of architecture that is not copyrighted in the US because of a freedom of panorama exception (which many countries' copyright laws don't have) or allowing works that are copyrighted in the country of origin but not the US (eg. some countries' copyright length is life+100 years).

Finally, while the result of the closure is given as "no consensus" to host the images subject to the RfC, the policy for many years has been to consider such images on a case-by-case basis and so the way the closing summary is stated it nonetheless changes existing policy. If there is no consensus on the outcome of an RfC changing a policy, shouldn't the result be to keep the status quo? AHeneen (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

AHeneen, I have undeleted File talk:Isfahan Metro.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Note: This shouldn't be closed until at least the last point is addressed: if result of RfC is no consensus, shouldn't status quo be kept? In this case, because of the wording of the question, the closing summary (by involved editors) changed the existing policy. AHeneen (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it's more complicated than that. When everything's simple and straightforward, then, yes, you're right: When there is no consensus, then the proposed change is usually not made (although see WP:NOCONSENSUS for some examples of when the default differs). But this does not appear to be a simple and straightforward situation. The closer may have found, for example, that there was no consensus for the old version and no consensus for the proposed change. "No consensus" means "no consensus against the proposal" just as much as it means "no consensus for the proposal". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing The problem is 1) the closers were both involved editors and didn't really summarize the arguments made and 2) at the start of the RfC, the consensus was to accept such images on a case-by-case basis, but the question posed in the RfC was phrased in the positive ("Should the English Wikipedia host content that is public domain in the United States because the country of origin does not have copyright relations with the U.S.? "). The closing summary, in part, was "There is no consensus to host content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S. " For the various reasons explained above, a lack of consensus should mean that the status quo be kept. AHeneen (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I answered the general question that you asked: "if result of RfC is no consensus, shouldn't status quo be kept?" The answer to that question is "it depends". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Sorry about the misunderstanding. AHeneen (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This is now the oldest discussion on this page. The RfC closure really needs to be reviewed by an uninvolved editor. AHeneen (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Doing...—S Marshall T/C 18:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with this quite a lot. Firstly, the close was procedurally flawed because it was made by an editor who had participated in the discussion. Secondly, I don't agree that "No consensus" accurately reflects the discussion. I feel that the consensus was to reject the proposal on the basis that the copyright status of the content could change in future. Thirdly, ironically, I don't actually agree with the consensus on this point. It would be simple (and it would be standard Wikipedian practice) to create a template that says "PD-because-no-copyright-agreement-with-USA", tag the affected files with this template, and use the template to populate a category which tracks such files and enable their removal if the copyright status changes in the future. But with my RfC closer hat on I would have to say that illogical though it seems to me, there was a consensus and it was to reject the proposal.—S Marshall T/C 18:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Your third point is irrelevant and semantically speaking, "there is no consensus to host such content" and "there is consensus to reject the proposal" which was to host said content, is the same thing. As for the closer, Wikipedia really needs to get over the whole "involved" nonsense. As indicative of the ever growing list of requested closures, if the result is obvious there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone just doing it. That is what being bold is. In any case, the original closure's decision was in direct opposition to what they wanted anyways. I could see a problem if they ruled in favor of what they wanted but, come on. This nonsense has been going on for well over a month now. It is time to drop the stick and move on with our lives. --Majora (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Nope, neither of those points is correct. "No consensus to host" and "consensus not to host" are not equivalent, and the fact that the consensus doesn't make sense is not irrelevant.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It is irrelevant in the vein that you did not participate so your opinion on the matter is moot. And in terms of English, those two ideas are equivalent. Whether or not Wikipedia views them as equivalent is different (and another layer of pointlessness that doesn't need to be there). --Majora (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

S Marshall: As mentioned in the OP, consensus is not merely tallying votes as per Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Here, there were many quality arguments given for allowing the images with specific copyright tags with no response by those opposing (so there wasnt't really any attempt at reasoned discussion or consensus building). There was also basically no discussion about the status quo that allowed such images on a case-by-case basis. The semantic issue about consensus is better explained this way: there was no agreement through reasoned discussion about how to proceed forward (keeping in mind the principles mentioned in the first sentnce of this comment). This is a problem because of the way the RfC was phrased (in the positive, even though such images were already allowed).

It may be easier to understand this argument in a different context. Let's say someone starts an RfC about repeated wikilinks in articles that says "Should articles be allowed to have more than one wikilink to the same article, excluding navigation boxes?" Since this is phrased in the positive, any result other than a clear yes would be a change to the current policy (WP:DUPLINK: Duplicate linking in lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader.). If there is a lot of disagreement about the appropriate circumstances for when multiple links are appropriate, then using the result of the closure of the copuright RfC, the result of the RfC would be "there is no consensus to have more than one wikilink to the same article, excluding navigation boxes" and the status quo would be changed. AHeneen (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:AN/CXT

Hi, Wikipedians. I wanted to give you an update on WP:AN/CXT. Since that discussion was closed about eight months or so ago, we've cleared out about 10% of the articles involved, which were the easiest 10%. The work is now slowing down as more careful examination is needed and as the number of editors drops off, and I'm sad to report that we're still finding BLP issues. The temporary speedy deletion criterion, X2, is of little use because it's phrased as a special case of WP:SNOW and I'm not being allowed to improve it. The "it's notable/AFD is not for cleanup" culture at AFD is making it hard for me to remove these articles as well, so I'm spending hours trying to get rid of material generated by a script in seconds. I'm sorry but I'm discouraged and I give up. Recommend the remainder are nuked to protect the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For more context on this issue, please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#X2 revision. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, S Marshall, and I don't fault you for your choice. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Isn't there some way to use the sortware to delete all of these in bulk, if only as a one-time thing? Seems like a huge waste of time if it's being done manually by hand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Easily doable as a batch-deletion. I could have it wrapped up in 15 minutes. Unfortunately community consensus did not lean towards approving that option. In fact, most CXT creations which have been reviewed needed cleanup but turned out to be acceptable articles. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I would support a nuke, a mass draftification, or some loosening of X2. The current situation is not really tenable due to the density of BLP violations. However, ultimately, the broader community needs to discuss what the appropriate action is under the assumption that we are not going to get much more volunteer time to manually check these articles. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• No, the broader community doesn't need to discuss that. It's completely needless and the community has had a huge discussion already. All that needs to happen is for WT:CSD to let me make one bold edit to a CSD that was badly-worded from the get-go, and we'll all be back on track. That's it. The only problem we have is that there are so many editors who want to tell me how to do it, and so few editors willing to get off their butts and do it.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Restored from archive, as it's unhelpful for this to remain unresolved.—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support systematic nuke/ revision of X2 to enable this mess to be cleared up. It's not fair that @S Marshall: is being prevented from improving the encyclopedia like this. Amisom (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-requesting closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy

Someone already requested a closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy, which concerns outing/paid editor/harassment/COI... whatever. However, Casliber says that more than one closer, preferably three-person, may be needed. I wonder whether more than one closer is necessary. If so, this indicates that the discussion would be another one of more difficult discussions we've seen lately. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not obvious from the discussion and the number of editors participating and the number of proposals made that it's a difficult and controversial topic? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

To me, closing the whole discussion is very difficult because of the controversy of the topic. However, I concentrated more on milieus and proposals. To be honest, I saw two milieus and one concrete proposal receiving support from the majority. I concentrated on the straw polls and arguments. How about this: close separate milieus and proposals separately? They aren't that difficult to separately close due to other milieus and proposals not likely to pass. --George Ho (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing each one separately probably makes more sense from a numbers perspective. However, it should still be one group of editors that does it, since there is the possibility (mentioned on the discussion) that some of the milieus could contradict each other depending on what gets passed. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Milieus 1, 2, and 5 are easy to close as the majority opposes them individually. Milieu 3 and concrete proposal 1 received majority support, so those would be also easy to close. But you're right; one same group of editors should do the individual closures. However, I won't be part of the closing group, so I'll await the uninvolved closers then. --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be willing to be involved in a group closure on this. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I cast a !vote in the discussion which I had forgotten about - it would therefore be grossly inappropriate for me to participate in this closure Tazerdadog (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess this means we're putting the band back together ;) Primefac (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

We still need one more volunteer for this. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll step up, if you like.—S Marshall T/C 17:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

And... we're back down to 2. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Needed: Another closer please!—S Marshall T/C 15:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you just go ahead with however many closers you have now. I further suggest that the "milieux" were intended to get a "general view of the community" and were very vaguely worded, so that if all you can say is "there was no apparent consensus", then so be it. As far as concrete proposal 1, which I proposed, the 28-6 result seems to make the close obvious. You might as well just go ahead and close it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Primefac: thoughts? Nobody else is stepping up.—S Marshall T/C 19:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Meh, let's just go for it. I think I've still got your email kicking about. I'll send you my thoughts hopefully in the next 24 hours. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll write mine independently over the same period, and we can see if we agree.  :)—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I've re-opened the RFC. Re-opening interest for other editors willing to work on a close. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Take your time. ;) Meanwhile, what happened to closing separate, individual milieux and proposals? George Ho (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC close review please?

The close is endorsed by consensus of this discussion. First, per WP:NAC an RfC close cannot be overturned because the closer is not an administrator. Second, after finding that the matter should be placed in the lead, the precise wording of the article lead is, according to the now endorsed close, left to normal editing to improve the adopted lead presentation -- so, anyone interested should go and discuss improving the lead at the article talk page. Finally, there is some talk of creating a new forum for RfC Review, but as closer of this review that is beyond scope, and those interested may pursue it in a separate discussion, without prejudice (feel free to copy over some or all of what you wrote on creating a new forum). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Hi, Wikipedians. Three days ago I closed an RfC about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election. Since then an IP editor has raised some additional points on my talk page, which are clearly meant as a challenge to my close, and so I'd be grateful if some independent editors could check and confirm whether I got it right. If I was mistaken then I'm very happy to be overturned, and any sysop should feel free to replace my close with their own.—S Marshall T/C 21:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• It was an excellent close and should be respected. The IP should be advised to seek consensus for improvements by making the case on the article talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

One of the main points I raised was that the GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity report has the following disclaimer: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within." 2602:306:396F:22D0:80ED:F0FE:C130:4AC9 (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

My view is a non-admin closure is not appropriate as the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) with no consensus reached and is controversial and the closure is better left to an administrator. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

That is a reasonable initial position, but User:S Marshall/RfC close log contains links to many excellent closes demonstrating extraordinary experience in quality contentious closes. The solution is the bluelinking of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/S Marshall 3. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

In my view, the closure was fine with the exception of how much to put in the lead. There wasn't much consensus on the amount of details to put in the lead. As correctly mentioned in the summary, the relevant part of WP:LEAD is: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Several support votes simply mention/imply support for mentioning Russian interference in the lead (not explicit support for the paragraph), there was some discussion about the weight given to the subject by including an entire paragraph in the lead, and there was some discussion about the neutrality of the wording of the paragraph.

I think that the better close is that support for inclusion was well-supported by the WP:LEAD policy I quote here, but that there was no consensus about the exact wording and how much to mention in the lead. Since the wording in the lead is bound to be contentious (beyond what the closer should do), the best thing to do is just leave the issue out of the lead for now and open a second RfC on how to word the mention of Russian interference in the lead. While not a comment about the close but rather about the outcome, in my opinion, an entire paragraph gives far too much weight to the issue and it should be just a single sentence. AHeneen (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

A two sentence version is currently suggested at Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Suggested_wording. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Following a brief readthrough, the close looked excellent. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• The close looks sound to me. I reject utterly the notion that we admins are somehow better placed to make closes of difficult discussions like this. User:S Marshall consistently shows excellent judgement in his closes and is really a poster child for why non-admins should be encouraged to take up these sorts of leadership roles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC).
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• I think it would be a good idea to have a WP:Close review page for reviews of contested closes, in the same vein as WP:DRV and WP:MR, for discussions that are not deletion or rename discussions. I'd support expanding the scope of WP:MR to include RfC closes, but DRV should be left separate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  Funny, I didn't expect WP:Close review to be bluelinked. User:SMcCandlish, what do you think? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  I've long thought that the lack of a "WP:CLRV" or "WP:RFCRV" page is a problem, since we have DRV and MRV for deletions and moves, but all other closure review gets shunted into AN, where it's almost always interpreted as noise. Or people ignore what WP:Close review presently says (because most haven't seen it?) and make attempts at challenging closures they don't like by firing up ANI complaints or "re-RfCing" (forum shopping) at Village Pump, or whatever. It's chaotic and unhelpful. The problem with AN as the venue is that AN/RFC is already a backlog, so admins do not want to deal with RfC review; once closed forever closed is the attitude. It really should be a community-input process like DRV and MRV, with some ground rules, e.g. that the process's purpose is to determine whether the closer incorrectly assessed consensus, policy, or provided evidence, not to re-litigate the details of the matter, e.g. by presenting new rationales or evidence. Most of that can be ported directly from MRV. While ANI is, despite its name, a community not admin venue in practice, it is very poorly suited to such matters, as it is almost entirely a disciplinary board about disruptive behavior, which flawed closes are not unless they're obvious and pointed supervotes. It's worth noting that an any obviously faulty close can be reverted, like any other edit. I don't see people do it very often, but one shouldn't hesitate to take this approach with, especially, an NAC that objectively is wrongheaded.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  Just do it. A glance at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive makes the justification for WP:RFCRV pretty obvious. Let's not have an RfC about whether to create a venue for discussing RfC's.—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  Hey. What about the failed WP:discussion review? BTW, the closing layout at that talk page needs a change, like using {{discussion top}} and {{consensus}}. The rationale looks too long and narrow for {{archive top}}. George Ho (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC); edited. 20:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  On the other hand, why not WP:requests for comment review instead? "WP:Close review" looks vague at best. George Ho (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  Perhaps spinning it off as a subpage of AN would work? Something like WP:AN/RFC closure reviews? Tazerdadog (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• The close was a clear, well reasoned, and very defensible reading of a complex discussion. I see no reason that it should be overturned and commend S Marshall for being so thorough on a difficult and complex issue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Admin stupid?

(non-admin closure) Anything left to do here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Hello everyone, I've got a bit of a problem; as you can see when you look at my userpage (scroll down a bit), my adminstats have been disabled, and I am gone from "category:administrators". All the admin functions are still there, though. I am too stupid to find the cause for that. Cheers and thanks in advance. Lectonar (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You still have admin status; for some reason the bot thinks you don't. User:cyberpower678 maintains that particular bot, you'll need to ask them what's happened as Adminstats is a particular script, not a WMF or Mediawiki function. ‑ Iridescent 10:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Will to that, Thanks and Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

In fact, it looks like the bot has shut down for everyone, not just you. I wouldn't worry about it; I doubt anyone in the history of Wikipedia has ever actually cared about adminstats. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I just thought my userpage looked different :). And I am grinning, actually. Perhaps we'll all be desysopped shortly. Just the first step now. Lectonar (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If that were true, then this bot wouldn't exist. There are people that care about their stats.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 10:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I care. Just noticed this a few minutes ago myself, and wasn't sure where to report it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't know this existed. El_C 11:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, I added it to my vanity, but it didn't work. Neither does my gallery for some reason. El_C 11:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• gallery uses file: not image: and also you didn't close the gallery with a /gallery tag. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Not in those days it didn't! (Those were the days?) Thanks for the fix! El_C 09:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Possible improper use of page move redirect suppression

I believe I've identified a situation where page move redirect suppression (or sometimes G6 deletion) is being used improperly. For background, please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Västra Frölunda IF (disambiguation).

User Widefox converted the disambiguation page to a set index article and moved it to an appropriate title (List of Västra Frölunda IF sections). A redirect was left behind at Västra Frölunda IF (disambiguation) which he flagged for speedy deletion under criteria G6 & G8, with the reason "dab converted to SIA and moved - so no dab to redirect to". I objected because we almost always keep redirects from page moves when the former title is very old (this one since 2005) because of the potential for breaking incoming links to Wikipedia from external sites. Widefox disagrees, and said in the discussion that in the future he will simply suppress the redirect, as he holds the pagemover userright. As far as I can tell he has not done so, although he previously requested G6 speedy deletion in this situation at £5 (disambiguation) which was then deleted by Graeme Bartlett.

Wikipedia:Page mover spells out an explicit list of uses where redirect suppression is allowed; none cover this situation. One comes close, WP:PM/C#7, "Moving pages from a title that is an implausible typo or misnomer, only when the page is a recent creation (WP:CSD#R3)" (emphasis in original). Several suppression criteria also reference WP:G6, such as WP:PM/C#3: "Moving pages from a title unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace". Since a very old page title is neither a recent creation nor unambiguously created in error, redirect suppression should not be used when moving such a page to a new title, and administrators patrolling CSD ought to be careful to check the history of the moved page when deletion is requested on a page tagged with {{R from move}}.

On the other hand, Widefox's move created a redirect that might otherwise be deleted, because redirects with "(disambiguation)" in their title are expected to point to disambiguation pages, and set indices are not disambiguation pages. However, that point is very debatable; the function of a set index is certainly similar to that of a disambiguation page, so there could be merit in having a "(disambiguation)" title pointing to a set index. I suggest that G6 should never be used on these, but instead they should be discussed individually at WP:RFD.

Does any of the wording at Wikipedia:Page mover need to be modified because of this situation? Personally I think it's pretty clear. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, to contextualise this...I don't consider this an appropriate measure: Taking this to a drama board without discussing with me first, when User:Ivanvector is WP:INVOLVED in discussions instigated by me at two locations already about exactly this issue to clarify this underlying issue of disambiguation redirects to achieve possible guideline change/clarity at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_9#V.C3.A4stra_Fr.C3.B6lunda_IF_.28disambiguation.29 and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_10#Communist_Party_of_Nepal_.28disambiguation.29 seems wholly inappropriate, and a fishing exercise, and WP:FORUMSHOPPING before letting the issue be discussed in the current appropriate venues. I will deal with the substance next. Widefox; talk 13:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) User:Ivanvector I'm uncertain what your aim is here? What's the urgency for an ANI listing, what needs protecting?, and why should this be brought to another location when I've been explicit that I'm trying to clarify best practice already? Surely you'd appreciate this isn't appropriate as it may give the impression of attempting to get an upperhand in discussions started by me?! Widefox; talk 13:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Ivanvector I see no diff above for an improper edit. Until you say what it is, I cannot defend against "Possible improper use" / "used improperly" / "As far as I can tell he has not done so". Even if you do list one, being as I've instigated discussion on this, I am tempted to just ignore this ANI. Widefox; talk 13:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• The only reason such redirects from "(disambiguation)" exist is to mark intentional links to disambiguation pages. Were it not for that, such redirects would never have been created. There already is a lot of confusion regarding set indices and disambiguation pages. IMO, keeping such redirects only compounds this confusion. If there is in fact a distinction between set indices and disambiguation pages, keeping these sorts of redirects only blurs that distinction. older ≠ wiser 13:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ivanvector: The first thing WP:PM/C says is "Page movers can suppress a redirect during a page move if the redirect would be eligible for one of the criteria for speedy deletion." The seven criteria outlined there are the most common uses, not the only ones. Therefore, I think this is a CSD issue, not one regarding the page mover user right; either G6 "Deleting a disambiguation page that links to zero articles or to only one extant article and whose title includes '(disambiguation)'" applies or it does not, it would need to be clarified at WP:CSD#G6. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Its a terminology issue. Normally a disambiguation page that has been moved is because it is no longer disambiguating (hence the CSD criteria). This has been renamed to an index article that is essentially a still a disambiguation page by another name (a wikipedia page designed to link to other articles). So the redirect is a plausible redirect/alternative name for that page given the length of time it was named (disambiguation). It should probably still be kept as a redirect by IAR if necessary. I dont think this specific set of circumstances crops up that often. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well I guess you hit the nail on the head there. When a disambiguation page gets moved to another title, we ought to have a discussion about whether or not the new title and/or content of the page now being redirected to serve the function of disambiguation. Especially if the disambiguation page is old, G6 should not apply. I guess this is really a thread about whether or not G6 is appropriate, as Godsy is correct that redirect suppression is valid in any case that a CSD would be. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This conflation that list articles are dab pages is unhelpful. An SIA is explicitly not a disambiguation page, but is explicitly a list article. We have it in bold in many places that a list is not a dab page. In this scenario, it is never that a disambiguation page is just a move. It stops being a dab. Period. As the " (disambiguation)" is only valid to target a dab (implicit, not explicit anywhere I know), this is logically invalid. The merits of breaking clarity and edit consensus / normal dab work needs consensus, but the fundamentals always come back to lists aren't dabs. A longstanding title with " (disambiguation)" invalid redirect is still an invalid one. Arguably G6 and/or G8 should apply. Widefox; talk 15:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I just find it unconstructively pedantic to insist that a set index is not a disambiguation page (to which I don't disagree) while the set index perfectly serves the function of disambiguation. We can serve the various ways that readers browse our information, or we can needlessly sever links for silly reasons of our own invention. It should be obvious which one I prefer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Luckily we go by consensus: WP:SETNOTDAB "A set index article is not a disambiguation page" (original emphasis, this is in bold in several places). That's not pedantic, it's just the definition! It doesn't matter what I personally think about those that wish it different, until they conflate such clarity at RfD, and not follow the spirit of that editing guideline (disagreement on particulars always acceptable). Normal, uncontroversial dab cleanup work should not be held up by those who disagree with a long-established editor guideline. At RfD an admin is still insisting SIAs are only 3 years old! This has gone too far. Widefox; talk 19:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Those bolded SIA=/= DABs are for the purpose of what formatting guidelines apply to what pages, not where redirects can or cannot point. Readers and most editors don't know the difference, nor do they care. Many SIAs, as noted below, are literally just DABs with a few extra wikilinks, which really should be DABs or merged back to a main DAB page. Denying users the ability to directly navigate to those SIAs because they're technically not DABs is pedantry, and pedantry that makes it more difficult to navigate the encyclopedia. That's the crux of my (and other's) argument, that you avoid by strawmanning my language used to describe the recent trend to convert DAB pages into SIAs into a claim that I'm saying SIAs were newly created concepts. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Not just formatting no...SETNOTDAB is formatting, MOS:DABNOTINDEX mostly, MOS:LIST says SIAs are "fully-fledged articles", WP:NOTDAB is not just, no. Generally they appear so similar, but it's hardly pedantry to say they're not the same, as it's by definition that they're pedantically different but are allowed to be very different, and as fully fledged articles are subject to WP:V. That's way more than a dab by another name. I wholeheartedly agree with you it's pedantic though. It's not the messenger, it's the pedantic difference. "Denying" is strong, seems more like "this exact niche navigation use case circumventing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, that by definition navigates against the flow, and has no consensus of how important it is, is the main objection because it's a freedom which shouldn't be denied by a pedantic difference". It's a corner case, it's not denied, but just has unknown importance, repeating it doesn't reveal how widespread. Users can navigate directly. What trend? Maybe that explains the change I'm unaware of so took it literally, don't know. I see no consensus to create such redirects to SIAs. In fact, implicitly the opposite - G6 excludes creating them, so is against what little we have, so we have to agree to differ, as I'm not convinced. (see below - this use case is a hack and not disambiguation so should be struck as offtopic) Widefox; talk 03:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment before opening more discussion of the redirect deletion topic, be aware that this is a duplicate debate of the Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_10#Communist_Party_of_Nepal_.28disambiguation.29, and I consider it WP:FORUMSHOPPING by an WP:INVOLVED admin. In overview WP:G8 redirects to invalid targets, such as non-existent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles - the merits of which are better discussed at the RfD, rather than this second forum. Widefox; talk 13:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) was just fixing copy/paste duplication below. OK, AN. My mistake. Widefox; talk 14:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made a couple of edits Wikipedia:Page mover to emphasize that redirect suppression is appropriate only where the redirect would be eligible for one of the criteria for speedy deletion. This was already stated in the policy and I think the added emphasis is uncontroversial. WJBscribe (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I contest that User:WJBscribe. User:Godsy has already softened the edit [4]. As someone has pointed out, G6 doesn't (and can't) detail exact exclusive criteria, so given the intrinsic subjectiveness about eligibility, wording around revoking pagemover must match that subjectiveness somehow, else it acts as a chilling effect. I say chilling effect, as there's logs of several editors here to show G6 / G8 is routinely used, there is no consensus that G6 / G8 does not apply. If the purpose is to stop suppress for this case, it would be better to just do so explicitly rather than chill suppress for all CSD. My 2nd RfD is exactly an attempt to clarify this point. There's no evidence that suppress has ever been used (despite the section title describing it), and there's a misconception that G6 {{Db-disambig}} is an issue. It seems the wrong direction when requests to get clarification for current G6 / G8 by several editors for this situation, that a chill is put on it. Given that, it's currently inappropriate for me to edit Wikipedia:Page mover myself as COI, so I lodge strong disagreement here. Widefox; talk 13:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I am happy with Godsy's amendment, as it wasn't my intention to suggest that the rights would be revoked for a single incident which is now made clear. The debate over the applicability of G6 is to some extent a side issue - if you are right that G6 applies, the suppression would be appropriate and there would be no issue. If in doubt, don't suppress the redirect and take to WP:RFD instead. Although this thread prompted me to look at the policy, my edits are not solely a response to it. I think the policy failed to make it clear enough that page movers suppressing redirects (effectively allowing non-admins to delete pages) is a serious responsibility and misuse will have consequences. I think "chill" is a bit strong, but I do think we should advise page movers strongly to take care when using this feature. WJBscribe (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your intention WJBscribe. It was important, and warms. A parity of a responsibility with admins does, but should also come with comparable scrutiny and due process. The context of this section being that I don't believe anyone is now claiming anyone has ever done such a suppress, despite G6 G8 routinely deleting them. Widefox; talk 01:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Seems to be a bit of a kerfuffle about this issue recently. My suggestion would be to take them to RFD at the moment, but if a clear consensus develops there that these types of redirects are always deleted (and I can see that argument, considering they don't redirects to disambiguation pages) then using G6 on them will be uncontroversial. Jenks24 (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

In my interpretation/experience of admins, G6 {{Db-disambig}} doesn't apply to the redirect. G8 "plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets" does apply as target is not a dab page (the issue at RfD - lists are explicitly not dab pages, and conflation is ASTONISHing. I've leaned more towards tagging G6 and G8 which IFAIR Twinkle "multiple" doesn't allow selection of db-disambig, just the generic G6 which fits better, although less specifically. Widefox; talk 14:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Its a list that contains two blue links and one red, which (from admittedly brief googling) is unlikely to get any larger and is substantially the same as the previous disambiguation page. Not every lists serve the purpose of directing readers to other articles, this one does. Frankly it doesnt need to exist, a hat at the primary sport page being more than sufficient. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Only in death, would appreciate if you took that particular disambiguation layout to the 1st RfD, I've reverted [5] as it breaks the best setup I could arrange - WP:INCOMPDAB which has (at least one other) supporter at the RfD, and has survived the considerable scrutiny so far. Widefox; talk 15:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Per this I would rather you just dont intentionally link from an article to a REDIRECT to a disambiguation page. Apart from being intentionally obtuse it serves no benefit or navigation aide to the reader. I am starting to think this is a competence issue on your part. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: Use of such a redirect is standard practice per WP:INTDAB. That in fact is the ONLY reason such redirects exist. older ≠ wiser 16:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: firstly, your edit goes against the rough consensus to do exactly that at the RfD. I've reopened so you may contribute there. Did you read WP:INCDAB where a redirect is used (as requested)? WP:INTDAB is standard practice per Bkonrad. See {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. (uncivil ignored). Widefox; talk 16:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There is no guideline that says that these redirects [with " (disambiguation)" in their title that no longer have a dab page to point to] must be deleted. Consequently, there is no CSD criteria that cover this specific situation.

I have been slowly working my way through hundreds and hundreds of these, retargeting them if possible and nominating them for CSD WP:G6 if not. I use the "housekeeping" rationale, and very few of the CSDs have been denied. I have been thinking that we need to codify something in the guidelines that says that such redirects should be deleted. I believe we need an RfC on this issue.

Ivanvector, I know this seems pretty off-topic from your original question, but I bring it up because if the guidance were clear about deleting these redirects, then page movers would be justified in suppressing the redirects. — Gorthian (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree, quite strongly, with those advocating deletion of these redirects. Functionally, most SIA are basically DABs that happen to list entries of the same kind, and which don't follow the strict MOS:DAB formatting requirements (i.e. no wikilinks, no references, no images, etc.). This nuance is so minor, that we shouldn't expect anyone but those who have experience with DABs and SIAs to know this. Concurrently, at this point in time Wikipedia's use of "X (disambiguation)" to title pages where examples of articles named or referred to as X are listed is so widespread, that most editors and some readers should be aware of this naming practice. There are also cases where people will explicitly want to land on a SIA or DAB page, and would use a search term with (disambiguation) if they know or are unsure whether the base title would get them a term they don't want (e.g. searching Battle of the Somme (disambiguation) because they know that the primary topic is the 1916 battle and they want to immediately find other battles without navigating to that long article).

It seems profoundly unhelpful that people performing this search should get a page of search results, which may or may not be helpful, when there's a perfectly good page they would have wanted to end up on, but didn't because of a nuance in Wikipedia guidelines that they did not know about. For example, if the obscure film The Battle of the Somme (film) didn't exist, Battle of the Somme (disambiguation) would be a set index of battles of the Somme, so proponents of deletion would argue that the page should be moved and the former name no longer redirect there, penalizing those who don't' simultaneously know about the obscure film and about Wikipedia guidelines. Our goal here is to make an encyclopedia, not to try and train all of our readers into expert Wikipedians.

The existence of a (disambiguation) redirect to an SIA is also only one extra link, the target SIAs are generally unlikely to be moved or deleted, and many bots [6] [7] perform the required maintenance tasks if they are, so an argument that these are WP:CHEAP would also apply. Given these recent debates, a well-crafted RFC on what types of pages (disambiguation) redirects should target would be welcome. I would also recommend a moratorium on move redirect suppression or G6 tags on these types of redirects, since CSD criteria are only meant for clear, unequivocal cases, and the existence of the RFD threads linked above, and this AN thread show that this is not the case until that is done. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this really illustrates the confusion. Set indices are not disambiguation pages. Now, it may be that some editors are unnecessarily (and IMO inappropriately) tagging pages as set indices that should be disambiguation pages, but that is another matter. The principal reasons for a set index are to include content that normally would not be appropriate on a disambiguation page, such as references, redlinks, and explanatory context. The main issue is that there are no maintenance protocols in place to routinely identify and fix mistaken links to set indices as there are for disambiguation pages. One of the original arguments for set indices was that unlike disambiguation pages, links to a set index are not presumed to be incorrect. That is why intentional links to disambiguation pages are marked by use of redirects with "(disambiguation)". older ≠ wiser 14:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No one is trying to make MOS:DAB apply to SIAs or remerge the concept of SIAs and DABs. The fact of the matter is that most SIAs are basically DABs where all the disambiguated entries are of the same type and don't follow the strict formatting and content requirements of DABs. We shouldn't punish people trying reach pages they want because they didn't know that Wikipedia's topics on topic X are all of the same type, and so technically not a DAB. These redirects make searching and reaching specific pages easier for our readers.

I'm not sure the presumption that links to SIAs are correct is a good one. Links to USS Alcor or Rheumatism root, both set indices, should almost always directly point to one of those entries instead, and it would be pretty unlikely for a wikilink to deliberately refer to all entries there as a group. If they are referred to as a group (e.g. "After the bad luck of ships named USS Alcor, Foo Man, who was Secretary of the Navy at the time, decided to abandon the use of the name, Foo Botanist proposed a more detailed naming scheme after discovering several plants were called Rheumatism root), having the (disambiguation) redirect to the SIA could be used with WP:DABSOLVER to indicate that the link is correct by replacing the bare base title with one with the (disambiguation) parenthetical, like what's done with intentional links to DABs. Presumably, the criteria for choosing what entries are shown to users of DABsolver are category based, then throwing in redirects to pages in set index categories could do the trick.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dispenser: Would the above workaround for SIAs be possible? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

You can force Dab solver to disambiguation with &link=: http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py?page=Alan_A._Brown&link=Schwab — Dispenser 17:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dispenser: Sorry I should've been more specific, would it be possible to get links to SIAs to show up as entries to be solved in DABsolver if the SIAs are properly categorized as such? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, with some code changes. Dab solver has three implementations for finding disambiguation links:

1. Templated used on disambiguation pages (slowest, see MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage)
2. Category based, would use the hidden Category: All set index articles for SIA disambiguation (How the example was found)
3. HTTPS API using __DISAMBIG__ magic word from mw:Extension:Disambiguator. (Current and most reliable).

Of course, with SIAs there's the problem of duplicating work. That might be solved by tracking only new links—work beyond my willingness. — Dispenser 18:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dispenser: So it looks like this could be done relatively easily. If we don't limit this to only new links, the only duplicated work would be links to SIAs that have been manually edited to point there would have to go through DABsolver again? Those instances should be relatively rare, so this shouldn't create too much extra busy work. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Both USS Alcor or Rheumatism root are IMO prime examples of pages that should be disambiguation pages rather than set indices. There is absolutely no value added by classifying them as set indices and significant detriment in that these pages will not show up on WP:Disambiguation pages with links. Some pages that better illustrate where a set index adds value are List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise or List of peaks named Signal or Little Lake (Nova Scotia). In the case of the Enterprise list, there are additional details than what is needed for disambiguation and the other two are intended to be comprehensive lists, regardless of notability or whether there is an existing article. In particular with Little Lake (Nova Scotia), no further navigation is even possible. older ≠ wiser 18:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That comment perfectly illustrates why users should be able to find both disambiguations and set index articles by searching for "Title (disambiguation)" as which one a page is can easily change based on the the opinions of editors and are just different presentations with the same goal - providing a list of articles that someone searching for "title" could be looking for. Anyone looking for that list should be able to find it without knowing in advance what type of page it is and without being forced to navigate via a page they know they do not want. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thryduulf, although all dab pages at the basename should have redirects with (disambiguation) in the title targeting them, they don't. That search would miss those dabs too. Bad lists and bad dabs can be improved. If I wanted to search both lists and dabs, I'd just use "Title". A more advanced search would also do it, maybe a phabricator? Widefox; talk 03:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Further, as this has now been extensively discussed, it seems clear to me that the main thrust of argument is not about relevance of deletion of redirects with "(disambiguation)" in their title, but the utility of actively having them to target lists, which is in effect about creation, maintenance, and being able to rely on them to target all dabs and SIAs. That is far from current practice, so a new proposal, in effect to go back to little or no distinction between SIAs and dabs more than 10 years ago. A use case given to support this being users may want to search lists (specifically SIAs) and dabs together by using a search term with "XXX (disambiguation)". That use case would only consistently work if all dabs and SIAs had such redirects, which dabs should have and don't, and SIAs shouldn't have, and do only as vestigial as they generally are deleted G6 or G8. Just searching for "Title" solves this use case now, without dependence on one or extending to two sets of imperfect redirects. Widefox; talk 11:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again, claiming that the distinction between set index articles and dismabiguation pages will be removed is a straw man argument. This is entirely about readers being able to find the page they are looking for without needing to know which it is and without being forced to navigate via a page they know they don't want - something nobody has actually presented a good reason to prevent. Bots can and do create the (disambiguation) redirects to disambiguation pages, and could very easily do the same for set index articles. Whether these redirects should be created and not deleted or deleted and not created is the exact same discussion with the exact same reasons on both sides in most cases (the only exception is following page moves, and policy is already clear that redirects following page moves should not be routinely deleted unless both article and redirect are recently created or the page was obviously created in the wrong namespace). Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I stand by "little or no distinction between SIAs and dabs" (more specifically, in this respect no distinction, but not in all ways). That is correctly what you're advocating, right? It's not a straw man). I think there's an inversion here, nobody is forcing anything, disambiguation is to assist navigation not force it, SIAs may also assist agreed, but they're not solely there to aid navigation, and deleted when not assisting navigation. In the same way, vestigial "(disambiguation)" redirects to non-dab targets is WP:COSTLY not WP:CHEAP due to any use case expecting dabs but WP:ASTONISHingly not getting one, rather than this specific use case/navigation pattern being a specific workaround for how we consider users will navigate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC -> dab. If by saying "bots can a do create" you're asserting they are all there, then that's just incorrect. I add them all the time, the latest one I fixed Put a ring on it created as redirect 2009, converted to dab 2013 [8], I created [9] the redirect Put a ring on it (disambiguation) 4 days ago. It had gone 4 years without it. As I said, better to search "Title" than assuming dab is perfect, it isn't, sorry about that. The problem with saying policy is clear, is that there is no exact policy on exactly this, and they are routinely deleted G6 / G8 as logs of several editors have given. G6 is already explicit to not create such redirects, so this is all about WP:SIANOTDAB. Widefox; talk 14:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

By deletion these "(disambiguation)" redirects, you are in fact, forcing them to navigate Wikipedia in your prefered manner, which is less convenient for those using those search terms. WP:ASTONISHed does not apply here at all, because most users will not care/do not know the difference between SIAs and DABs, and if they are, they'll generally get a page that is the closest approximation to what they wanted to search for. What might be astonishing is if people search for terms that they definitely know should have a page which disambiguates between articles, and get (probably unhelpful) search results instead. Looking through your logs and Gorthian's logs, I stumbled upon this conversation where Treaty of London (disambiguation) was kept after Gorthian's arguments were rebutted by DuncanHill and pdfpdf. WP:G6 does not explicitly allow the deletion of these redirects, and the consensus on these redirects is clearly not as black and white as you make it out to be. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If you disagree with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then isn't that a good place to change consensus? Same for SIANOTDAB? As I'm not an admin, I can hardly be responsible for any deletion, eh? I also didn't create and don't enforce navigation, but abide by consensus. Consensus. It's a matter of fact above that that niche use case is fallible currently for just dabs. Would I recommend a provably fallible navigation route generally? No. If it works mostly, great. Can you link to consensus anywhere that this use case is an issue? As for ASTONISH - I've explained why per guideline . Same for when one splits this use case by general user and advanced user. As to "allow" (the opposite of "force"), did you see the tally of my " (disambiguation)" redirect creation to deletion? 100:1 1000:1? Should be in that ballpark. I cannot speak for Gorthian and don't know about that one, but an exception doesn't IMO disprove the rule that the vast majority are deleted (I believe all of mine) which you must have seen now. Widefox; talk 00:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This use case has been repeated often now, despite it a) proven not reliable b) no assertion of level of use c) it isn't even disambiguation - it's a hack - See WP:D It is necessary to provide links and disambiguation pages so that readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek. . It is outside the scope of disambiguation, and such it should be struck as offtopic. Widefox; talk 09:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Boomerang forumshop by involved

Close before the boomerang makes a possible further pass. Clearly Ivanvector, in following WP:CON, has ensured that 'queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible' in order to 'make the dispute more visible to other editors who may have worthwhile opinions.' (non-admin closure) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

---

User:Ivanvector is already involved in discussing this topic at my request at another forum RfD (two other places, links above). This seems FORUMSHOPPING by an WP:INVOLVED party going fishing. The admin exemption of "purely in an administrative role" does not apply as this is normal editor discussion at RfD. There's no diff here for supposed improper use, and so I can't defend an unidentified edit here at ANI when in reality I'm already attempting to clarify this at RfD for policy purpose at RfD. No discussion with me was made prior to this ANI about any edit. There's no page in edit dispute. There's no indication of imminent editing on this issue (in fact the contrary it's at RfD by me). Why is this at ANI? It's not leaving a good impression per WP:BOOMERANG. Widefox; talk 13:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC) (ec) Widefox; talk 14:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ivan is involved in a dispute with you over interpretation of Wikipedia:Page mover. This seems to be the first thread on an administrative noticeboard (no FORUMSHOPPING). Asking for broader review and discussion when INVOLVED, via a thread on AN, VPP or a talk page, is not only acceptably, but recommended. Ivanvector did the best thing by opening this thread to allow admins to discuss the differing interpretations of what WP:Page mover allows or not. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

for policy purpose at RfD. No discussion with me was made prior to this ANI about any edit. There's no page in edit dispute. There's no indication of imminent editing on this issue (in fact the contrary it's at RfD by me). Why is this at ANI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widefox (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict)It's not. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: this is AN, not ANI, and it's not a thread about misconduct. There's room for a possible misinterpretation of a guideline, of which I'm raising notice for wider discussion and resolution. Yes, I used your request as an example of what I think the misinterpretation is, but if I thought you were misusing your userright I would have just removed it. I do apologize for the misconception. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Independent of, but related to, this discussion I have proposed a tightening of the CSD criteria to exclude those cases which are controversial. See WT:CSD#G6 and redirects ending in "(disambiguation)". Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Current policy in general

There are lots of issues above. I would just like to clarify one of them.

It seems to me that, in general, when an article is moved, redirects should be created for both the article and its talk page unless there is a reason not to do so, and that these reasons are listed at Wikipedia:Page mover#Redirect suppression criteria and linked to from MediaWiki:Movepagetext. And WP:Page mover refers to WP:G6.

There is a particular reason for suppressing talk page redirects in multiple move and round-robin situations, see phab:T12814. This should be explicitly mentioned (probably at both WP:Page mover and wp:G6) and isn't. But the resulting redlink is only temporary. The talk page redir in question needs to be suppressed or deleted to make way for another talk page move.

(Are there any other vital or even relevant policy or guideline clauses I've missed?)

It seems to me that WP:G6 is being taken far too broadly with respect to deleting (and/or suppressing) talk page redirects. I've seen two in the last day or so where there seems no reason to suppress or delete the talk page redir, other than that the admins didn't think the redir achieved anything, and that they thought this was the standard practice. I'm taking their word for it that it is common, and that the resulting long term redlinks are seen by them as a good thing.

This needs to be cleared up. If the policy is wrong and we need to change it, that's a matter for another talk page. What we need to decide here is, what is the current policy? Andrewa (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if phab:T12814 was fixed, round-robin moves would still have to done suppressing the redirect by page movers. And for admins, it would probably make sense to do it that way too, just to avoid cluttering the logs with unnecessary deletions. As an aside, I look at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Article alerts most days I'm active on Wikipedia to see which RMs have been closed and there are a lot of times that talk page redirects aren't left simply because of round-robin moves where the target page did not have an existing talk page. I'd support anything to make it clearer to page movers they need to create a talk page redirect in that situation.

For anyone else reading this, the main thrust of this section seems to have derived from User talk:Jenks24#Kremlin and I am one of the two admins mentioned without name by Andrew. I actually agree with the premise that "redirects should be created for both the article and its talk page unless there is a reason not to do so", but I think listing every single instance there may be a good reason not to have a redirect is unworkable. G6 will never cover every single example of times it can be used, there are simply too many ways something on Wikipedia can be done incorrectly or made obsolete and no longer be necessary. I think any admins who regularly monitor G6 deletions would agree with that. However, if you want to add a line somewhere that it is standard practice to delete talk page redirects when they point in a different direction to where the article-space redirects points, then that would be fine by me. See the discussion at my talk page for why I think redlinks are more useful for readers than confusing redirects in this specific case. Jenks24 (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree that suppressing the redirect is appropriate for round-robin moves and many multi-moves, rather than allowing its creation only to then delete it. That was what I meant to say and thought I had.

Disagree that it is standard practice to delete talk page redirects when they point in a different direction to where the article-space redirects points. If that is what current policy indicates, IMO it should be changed, and I'll take it up in the appropriate forum. But I don't see any justification for it as the rules stand, and that's the question here.

Jenks24 stated on their talk page A redlink with a log entry is actually easier to make sense of than having a talk page redirect point in a different direction to where its companion article-space redirect points, especially for less experienced users who often don't even know they've been redirected somewhere. It also has the added advantage, as you've noted, of not needing to be deleted for a future move.... Agree, and I'm not for one minute suggesting that anyone create a redirect that will need to be deleted to complete the move sequence, or leave a redir pointing to the wrong place. What I'm suggesting is that we should avoid long-term redlinks. In some cases soft redirects giving a choice of several talk pages are necessary, if the move history is particularly messy. But I can't imagine any case where the best solution is a long term redlink. Can anyone? Andrewa (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You said it was because of the technical issue detailed at the phab ticket, and I'm saying that it will still be necessary to suppress redirects for round-robin even once that technical issue is fixed.

Agree that it will still be necessary to suppress redirects for round-robin even once that technical issue is fixed. These are not long term redlinks. There are several valid reasons for creating short term redlinks, including the technical issue, round robin moves, and many (but not all) multi moves. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you see why I was confused that you brought up the phab ticket though? Whether it is fixed or not will have next to no impact on the issue we are discussing here. That's all I was trying to point out. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

As for the rest, are we talking at complete cross-purposes here? I have just made my argument here and at the talk page for deleting the talk page redirect, i.e. leaving it as a "long-term redlink" in some specific instances. To boil it down to one sentence: A redlink with a log is easier to make sense of in these cases, especially for newer or less experienced users/readers or anyone coming from an old link (internal or external). Jenks24 (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. And this is where I disagree, and think that current guidelines support me. The crossed purpose was about short term redlinks, and I agree that they are valid (and always have). Long term redlinks are the issue. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it suffices to say I disagree with your interpretation of G6 that it can only be used for things that are explicitly listed. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That is not my interpretation of G6, and I disagree with yours which seems to be that it authorises the deletion of redirects which clearly by this discussion are at least controversial. But in that you and others do in good faith interpret it in this way, it needs to be clarified. See #Possible update to CSD below. Andrewa (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The talk page of a redirect should either point to the talk page of the target, or (my preference) be used for wikiproject banners (these support the article alerts system should the redirect be nominated at RfD, be involved in a page move proposal, etc), discussion of the redirect, etc. including a pointer to the talk page of the redirect target if anyone thinks it beneficial. If you find a talk page that is out of sync with the main page without good reason* then either fix the redirect target or replace the redirect with project bannners, etc. There is no reason to delete it.
*The only reason I can think of for this is where the main redirect is to a page whose talk page is redirected to a central talk page, which is very uncommon in article space. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Is it worth adding a reminder (for both page movers and administrators) to the interface itself, next to the checkbox for "Leave a redirect behind" along the lines of: "(only uncheck if the redirect would eligible for speedy deletion)"? WJBscribe (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  Only if that giant box on the filemove page is shrunk considerably, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  Just so long as we are clear on what should be said, we can then discuss how it should be said. To me the guidelines are already clear, but not to everyone it seems. Jo-Jo Eumerus, WJBscribe, you both seem to agree that long term redlinks are generally to be avoided, is that a fair statement?

  The problem with referring it back to CSD (as at present) is that the admins concerned think that G6 authorises the long term redlinks to which I am objecting. Andrewa (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  I would agree that something like this should be mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  Agree with Jo-Jo that it is probably already too big. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Replying to Thryduulf 12:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC): Exactly. And thank you, that's a very good reply to my challenge to come up with a scenario in which a long term redlink is appropriate, well done! But as you say, it's an extremely rare scenario. None of the recent examples fit it, and I doubt we even need to mention it in our policies and guidelines etc.. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: To be clear, the scenario I describe is one where a talk page would redirect to a target other than the talk page of the main target - e.g. Wikipedia:Foo → Wikipedia:Foos but Wikipedia talk:Foo → Wikipedia talk:Central page about Foos, Basr and Bazzes (if Wikipedia talk:Foos → Wikipedia talk:Central page about Foos, Bars and Bazzes). I cannot think of any reason why any page that exists should have a redlinked talk page for any length of time. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not a new issue, rather it's one I've meant to clarify for years. I've regularly run across examples in which a long term talk page redlink was deliberately left, and the admins concerned have generally agreed to fix it or to let me do so. What has brought it to a head is two recent cases in which the admins have defended the long term redlink (one did agree to recreate the page in question, but the other now says I badgered them to do it).

And it was possible that they were right. But the discussion above indicates to me that they are not. One of the admins in question is the only one here who seems to think that these long-term redlinks are justified, either by common sense or by G6. Or that's my reading of the discussion. I've left some pings above to try to make sure.

I agree that it is a common practice, and let us not split hairs about exactly how common. What I am saying is that it is a wrong practice.

And either way, it needs to be cleared up. Andrewa (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made hundreds of these moves in five years as an admin and you are the only person who has complained. I also watchlist every move I make for at least several days afterwards and I have cannot recall ever seeing anyone recreate one of these "talk-page-redirects-that-points-to-a-confusing-target" before you. Could you please explain exactly why you think a redirect that either a) points to a completely different target to where the article-space redirect goes, or b) points to a talk page that will likely have no explanation as to what happened to the old page (e.g. an old link to Talk:Joe Bloggs (footballer) ends up taking them to Talk:Joe Bloggs (disambiguation)), is more useful than a log page that shows why the old page was moved (and doesn't redirect them anywhere – newer users are often unaware they have been redirected at all)? The reason this is different to article space is because in those cases there will either be a hatnote or a list of links on a dab page to help the reader/editor. You don't get that with talk pages. Just reciting that these types of deletions are not explicitly listed at G6 does not explain why your proposed change to the current practice – which is simple for the admin dealing with it and the future reader – is actually a positive thing for the encyclopedia. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make, and that I think Andrewa is trying to make, is that talk pages such as you described should be fixed (i.e. pointed to the correct target, or undredirected and used for project banners) not deleted or left as they are. G6 does not list every possible reason to delete a page, and we are not arguing that it should, we are arguing that this specific reason is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, then why is that better? This has been my frustration with this discussion. I think I have made at least reasonable points for why I think what I'm doing is both simple and useful. And it feels to me as if the argument coming from yourself and Andrew is simply "it's wrong" without explaining why you think your way is better. Do you honestly think it is a good use of admin time in an area that is already under-resourced to add project tags and several lines of explanation of what happened has happened in the history, when the logs already tell the same story in a simpler manner? If you still think yes (and fair enough if you do), do you think this will incentivise any admins to a) start working in this area, or b) continue working in this area? Jenks24 (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that this is worth the admin time because it benefits people in the long run to have the history available to everyone (not just those who can see the deleted history) and made aware (via article alerts) of relevant discussions. If the page history is not self-explanatory then all you need do is put a single sentence on the page or in an edit summary explaining it or pointing to where it is explained. If you are deleting something simply because it's less work then you really need to re-read deletion policy as that is a fundamentally incorrect use of admin tools. Adding project banners to the talk page of a redirect is the work of a simple copy and paste and 1 minute changing all the class= statements to redirect, changing the target to the correct one is less useful but even simpler and quicker. It is always worth the time of an admin to avoid deleting something that does not need to be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, come on, it's not fair to imply these deletions are hiding anything in the history or making anything more difficult for non-admins. All there is a one-line entry that's exactly the same as in the log, there is nothing an admin can see that a non-admin can't. As for the rest, I appreciate you making your case. I maintain that a redlink is, in this specific scenario, a more useful way to go about things for all involved – wikiprojects are rarely useful to partial dabs and the logs tell the same story as writing a comment. But perhaps the consensus is against me. I'll refrain from making any more comments in this thread unless someone directly asks me a question. Jenks24 (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It is perfectly fair because it is indeed making things more difficult for non-admins and for admins too. One of the reasons I came here in the first place was that you had suppressed a talk page redirect and as a result I couldn't find the move discussion I was watching on a talk page you had moved, remember? Andrewa (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As a tangential point, I just noticed while going over my watchlist that Federal Executive Branch Continuity of Operations Plan (a redirect) was deleted under G6 today. My point is not that it was incorrect, but that G6 will never include a comprehensive list of the ways it can be used even on redirects and I think that was clearly the intention when it was written. Jenks24 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

As pointed out above, nobody is saying that the list is exhaustive, so that is a straw man. The example you give is so clearly non-controversial that it has not only been deleted, but protected against re-creation, as the title includes a banned character string that causes software problems. The examples we are discussing here are clearly controversial. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible update to CSD

In view of the above discussion, and particularly to the comments by Thryduulf, I think the following should be added to the bottom of wp:G6:

Talk pages of main namespace pages should only be deleted as G6 if either the corresponding page in the main namespace does not exist, or the talk page is being temporarily deleted to allow a move over it.

This will need to be discussed at WT:CSD, but I'd like to be able to report consensus here when doing that. Andrewa (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The first clause is not necessary as that is covered by G8 (which notes that exceptions are possible, e.g. it's the only record of some early VfD discussions ending in delete). Other than that this has my support. Thryduulf (talk)

Good point, so it would read Talk pages of main namespace pages should only be deleted as G6 if the talk page is being temporarily deleted to allow a move over it. Much neater. Andrewa (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Now raised at WT:CSD#G6 should not be used to create permanent redlinks in namespace 1. Andrewa (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Assistance needed with repeat violations of ANI warning

The first two diffs I looked at here showed Tenebrae reverting Pyxis Solitary's violation of WP:EUPHEMISM (here) and WP:FILM (here). Posting on the ANI-closer's talkpage that Tenebrae "invites and enjoys controversy and conflict. And he values his judgement above those of other editors. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for him to pop into the Carol article periodically to make arbitrary edits." simply says to me "I don't like this editor disagreeing with me". This is backed up by his reference to Snow Rise's (perfectly good) close as a "warning" to Tenebrae when in reality it was a suggestion that both editors avoid each other. There is, I think no reason for this to go further. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

---

I'm requesting assistance and intervention regarding repeat violations by User:Tenebrae of warning to maintain distance by avoiding contact with me.

Background: On 19 January 2017, User:Tenebrae filed an ANI against me: Admin-opinion request on canvassing issue. The ANI was closed with a Warning by User:Snow Rise:

Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid eachother and, if they absolutely must communicate, to keep their commentary focused on the content issue, to avoid talking about eachother, and to be scrupulously civil. This is the best way forward, I feel, and maybe the only option that doesn't end in a sanction for someone. Snow 03:34, 2 February 2017

It's easy for any editor to find out what articles another editor is involved in, and if said editor truly intends to avoid the other editor, staying away from those articles is one step towards maintaining distance. However,

1. @ 03:17, 22 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae violated the warning to "avoid each other" by reverting my edit on the Carol film article: here.

2. @ 03:24, 22 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae left me a message on the article's Talk page: here. (I did not respond)

After these two incidents, I vented my frustration on Snow Rise's talk page (03:35, 22 February 2017): (SR archived the talk page and it's the reason for including the following quotes instead of linking to its revision history.)

(03:35, 22 February 2017)

After the recent ANI was resolved, you recommended that User:Tenebrae and I keep a distance: Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid each other and, if they absolutely must communicate, to keep their commentary focused on the content issue, to avoid talking about each other, and to be scrupulously civil. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if User:Tenebrae continues making edits to the Carol article -- which was behind the ANI -- it is a roundabout way of not keeping said distance. I cannot sit idly by and watch edits made to the article that are (1) unnecessary and (2) not supported by existing WP guidelines and consensus. Now he's leaving messages on the Talk page addressed to me: Italics. This behavior is not acceptable to me -- and should not be tolerated by any Admin who witnessed the ANI. He was recently blocked for edit warring on another article and by continuing the "my way or the highway" with editors he is provoking confrontations: see 03:17, February 22, 2017 - reversal of edit to Carol. For the sake of other editors, and those who care about the spirit of Wikipedia and its articles, something needs to be done to put a stop to this behavior. Pyxis Solitary

3. @ 04:17, 22 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae undid my edit in WP:MOSFILM: here -- which he then self-reverted.

4. @ 3:33, 22 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae accused me in another editor's talk page of making a personal attack against him.

5. @ 21:17, 22 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae posted the following comment on Snow Rise's talk page:

U:T @ 21:17, 22 February 2017
Wikipedia doesn't italicize Box Office Mojo or Deadline.com, so I'm uncertain how de-italicizing them is "arbitrary." If Pyxis Solitary believes that "what's right for the article" is italicizing terms that are never italicized, well, that's as wrong as slagging me off behind my back. --Tenebrae

After finding out about his personal attack accusation against me (see "4" above), I left the following comment on Snow Rise's talk page (10:37, 23 February 2017):

(10:37, 23 February 2017)
By the way, User:Tenebrae accused me of making a personal attack against him because of the changes I made to my PROFILE page, and sought the help of another editor to (fill-in-the-blank). I mean, what the hell! Take a look: personal attack accusation. What are y'all going to do with an editor that was told to "keep a distance" -- but instead keeps pushing the envelope? Pyxis Solitary

Which was soon followed by an additional comment (11:25, 23 February 2017) after I found out that he had also filed an ANI against me about it @ 02:17, 23 February 2017:

(11:25, 23 February 2017)

After my 10:37 ^ response I saw this waiting for me in my Talk page: Requesting help re: a personal attack. I'm not going to file an ANI or whatever over this. I am, however, formally now requesting that — after (1) the reversal of my edit in the Carol article, (2) message directed at me in Carol talk page, (3) undoing my edit in MOS:FILM {which he then self-reverted after actually l-o-o-k-i-n-g at the edit}, (4) accusation of personal attack in talk page of editor CapnZapp, and (5) the ANI accusing me of a personal attack — the sanction warned in the canvassing ANI be enforced to stop User:Tenebrae from continuing to provoke and create conflict between us. Enough is enough. Pyxis Solitary

This second ANI against me was not only found to be baseless, but he was also warned about violating the "avoid each other" warning:

"...the fact that you are monitoring the user's userpage is a violation of the advice to avoid each other...."Softlavender 03:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

6. @ 01:23, 24 February 2017 and @ 01:26, 24 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae left these comments directed to me on Snow Rise's talk page, challenging me to respond: (I did not respond)

U:T @ 01:23, 24 February 2017 and @ 01:26, 24 February 2017

Excuse me, but what do you call this, posted two days after CapnZapp and others asked us not to engage? I don't care if no one knows the total edit counts I've made to Wikipedia, nor what rank I am as an active editor. I don't contribute to this webopedia because I seek and expect recognition for my work in it. I'm not interested in medals and awards. My ego isn't so fragile that I need to plaster my user page with "Look at me! Look how great I am!" attention getters. (I applaud those Wikipedians who collapse their kudos and virtually hide them. So you tell me why you posted this. You tell me what other editor you personally have come across with "total edit count", "rank" and "medals and awards"? Yours is the worst kind of insult, because it's all insinuation. Shameful. Should I list all the insults and name-calling you're hurled at me and other editors, with links to them? --Tenebrae And incidentally, please explain how someone contributing anonymously is "seek[ing] and expect[ing] recognition." My goodness.--Tenebrae

I asked Snow Rise (10:12, 24 February 2017) to not include me in User:Tenebrae's behavior:

(10:12, 24 February 2017)

He's the one who now, in your talk page, has repeated the accusation of an insinuated personal attack. He has now, more than once, violated your warning in the canvassing ANI: "Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid each other..." I do not involve myself in articles he's editing because I know the definition of "keep your distance". But he is going to continue to monitor my actions in Wikipedia, he's going to continue trying to rule over my edits, and he will again accuse me of wrongdoing. He's the one who continues to provoke and create conflict with me and about me. Do not paint me with the same brush. Pyxis Solitary

7. @ 01:31, 25 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae left the following comment directed to me: (I did not respond)

U:T @ 01:31, 25 February 2017

I didn't say anything to anyone about you until you did so here, with a deliberately Trump-like obfuscation — "However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if User:Tenebrae continues making edits to the Carol article -- which was behind the ANI -- it is a roundabout way of not keeping said distance" — followed by a lie: "I cannot sit idly by and watch edits made to the article that are (1) unnecessary and (2) not supported by existing WP guidelines and consensus." I hadn't touched the article since January 16. You were the one who made several edits after that — not me, you. Here's the article hsitory, so anyone can see for themselves. I didn't make an edit until Feb. 21, for grammatical reasons after you broke MOS and the basic rules of English-language punctuation. See these articles for themselves: Box Office Mojo and Deadline.com are not italicized. Period. Neither is Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic or other sites that WP:FILM used. So: Liar, liar, liar that correct grammar for these sites is "unnecessary and not supported by existing WP guidelines and consensus." Liar. See their own Wikipedia articles. And yet: I didn't say anything here about your obfuscation and lies. So unprovoked, you attacked me here, again, saying he invites and enjoys controversy and conflict. And he values his judgement above those of other editors. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for him to pop into the Carol article periodically to make arbitrary edits. Insisting, as he did in his recent edit, that the applicable template parameter for Box Office Mojo and Deadline is "publisher" instead of "website" (which the latter is what they are) is just screwing around with the article. He invents guidelines. Why is he being allowed to get away with this? Get away with what? Using proper grammar? Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Box office, which clearly does not italicize Box Office Mojo or Deadline.com. Read it. Go to the good article Captain America: Civil War — Box Office Mojo and Deadline.com are not italicized. And you lie and say my grammatical corrections of your incorrect grammar is "unnecessary and not supported by existing WP guidelines and consensus." I have just shown you both guidelines (WP:FILMMOS) and consensus. And heaven knows, no, I don't enjoy this controversy and conflict one bit whatsoever. Not. One. Bit. So you're wrong again there. It was only after you disparaged me twice on this page that I finally commented on your slagging me off behind my back. I hope you're proud of yourself, talking about someone behind their back. I have made sure you're notified every time I've commented about you. And now you bring another editor into it, who has a good heart and is trying to be helpful — and rather than accepting their help and being constructive, you spend your time trash-talking another editor. You think Snow Rise wants to hear that? You think a helpful, goodhearted editor wants to have you bring venom onto their page? And for what? The battle you want to fight is for wrongly italicizing two websites. Really? Good gracious. --Tenebrae

I asked Snow Rise (05:52, 25 February 2017) to enforce her warning about keeping a distance:

(05:52, 25 February 2017)

@Snow Rise: if your warning "Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid each other..." does not apply when, in just one week, one of the two parties continues to incite conflict by (1) reversing the other party's edits in two articles, (2) accusing the other party of creating a personal attack on their userpage, (3) filing an ANI against the other party, (4) post messages directed at the other party in an article's talk page and in this talk page, and (5) challenging the other party to respond to accusations ... then it was a meaningless warning. I am the Admin of a wiki. I know when a user has defied warnings. I know how to stop that user. I know you're not a WP Admin. But you issued the warning. If you can't, then someone on your behalf has to walk the talk. Please hold off on the RfC until this situation is resolved. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary

8. @ 21:15, 26 February 2017 — User:Tenebrae left the following comment directed to me in Snow Rise's talk page: (I did not respond)

U:T @ 21:15, 26 February 2017

I reiterate: You started this contretemps here when, unbidden, you disparaged me behind my back. Slagging off another editor is not "avoiding" the other editor. You could have made your same points without mentioning me at all. And, once more, I said nothing the first time you disparaged me here, and only responded when you did it a second time! I don't know why you believe you're allowed to insult, disparage and lie about other editors behind their backs, and then claim innocence. Remarkable.--Tenebrae

9. @ 15:35, 11 March 2017 — User:Tenebrae responded to my comment in a discussion I created in the talk page of the Carol article: here. (I did not respond)

10. @ 15:36, 11 March 2017 — User:Tenebrae edited content that I had reversed after an IP-address-only editor had, again, changed the content (see discussion in my talk page).

♦ I think this fact about the Carol article, in particular, needs to be pointed out for obvious reasons: I became involved as an editor of the article on 07:44, 15 December 2015‎. A review of its revision history will show how much I have edited it. The first time User:Tenebrae edited the article was on 22:17, 11 January 2017‎. After its GA nomination failed because it had been nominated by an editor that had "not exponentially contributed on the page base on the edit history", I renominated the article on 12:07, 6 March 2017.

Other than WP:MOSFILM, I have stayed away from Wikipedia articles User:Tenebrae is also involved in so as to keep a distance. I have not replied to any messages addressed to me, or comments directed to me by User:Tenebrae. I have maintained my distance. He has not. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia, but by undoing or changing my edits in those I am involved in -- regardless of the reason given for doing so -- is a direct violation of the warning to keep a distance by "avoid[ing] each other". He pushes the envelope and will continue to do so if action is not taken to stop it. Is it too much to ask for those with authority to enforce the warning made by Snow Rise in the ANI? Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This has all been gone over on other talk pages with other editors ad infinitum. As is this editors wont, much of the information here is cherry-picked and neglects this editor's multiple violations of WP:MOS, WP:FILMMOS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:CIVIL and WP:EUPHEMISM, that I can recall offhand. As for "not avoiding" User:Pyxis Solitary at User talk:Snow Rise: I commented there after only Pyxis Solitary not once but twice trash-talked me and made false accusations behind my back. I believe we have the right to defend ourselves.

I'm happy to answer any questions any admin might have. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It bears repeating: there is the before the 2 February 2017 ANI closure ... and the after the 2 February 2017 ANI closure. Everything that has been documented here came after. All you have to do is review my "User contributions" since that date to see where I have been active and what those activities have been. User:Tenebrae proves with every step that he does not respect the warning posted by Snow Rise or anyone else, and will not abide by the "avoid each other". Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Removing edit protections from files

I've made a proposal here, posting this here to solicit more opinions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Point of a block

LET'S NOT AND SAY WE DID:

There seems little point in continuing this discussion, the user in question is no longer blocked and the tone is degrading rapidly. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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

---

What's the point of blocking someone when they can use their talk page to get their helpers to carry out their desired edits for them? DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I would think that people would do a little background before jumping into anything. It isn't hard to see if someone is blocked. Just look at their contribs. Talk page access is necessary for appeals and can't really be taken away immediately (unless there is a known history of abuse and socking). If you come across someone requesting edits be done on their behalf while blocked say you can't and deactivate the request. If they persist that is talk page access abuse and ask that TPA be revoked then. --Majora (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Those carrying out the requests are well aware of the block. The editor in question is using his talk page to edit the front page queues, get his images added to articles, all the while claiming to be "waiting out the block". DuncanHill (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say take it to ANI then. That is very clearly not "waiting out the block". --Majora (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Majora: Our current blocking policy doesn't disallow edits by proxy so long as "they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits". Arbitrators and some admins have interpreted this liberally to mean any positive edit can be done on behalf of a blocked editor by proxy. We need to think hard about whether this is desirable, and if not, change our blocking policy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrators and some admins have interpreted this liberally to mean any positive edit can be done on behalf of a blocked editor by proxy. I don't think this is quite the whole story. My observation is that proxy editing is allowed as long as the editor who actually makes the edit takes complete and full responsibility for its factuality and appropriatenesss. If the edit turns out to be a bad one, the fault lies with the editor who made the edit, not with the blocked editor who made the suggestion (although their talk page access can be revoked). Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The policy is contradictory as no edit on behalf of a blocked user would be independent from the blocked user. So the "independent reasons" clause makes the entire section moot as I read it. As for the letter of it, proxy editing is directly in spite of the spirit of the blocking policy. --Majora (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as main page errors go, myself, User:Stephen and User:Howcheng are admins who regularly clerk WP:ERRORS. We did it before TRM was blocked and we will do it after he is unblocked. The fact that errors are being pointed out on TRM's talkpage rather than WP:ERRORS is completely irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that no-one is suggesting that we should let errors creep onto the main page purely because it is TRM who has pointed them out, rather than anyone else. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Can WP:ERRORS not function without him? DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There are unfortunately a very small number of editors who spend the time to check everything that is heading towards the mainpage - it's a lot of work - and TRM is one of the main contributors in that respect. I do try to check when I get the chance but I don't always have the time, especially as WP:DYK cycles twice a day. I wish that the quality control, especially at DYK, was better, but until that does happen we simply have to depend on people pointing issues out. It's not an ideal situation, I agree, but I hope it will resolve itself when TRM's block expires. Black Kite (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If he were indeffed would you still edit for him? DuncanHill (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a good question. I am happy to at the moment whilst the discussion about his block is continuing, but that's not a situation I've considered. I suspect that if he were to be indeffed, though, his talkpage access would be removed if he continued to post, which makes the question moot. Black Kite (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So as long as an existing block is being discussed you're happy to edit on behalf of the blocked editor. You should advertise this service more widely, I'm sure it will be very popular, and of course you wouldn't be one to treat TRM better than you'd treat anyone else. DuncanHill (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, you know that's not what I mean. I'm not going to be making everyday edits for people if they're not the type of edits I would make anyway. But if I saw a note written by any blocked (or even banned) editor that pointed out a real problem, whether it be an error on the mainpage or a BLP with serious libel issues, then of course I'd act on it, and I think most other editors would too (even if it were just to report it to a noticeboard for someone else to action). Black Kite (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Following that vein, the block is pointless if we allow editing by proxy. Might as well just unblock him, do away with the civility requirements, and let them go. Blocking is supposed to stop the damage. It is supposed to be a reminder that certain activity is not tolerated. Allowing proxy editing throws that purpose out the window. --Majora (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No. If he was simply requesting edits that I would not normally make, I would not make them. However, while he is pointing out errors on the mainpage that would normally be made at WP:ERRORS, then I will do them, for the simple reason that I would do normally. I am quite happy to own edits that remove errors from Wikipedia, especially on the main page. As far as I am concerned, that meets "... can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits". Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)TRM was not blocked for bad main-space contributions, but for his civility issues. As long as the editors-by-proxy for him are sticking to the main-space contributions (eg ERRORS-type issues), not repeating any incivil language, and take responsibility themselves for proxying TRM's edits, there's no issue here. I would agree concern should be had if a user has a topic ban and editors were proxying at those topics for them, but TRM's ban was not related to his main-space edits. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That is some twisted logic Masem. So by that example we should allow someone who was blocked for repeatedly uploading copyvio images to edit by proxy because their block was not mainspace related? --Majora (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course not, that's not what I said. If a user was blocked for copyvio aspects, and used his talk page to ask editors to upload files, then the editors that edit by proxy now take full responsibility if they upload the suggested images and they still are copyvio problems. In such a case, I would more likely expect editors to not even bother with such requests. Here, I will assume that Black Kite will take responsibility for any "bad" requests that TRM makes that Black Kite implements. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Black Kite - Hmm, well I suppose that meets the letter of the law. I still think it makes blocks pointless, and I don't think it's ethical. And as for the lack of participation at WP:ERRORS, I am sure you are aware that some consider TRM's contributions there may be somewhat off-putting to many. DuncanHill (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Masem, TRM's block WAS related to his WP:ERRORS contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It was his interactions at ERRORS, but related to how he treated other editors, not the actual content of the ERRORS that affected text on the main page. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A subtile distinction, and one I do not recall being made in favour of other blockees. DuncanHill (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It does seem like this exception is being twisted to fit the circumstances (and the person being blocked) due to their past contributions to the project doesn't it? --Majora (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of cutting off my nose to spite my face. If a blocked (or indeed banned) user raises a valid concern about errors in Wikipedia content, especially main page content, I think we should fix it. Sometimes ideological purity must give way to pragmatism... WJBscribe (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You essentially just did away with WP:DENY. Especially when it comes to banned users who were all banned for a very good reason, WJB. Not exactly something I would want any admin (or 'crat for that matter) to do without widespread community consensus. --Majora (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that essay has its limits if allowed to govern our actions inflexibly. That's probably why it's never had the consensus to be a guideline or policy. This isn't the first time this issue has come up. I don't think you'll find there's much consensus for ignoring a problem with Wikipedia content just because it was first identified by a blocked/banned user. WJBscribe (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If you are looking for a policy that has consensus on banned users perhaps WP:BMB would be better? In any case, we have moved from blocked users to banned users which is not the point of this thread. The point here is that long term editors are immune from most things and even if not totally immune the "rules" are twisted so that in most cases the consequences are as soft as possible. Everyone knows that. It is one of the many unwritten rules of this place. But to see it so readily is jarring. Not unexpected, just jarring. --Majora (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether or not the user concerned is a long term editor. Try it. Create an account, make vandal edits & get blocked. In your unblock request identify an error in our main page content. I think the chances are pretty high that - even if the unblock request is declined - one of the reviewing admins will fix the issue with the main page... WJBscribe (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I consider myself a bit of a DENY Hawk, but I'm not seeing a problem here and I certainly don't see it as eviscerating DENY.

The usual situation go something like the following: an editor is contributing to the encyclopedia but making errors. Not just minor errors, that can be easily pointed out and corrected but multiple errors, either editorial or civility-based that are not cured with multiple warnings. Even though the editor may make some positive contributions, we decide as a community that on balance the negative contributions outweigh the positive and we blocked the editor so that they can think through their options and decide whether they want to reform. In some cases, such an editor will create a new account, i.e. a sock puppet, and continue contributing either with full articles or with edits to existing articles. It is not uncommon for someone to observe that some of these edits are positive and argue that they should be accepted. The problem is, we've made a decision that the editors problems outweigh the contributions, and while some of these edits may be helpful, given the problems, it would not be rational to simply accept them without close scrutiny. While some would counsel this, if we thought that was a good long-term solution, we would not block the person but let them continue and just ask people to provide the close scrutiny. By definition, we don't accept this option, as we made the decision to block the editor. Therefore, per DENY, it makes sense to revert these edits and wipe out any full articles created without looking closely. Any editor who wishes to take on the responsibility can look closely at the edits and make them themselves and thereby take on responsibility, but we don't generally let them stand and simply asked people to look at them closely.

That is fundamentally different than the situation. It isn't the case that the blocked editor has created a sock puppet and we just realized that there are some potentially problematic edits. The editor has been upfront and posted items on the talk page which may be main page errors. It would be absurd to insist on allowing an error to remain simply because it was pointed out by a blocked editor. The request did not create a burden on other editors in the same way that a sock puppets edits create a burden with a requirement that someone come along and check them closely. Only willing editors who think that the suggestions may be worthwhile will check these edits and they voluntarily take on the time to determine whether they are worthwhile implementing.

Again, I am a strong supporter of DENY but do not see it as suggesting we should revoke talk page access or that everyone should shut their eyes to useful information on their talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Demanding that we stop fixing flaws in our content because we dislike the person who identified them is such a Wikipedian thing to do. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No-one is saying that. Some of us are saying that perhaps we shouldn't allow blocked editors to perform the exact activities they usually perform via proxy, though, with editors acting on their requests without independent thought. That's plainly not the intention of talk page access for a blocked editor. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Who said we dislike the person? I certainly didn't. I demand that admins do the job that they were elected to do. That happens to include enforcing blocks that were handed out. Regardless of who that person is. Obviously the block is a pointless exercise in futility and multiple admins are perfectly content with proxying edits for them on demand. So just unblock him and cut out the literal middleman. Seems silly to be going about this in this fashion. --Majora (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Oh, I strongly support lifting the block in question. It seemed to me the sentiment of this thread and several others in various places was that until said block expires, we shouldn't be carrying out the blocked editor's good-faith edit requests. On that, I disagree. @BU Rob13: I'm not personally aware of any policy that prevents a blocked editor from using their talk page to contribute to the encyclopedia, either by collaborating with other users in good-standing or themselves writing and editing content. I seem to recall several instances where blocked users were in fact encouraged to craft article drafts on their talk page as a step toward provisional unblocking. I believe that if the "intention of talk page access for a blocked editor" is to deny all constructive contributions, those intentions are wrong. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • ...in any event, the user at the heart of this discussion has just been unblocked, so this matter may be considered resolved unless folks would like to continue this as a general policy discussion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Juliancolton; You must have missed the point of the non-consensus of the community, it was to break his spirt. They only broke most of it, and thats not good enough. People trying need to be stopped, otherwise wikipedia will be filled with trying. TVGarfield (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The above account was created today; it is their fifth edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • True. I guess I couldn't take reading it any longer. TVGarfield (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The pooint of a block is to prevent a user from continuing to abuse the site or disrupt it. If a user in good standing is willing to take full responsibility for the blocked user's request, and potentially sacrifice his/her good standing, then the edit has passed an extra level of scrutiny other than the blocked user's own judgement. I would certainly be extremely careful about such edits, but errors on the main page, as judged by a responsible admin, certainly should be done. As Maimonides said, in his opening to his commentary on Pirkei Avot, "Accept the truth from whoever said it"My translation from a Hebrew source; I have no doubt that Black Kite verified that it is the truth. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• The purpose is that the edits are now owned by the person who makes them. If that person is disruptive, that person can be blocked. If the edits are fine when made by the second person (that is, if we didn't know they were requested by a blocked user, then we wouldn't object to them) then what is the problem? --Jayron32 15:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Notably, however TRM is currently unblocked. Is there any reason to keep this discussion open any longer. --Jayron32 15:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps enshrining this in some type of essay/guideline about contributions of blocked editors? DENY doesn't cover the situation that seems to be described by consensus here (that as long as the proxy editor takes full responsibility and consequences for such suggested made by blocked editors, that's acceptable). --MASEM (t) 15:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • DENY has absolutely nothing to do with this situation - DENY applies to users who are here in order to be disruptive, not users who come to help and occasionally "cross the line". As long as TRM remains the latter type of user, DENY is completely irrelevent with him. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I know it shouldn't but see the arguments above where it was brought up. Maybe DENY's the wrong place for establishing this, but I think we do need something to cover a case like TRM. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it cuts opposite to the way DuncanHill thinks. It provides practical proof that even a more permanent block need not harm the project. (Should there ever be need to speculate on that point in the future.) 74.84.210.70 (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Adjust the policy, start an RFC. What is really objectionable, in my opinion, is a talk page section heading entitled "Tame admin meatpuppets helping blockee evade a block" with reference to this situation where one or two admins and one or two editors actually helped reduce the vast (and unacceptable) level of errors going to the main page during my block, in line with policy. Referring to those individuals as "tame ... meatpuppets" may not border on a personal attack these days but it's certainly crude and unhelpful. Similarly accusing a fellow admin of being a "TRM groupie" for simply disagreeing with him seems once again unpalatable. The issue at hand may need to be addressed, but I sincerely do not think that this is the best way to do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A fellow admin? Neither you nor I are admins TRM. And the TRM groupie who abused the thanks button is not an admin either. You are, I will allow, an expert on crude and unhelpful. DuncanHill (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That last remark was insulting, DuncanHill. Please don't direct such comments at someone who is prohibited from responding in kind. WJBscribe (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Then tell him to stop baiting me on my talk page and in his edit summaries on his, and to stop maintaining a list in userspace of things he has a grudge against. DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) My mistake, I'll leave it here. There are clearly some serious underlying issues that need to be resolved, both in policy and communication here, and some real anger that needs to be addressed. I'll reiterate that I don't think using crude and unhelpful terms about people who are dedicated to maintain the quality of the main page such as "tame meat puppets" is helpful, but perhaps others think that's acceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Block review request

(non-admin closure) Wrapped up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

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

---

I have just revoked talk page access for user L'honorable for continued inappropriate ramblings while blocked, for possible outing, and for ignoring warnings from many editors and administrators about discussing conflicts from other projects on this Wikipedia. I've previously raised issues involving this user at the noticeboards before in a way which may make me involved but I think with the outing this ticks the "any administrator would do the same" box. Posting here to have some admins take a look. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The thread I'm referring to is here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Seeing that the content has been oversighted, and you're not an oversighter, someone else clearly agreed that this was highly problematic content. That, by itself, would be enough reason to block if the user weren't already blocked, and it's enough reason for any admin to revoke talk page access. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Move Discussion Review

Clearly there is no longer a SNOW opinion. SNOW and/or NAC says that requests may be overturned if requested. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Could an uninvolved Admin please take a quick look at this? An editor is objecting to a speedy close of a move discussion where there were nine supports with no oppose !votes. I am involved so I can't act as an administrator here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. I really didn't want this to come to AN. The truth of the matter is that Guy Macon made an undeclared non-admin close[10] of an RM they were already involved,[11] fully 6 days before the listing period ended. While there was unanimous support in the first day it was opened and Guy invoked WP:SNOW, few participants (including Guy) made any policy argument, and I believe there are additional matters that need to be considered vis a vis WP:COMMONNAME and the article title criteria, and asked Guy to do so here. I was unable to participate initially because the discussion was closed so early. It is really a very simple, reasonable request that this out-of-process close be reverted to allow for further participation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears that Guy Macon has rejected my request to self-revert,[12] so escalation is necessary after all.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I was notified of this discussion by Cúchullain. SNOW is pretty clear on this: "if in doubt, then allow discussions to take place". Re-open the RM and let the discussion go the full week. If the consensus is as clear as some are suggesting on the talk page then six extra days won't change it and the article can be moved then. The article has been at the previous title for at least several years as well, so I don't see why this should be so urgent. Jenks24 (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Just a point: If one editor objects over 10 editors agreeing, then there's really no doubt. That's about as solid a consensus as one can expect to get on the internet. That being said, I'm not opposed to it being re-opened, I'm just pointing out that the arguments put forth thus far for it being an improper close are pretty spurious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have seen situations where nine or so people think something is straightforward, and concur, then a tenth raises a point the other missed. Subsequent contributors might agree with the tenth, and some of the earlier ones might reconsider in light of information they hadn't considered. I don't know whether that is the case here, but it is far too strong to assume that " there's really no doubt".--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Sphilbrick. All I've been asking for for the RM to be reopened to post some thoughts. There was little discussion of some policies and I expect that some will find that edifying. Considering that the RM should have been open for another 6 days, I don't understand why there has been such resistance.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This should be closed as premature. The issue is in active discussion on the article talk page, and no administrator intervention is required while we are still discussing the issue at Talk:Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory --Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been working at RM for a lot of years, and I don't think I've ever encountered behavior like this before. Guy Macon, your close is a near textbook example of how not to close an RM. You made a very unorthodox call despite not being an admin. You closed it despite having participated in the discussion and thus having a conflict of interest. You closed it six days early and would not reopen when you were approached in good faith, despite what WP:SNOW, WP:RMCI and simple collaborative spirit would recommend. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to jump through hoops and get involved in secondary "post-move" discussions on the talk page when the RM should just be re-opened for those of us who could not participate due to your early close. Unfortunately, admin action is necessary here, as you refuse to reopen the discussion you closed out of process.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You guys, what happened to using WP:move review? George Ho (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming that Ad Orientem wasn't familiar with the MR process when they made this post. I was planning on bringing it up with them when this was settled. I had initially hoped Guy would just revert their own close, but they have refused. Given that the close was so out of process, it would be simpler for it just to be reverted and the RM reopened than to drag everyone back to MR, which is not a terribly effective process.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Re-opened and move reverted. It's clearly not SNOW any more. The outcome may be the same, but there is enough of a request to undo that I'm doing it. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

WP:SALT - or block?

Ross Campbell (Vocal Coach) which I just prodded should be at Ross Campbell (vocal coach), but that has been slated. The creator noted he has a COI on his talk page, and has a history of creating this article, getting it deleted, ditto for few others. Since they have taken to recreating it under a new name, meaning that WP:SALT is not effective... someone may want to consider a more drastic solution. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Have salted the new article, as it is substantially the same as the one deleted at AFD. Have also blocked its creator - multiple editors have explained the notability criteria but they're ignoring the advice and simply recreating the same articles, over a fairly lengthy period. The COI is also relevant - even if these were notable, they shouldn't be being created by this editor. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Massive deletion request

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion currently has 407 pages for deletion. Most of those are User:ShadowBC and that user's subpages. It looks like these were proposed by Mélencron as U5. Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. I'm wondering if there is a bot to handle this. — Maile (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll look into it, and batch-delete if necessary. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Beat me to it. It looks like a large amount of election results and parliamentary articles from what I saw so far. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Aye, and from the half-dozen I've checked they're either completely inaccurate (e.g. elections that didn't exist) or factually dubious (i.e. doesn't match what's currently on the page). They'll be refundable, but I see no compelling reason to keep them and will be deleting them shortly. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism in articles on Macedonian politics

The articles about the political parties in Macedonia and some other articles related to Macedonian politics are subject to persistent vandalism by the user Finki2014 (talk · contribs) and the IP addresses 194.149.148.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 95.180.219.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 77.29.178.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The disruptive editing consists of removing cited content, making inappropriate replacements, miscitation of newly added content, use of libellous statements and favouring political positions. I have reported the case here for the first time in March 2016 after noticing persistent vandalism in the article on the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity, which resulted with a block for 24 hours, and for the second time in April 2016 after noticing that the persistent editing had continued on the same article, which was archived unanswered by any administrator. I have later noticed that disruptive editing by the same user and IP addresses has been conducted on the articles on the 2016 Macedonian protests, Social Democratic Union of Macedonia and Liberal Democratic Party (Republic of Macedonia). I hope that the administrators are going to overtake preventive measures, because it becomes very difficult to review all the changes made by these users and properly handle with the problem. Thanks. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

A few suggestions: 1) to help Admins sort through the problem, consider posting links, especially "diffs" (from article's edit histories) pointing to the problematic edits; 2) Post a short message on the talk pages of users involved, with a direct link to this thread - let them defend their actions, if that's the case; 3) If anyone is revert-warring over the perceived issues, discontinue. Quite simply: make the problem easier to see. If a user is pushing a POV, for example, this will become apparent enough once they re-edit a few times. There is no need to demonstrate that they will revert any given edit numerous times, and it will make it harder for Admins to go through the evidence. Everything that was done is logged. Post the diff link, and the Admins will get to it. Redux (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Redux: Thanks for your response. The users are notified on their discussion pages. A detailed list of diffs made by the users is presented in turn:

Disruptive editing made by Finki2014 (talk · contribs)

• favouring a political position by misciting a BBC news (7 October 2015);
• adding uncited quotations (10 November 2015); Warning: Please note that the same content was later added by the user 194.149.148.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to another article on 26 May 2016 (see [13]).
• adding uncited political ideology (10 November 2015);
• adding uncited political ideologies (27 November 2015);
• adding uncited political ideologies (14 December 2015);
• adding uncited political ideologies (9 January 2016);
• adding uncited political ideologies (9 January 2016);
• adding uncited political ideologies (9 January 2016);
• uncited political labelling of a television channel (12 January 2016);
• adding uncited political ideology (12 January 2016);
• adding uncited political ideology (13 January 2016);
• uncited change of a political ideology (2 February 2016);
• uncited change of a political ideology and removal of a reference (10 March 2016);
• removal of a reference (10 March 2016);
• adding uncited political ideology and removal of a reference (15 March 2016);
• misciting of a political ideology and adding an uncited one (15 March 2016);
• removal of cited content (14 May 2016); and
• removal of references (17 March 2017).

Disruptive editing made by 194.149.148.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• uncited change of a political ideology (14 May 2016);
• uncited change of a political ideology (26 May 2016);
• adding uncited content (26 May 2016);
• adding uncited quotations (26 May 2016); Warning: Please note that the same content was previously added by the user Finki2014 (talk · contribs) to another article on 10 November 2015 (see [14]).
• uncited change of content (16 March 2017); Warning: Please note that similar change of the party colour was previously made by the user 77.29.178.128 (talk · contribs) on 25 February 2017 (see [15]). and
• adding uncited political ideologies (16 March 2016).

Disruptive editing made by 95.180.219.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• uncited libellous change of a political ideology (to Neo-fascism) (19 December 2016);
• favouring a political position by an uncited change of a figure (13 March 2017); and
• adding uncited political ideologies or cited with an unreliable source (13 March 2017).

Disruptive editing made by 77.29.178.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• uncited change of a political ideology (25 February 2017);
• uncited change of a political ideology (25 February 2017);
• uncited change of a political ideology (25 February 2017); and
• uncited change of content (25 February 2017). Warning: Please note that similar change of the party colour was later made by the user 194.149.148.1 (talk · contribs) on 16 March 2017 (see [16]).

The list of diffs indicates to apparent similarities in the editing behaviour of these users (my first doubt for such similarities can be found here and here), while their edit log reveals that more than 90% of the edits made by these users consist of biased changes in articles on Macedonian politics. I will refrain from proposing measures against the involved editors and will leave the administrators decide on it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Request deleted pages

Would it be possible to get the following pages which were deleted moved to my user space so I can incorporate them into the national teams page?

• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1950
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1991
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1995
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1997
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1999
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2001
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2003
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2005
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2007
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2009
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2011
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2013
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2015

Thanks so much!! - Galatz^Talk 18:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Working Primefac (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done Primefac (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!!!!!!! - Galatz^Talk 18:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Massive series of unexplained deletions on one list

I've recently done some maintenance and improvement of the List of Jewish feminists. Just now I discovered the list gutted by a series of dozens of unexplained deletions by an IP editor: Special:Contributions/84.162.71.228. How can all this content best be restored? I performed one "undo" and haven't posted an info warning to the (as-yet-nonexistent) IP User talk page - I've never encountered this situation before and need advice on how to proceed. Thank you, -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If the deleted entries are all or mostly valid, you could just restore this version from beforee the IP edits and edit from there. All of the content added by the IP seem to be flagicons and no one else edited the page since, so no additions to the list should be removed by this method. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As the several individually added flag icons were for the USA, I improved the page format by adding boldface and starting a new line for the second explanatory sentence at the top of the page: "Nationality is indicated for those outside the USA." -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Restored to last version prior to their string of edits and left them a talkpage template regarding unexplained deletions. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Victuallers and User:Sander.v.Ginkel - questions

More of a request for information, this.

On 23 January User:RHaworth blanked this user page per WP:FAKEARTICLE. It was unblanked by admin User:Victuallers on the 26 February with the edit-summary "it's a user page". It was promptly nominated for deletion at MfD and deleted on the 6 March.

User:Victuallers has unilaterally overridden the MfD and restored the article (with a few parts removed). This is clearly wrong, even without the possibility of WP:INVOLVED because he had previously unblanked it. I am minded to simply re-delete it and point User:Victuallers to WP:DRV, but a few points remain. (1) Would I technically be wheel-warring? (2) Why does an admin not know about deletion policy (or even worse knows about it and thinks it's OK to ignore it)?

Incidentally, two other editors have posted at his talkpage since asking about it, and have not received an answer despite the fact that he has edited since. Not what I'd expect from an admin, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To answer the first general question - you would not be wheel-warring. Victuallers would be the one. You are merely maintaining the result of the MFD (performing what is essentially a G4 deletion). Primefac (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That's why I asked. G4 deletions are usually (delete)->(article re-created)->(delete) which is fine, but this would be (delete)->(restore)->(delete) - 3 admin actions, even if Victuallers is wrong. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but from my perspective it's (at least) two admin's opinions vs one as far as the suitability of the userpage goes. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I am recreating a page of a member of en:Wikipedia. I have made changes to the text that remove the objections. This is "de facto" a new page. I have recreated deleted pages before where I can improve them and make them of benefit to the project. Removing the traces of a keen Wikipedian is IMO counter productive to the project. SvG is not "my mate", but I do feel that he is being metaphorically kicked whilst on the ground. This does not reflect well on this project. If the consensus is that we behave in this way then it is regrettable. Hopefully not in my name. Victuallers (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Victuallers: You implemented an admin action while WP:INVOLVED, complete with an insulting editing summary, after not bothering to participate at the MFD at all. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

We already had consensus, which was to delete the page. I am unsure why you think that deletion policy doesn't apply to you. (I couldn't care less about the page by the way, but if we all went round undeleting pages removed by consensus there would be chaos). Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I would consider it wheel-warring (which is partly the reason why I didn't re-delete). Victuallers reversed my admin action with another admin action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be wheel-warring. Admin action to delete, admin action to restore, third admin action would be wheel-warring. Frankly this is ridiculous however as the page was deleted via MFD. So in order to have a third admin action (re-delete) it requires *another* consensus discussion to do so as re-deleting a previously deleted page does not fall under any of the exceptions at WP:WHEEL. Which *gurantees* this would be raised at an admin noticeboard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It is wheel warring in one sense, because you are reversing an admin action that another admin opposes. However, the first admin action was done through proper channels, with the weight of consensus behind it, so just restoring a page against the wishes of the community means you would probably be in your rights to speedy delete it per WP:CSD#G4. Oh, I love it when two policies contradict each other! Anyway, if consensus here is to redelete, I would say you are on safe ground, though if you want to be absolutely cast-iron sure of avoiding a stupid desysop, ask Arbcom as well. I think the page is harmless myself, but as you rightly say, we have consensus on these things to stop us all playing "admin tennis" all the time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll leave it to someone else - the last ArbCom had enough people on it who wanted to desysop me, even to the point of misrepresenting facts on case pages, so I don't think it's worth the risk. Taking it to DRV would appear to be the safest option, I suspect. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What is it about Sander v Ginkel that makes administrators override clear consensus based on their own whims? It's the second time now. Reyk _YO! 23:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• If the position of the involved administrator who unilaterally overturned an MfD is that he refuses to undo his action, this shouldn't go to DRV. It should go to the Arbitration Committee. This is rather blatant abuse of the administrator tools. But before we get there ... Victuallers Is there any reason you can't undo your action and seek deletion review as a less controversial route? This could be as easy as getting agreement from the MfD participants at deletion review that substantial changes will make the page acceptable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Since the page was deleted as the result of a community decision, there needs to be a damn good reason for an admin to undelete it. When Victuallers undeleted it on their own authority, they did so in order to edit it. If it were metaphysically possible to do the opposite (i.e. edit it and then undelete it), Victuallers would have been classically WP:INVOLVED and the action would have been an abuse of tools. Since this is the real world, it happened the other way, but the result is exactly the same, so my take is that by his two actions (undeleting and then editing) Victuallers was using his admin tools to override a community decision in order to make an INVOLVED edit. That's a non-no, and Victuallers should very seriously consider reversing their undeletion before this is brought to ArcCom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Just to say there is no need for this to go to Arbcom. WP:WHEEL makes it clear that a consensus discussion can re-instate the admin action (and it wouldnt be wheel-warring as there is clear backing for the action). So either here or DRV. It should be noted that any discussion should focus on if the orginal deletion was correct according to the process, not re-running the MFD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• This is a blatant abuse of the sysop tools.I don't know what gives User:Victuallers the impression that he is more far sighted and intelligent than the participants at the discussion and unilaterally overturn a deletion discussion even though he is WP:INVOLVED--with such a glorious edit summary.If somebody wants to challenge a close, DRV is the way to go and I don't know if Victuallers is ignorant of the policy.In short, I believe it's high time he reverses his actions or expect to take a ride to the ArbCom.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Technically any User could recreate their own user-page after its been MFD'd as long as it doesnt repeat the same issue that caused it to be MFD in the first place, MFD would not supersede the right of a user to have a userpage at all. I personally wouldnt do it for *another* user. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm reading this situation and delved into user talk pages and SvG's user page. Right now I'm seeing provided options: 1) DRV, 2) ArbCom. Why not 3) WP:consensus can change, i.e. re-nominate for deletion; 4) per WP:CONEXCEPT, contact the Wikimedia Foundation about this in writing at Meta-wiki (or somewhere)? Victualler's actions... are less than excusable. However, I'm concerned about the consensus from the MfD nom. WP:FAKEARTICLE is cited, but it is used to delete a user page of a sanctioned user, who is trying to redeem himself. Also, Wikipedia:Deletion policy says: "Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user." Did any of us contact SvG about changing his user page before the MfD nom? --George Ho (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive 5#Courtesy blanking (version discussed on 21 Nov 2016) and User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive 6#User page, which was right after the blanking and before the restoring and then MfD. In other words, I see that the user page was discussed just once in Nov '16. There wasn't any other attempt to discuss his userpage since; just reminding SvG that his userpage was "blanked". --George Ho (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Smartse clearly pointed out the perceived issues with the user page. There's no need to rinse, recycle, repeat before proceeding to MFD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... WP:deletion policy mentions "user page" just once, not elsewhere. It also mentions "Alternatives to deletion". Has anyone done the AN discussion on his user page? Or any other alternative methods to deletion before MfD? --George Ho (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"done the AN discussion" - seriously, why? Why come here when MFD is the standard route? Are you suggesting that all potentially inappropriate user pages be discussed here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

From what I see, it is "miscellany for deletion", not "miscellany for discussion". Regardless of who did or undid the deletion, the MfD mess would have been prevented. A mutual AN discussion and inviting SvG into the discussion before MfD would have prompted SvG into changing his content. If AN (or ANI) is not a suitable venue for inappropriate talk pages, there might be other alternative non-deletion venues to MfD. What happened to "preserving" the user content? Wikipedia:Editing policy, including "Try to fix problems" section, doesn't mention editing user pages literally. However, I think the spirit of the policy should apply to user pages, doesn't it? --George Ho (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I think a case of "hindsight is 20/20" is prompting you to make unnecessary/poor suggestions here. I'm willing to bet that 99% of MFD or speedy deletes of user pages do not provoke any notable controversy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless... regardless of "statistics", we are discussing the user page of the long-established editor here. BTW, I scanned the MfD archives, and I found Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mathmensch, whose user page is of another long-established editor. I could find others, but that's a long search. --George Ho (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah... So it's resolved, hopefully. Still, I wonder whether alternatives were attempted. George Ho (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, the outcome (the current version of the user page) may be acceptable to the community but the path taken to get there was definitely sub-optimal. Recommend this be closed with a trout for Victuallers and a reminder not to unilaterally undo admin actions in situations they are WP:INVOLVED in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see some acknowledgement from Victuallers that he messed up. His only response so far in this thread is hardly confidence inspiring and reads like it was written by a new editor. The lack of respect for consensus is appalling and makes it hard to trust this individual as an admin. Lepricavark (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

In favour of Victuallers it must be said that the quoted "consensus" at MfD was seriously out of whack with human decency. Other answers but deletion would have achieved the desired result. Agathoclea (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing in that discussion that is seriously out of whack with human decency. Regardless, it's not his job to make and impose that kind of value judgment on the consensus of other editors. Lepricavark (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

After looking at one of MfD's "Before nominating a page" guidelines, saying "Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems," and WP:USERTALKBLOG, I see that the page blanking was attempted, which is considered "normal" editing to most eyes. Even the blanking was discussed at RHaworth's talk page. However, the blanking was reverted, and the revert wasn't discussed explicitly by the one who blanked it and the one who reverted the blanking. Rather RHaworth jumped into MfD nom. Ah... speaking of which, the "consensus" didn't describe how "fake article" or "biography" or "self-promotion" the user page was before the undeletion mess. The third-person narrative or any sections like "Personal" or "Academic career" were not mentioned specifically. I'm not trying to undermine all your efforts, though I said the MfD case situation became a mess. --George Ho (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I an not intending to wheel war over this and I'm pleased that one editor at least shares my views that this is not in line with human decency. It could be that others do not agree that the action could be seen as far short of the the standards that we hope to achieve. This page was/is the evidence of someone who contributed to this project and we have deleted the obvious record of their existence. Victuallers (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Victuallers. I appreciate your defense on Sanders v. Ginkel. Curious: why hadn't you and RHaworth contacted each other about the blanking and the reverting before the MfD took place? Also, why did the "consensus" not comment much on SvG himself? George Ho (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are you putting scare quotes around "consensus"? Whether you liked it or not, the MfD reached a legitimate consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Still more unhelpful questions. Both Victuallers and Sanders v. Ginkel had ample opportunity to participate during the MFD. And "why did the consensus not comment much on SvG himself" - unless I'm totally misunderstanding what George Ho is asking - shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what MFD is for at best and advocates a horrible, horrible idea at worst. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I did participate in a few MfD discussions, like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Non-free content review, which was five years ago. This... I'd rather not talk about. --George Ho (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

template talk:titin

Frivolous request

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

---

please move this page to template:titin without leaving redirect 79.185.7.250 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Not done. If you have an issue with the deletion discussion, the take it to WP:DRV. Primefac (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Protected PANDAS

A bunch of new accounts and IPs are removing well referenced content and adding copy and pasted material. Have thus protected the page for two weeks.[17]

Feel free to unprotect if people feel it is unreasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Combining AfC reviewers and new page reviewers

There is an ongoing discussion about combining AfC reviewers into the new page reviewer user right. Your comments and opinions would be welcome. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Request to overturn administrator's decision

Resolved/Withdrawn as RM has been closed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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

---

On 14 March 2017 User:Primefac overturned and reverted a WP:SNOW close that I made, renaming Black Knight satellite to Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory .[18] At the time there were 9 support !votes, 0 oppose (let's call it one oppose even though it wasn't formatted properly). It has been three days, and now there are 15 support !votes and 2 oppose !votes. If this isn't an example of the Wikipedia:Snowball clause, I don't know what is.

I am making a formal request that one or more uninvolved administrators review and overturn Primefac's decision. This article does not have a snowball's chance in hell of not being moved, so there is no need to run it through the entire requested move process. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Um, this just happened, ten sections up. Barring gross incompetence or bad faith (neither of which you appear to be alleging), I don't think it's a good idea to keep litigating the subject without a bunch of time passing, perhaps some weeks. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No. It does not work that way. You cannot use a section that Primefac closed at the same time he overturned and reverted my WP:SNOW close as a reason to reject my request for an independent administrator review of Primefac overturning and reverting my WP:SNOW close. Primefac does not get to review his own decision. And just to be clear, I am not alleging gross incompetence or bad faith nor am I asking for sanctions. I am alleging a wrong decision, and asking that the decision be overturned. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's quite possible that the decision to reopen was good at the time it was made, and does not need to be reviewed, but that the current status of the !voting now indicates that a new SNOW close, made by an uninvolved admin or editor, is appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. I don't want to criticize Primefac, who from what I have seen does a consistantly good job. I just want to put this time waster of a discussion to bed. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I was alerted by Guy Macon. This is pretty silly, I'm afraid. There's no call to reverse Primefac's action, which entailed only re-opening an RM discussion that had been closed prematurely by someone who was involved in the discussion and refused to re-open when asked. RMs are open for 7 days, we're on day 3, and discussion is ongoing. Let it go.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Closed prematurely? My answer to you was quite reasonable: "Tell you what. If one other editor who has sometime in the past posted a comment to the article talk page or who has sometime in the past edited the article agrees with Cuchullain I will revert the close. Cuchullain is free to increase the chance of someone agreeing with him by posting a couple of those "points that need to be considered that haven't been yet" in response to this comment."[19] The !vote is now 16 to 2, and the discussion has been closed by someone else. If you had simply done as I suggested, I would have self-reverted my close and let it run the full amount as soon as I saw that second !vote. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have re-closed this per BMK above as SNOW. Its clear from the subsequent voting that this is still a SNOW issue, (Snow does not require no dissent at all, it just requires overwhelming certainty) I make no comment on Primefac's close above. If someone wants to take it to move review feel free. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• With page snow moved and the discussion on the article talk page closed, I withdraw my request for an independent evaluation as being moot. Please close this section as "resolved/withdrawn" so that it itself does not become more of a time-sink than it has already become. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Motion on Arbitration Enforcement logging

A motion has been proposed that would modify the method used for logging Arbitration Enforcement sanctions

The motion can be reviewed and commented upon here

Discussion is invited from all interested parties.

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 21:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)