Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive299

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Copyright issue outstanding since 2015[edit]

(non-admin closure) Resolved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sandford St Martin Trust has had a copyright notice on it since 2015. Looking at the history I think the material in question was blanked from the article at the time, but should the offending material be revdelled or whatever it is we do to this sort of thing? Sorry if this is the wrong place, haven't raised one of these for a while. DuncanHill (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Done, thank you. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Guy, shall I take the notice off it now? DuncanHill (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, yes, thanks. I should have done that. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Got a 12 hr backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Moxy (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested deletion[edit]

All the requested pages have been deleted by Mz7kashmīrī TALK 18:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could an administrator delete all of these pages, which qualify for CSD G7? They cannot be tagged due to their content model. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035:  Done Mz7 (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Native Design Limited logo and registered trademark.png[edit]

File:Native Design Limited logo and registered trademark.png has got a {{PD-ineligible-USonly|United Kingdom}}, but I think this is a PD-texlogo. No problem with transfer to Commons. Or not? Regards. Ganímedes (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily, because the logo is of a British company and British copyright law has a much lower treshold of copyright than the US. A textlogo that isn't copyrightable in the US may be copyrightable in the UK and thus ineligible for Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Leftover goaste vandalism[edit]

I recently stumbled upon the contributions of this vandal here [NSFW, extremely graphic], and I'm wondering if an admin could search for the string "Goatse in Wiki Table format" in all the revisions of Wikipedia and revdel that stuff. Or if there's a tool out there that facilitates deep revision history search on Wikipedia. It probably needs to be something WP:DUMP based. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Headbomb: that sounds like something that the folks at WP:VPT could help with. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe. But for now the revdels have been done, so that was the priority. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Closure Review of Talk:Nicholas Hoult#Infobox[edit]

Moot as there is an ongoing RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The RfC of Talk:Nicholas Hoult#Infobox wasn't done in accordance with WP:RFC or WP:THIRDOPINION as four editors were WP:CANVASSED into commenting by the requestor here.

In addition, invalid arguments were made in favour of the requestor that because requestor had done most of the work on this particular article the editors sided with his preference for the article to use the image rather than the infobox. I believe this is also contrary to WP:OWN and a discussion isn't a WP:VOTE.

Based on the above, I believe the closure should be overturned. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, you should wait a month, then (if you wish) open another Rfc. Not that I'd be looking forward to it. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Tanbircdq: So what? The RfC you're talking about was closed on 30 April. Another infobox RfC, which looks likely to end in consensus for an infobox in the article, is now in full swing, as you well know, since you yourself started it on May 1. An infobox in the article is what you want. So why are you here, and why now? Please recollect that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. IMO you were pretty lucky not to be sanctioned for immediately starting a new RfC, and even more for putting the infobox back in the middle of it. User:Fish and Karate, who closed the RfC you're talking about, and myself, decided instead it would be less disruptive, and lead to less alarms and excursions, to let the new RfC run. Discussion here. In seven days it can be closed and consensus assessed. I expect everybody to then live with the new consensus and stop it with the incessant RfCs, or I will put the page under a similar sanction as the one I implemented at Stanley Kubrick.[1] Well, similar except that the Kubrick sanction was that people are not allowed to add an infobox to the article for the next four months, while a sanction for Nicholas Hoult would be more likely to read "you are not allowed to remove the infobox from the article for the next four months" — all in the interest of respecting consensus as well as stopping the infobox wars on these articles. Bishonen | talk 21:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC).
Re-pinging: it's Fish and karate. Grrr. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC).
I "immediately" started another RfC because the correct the procedure and rules of consensus weren't followed as the requestor clearly canvassed other editors to game the system which skewed the discussion in their favour as you can see from this diff. The fact that all editors sided with Numerounovedant without any reference to any guidelines whereas the RfC is clearly going significantly differently says a lot.
I'm acting on the advice of another editor here (it's a shame an admin couldn't have given me this information in the first place).
Not my fault that main opposing editor changed his mind from conceding that the article can have an infobox which is why I readded the infobox here. All done in good faith. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Are you saying that the editors have no brains of their own? Or are they all quasi-socks? Well, all of them have been around for way than myself and have rarely (in my knowledge) discussed info-boxes. I invited then because they were all more than familiar with BLPs and nothing more. I am sorry but you have to stop with the canvassing allegations, it is turning into a yawnfest. Discredit it first. There are people at the new RfC who have fairly vague opposes, but you don't see people running around accusing them if siding with you as a part of larger conspiracy against anyone right? I'll give you that everything has been done in good faith except for your constant canvassing rants. VedantTalk 21:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Tanbircdq: I still don't see the point of coming here now, when only a week remains of the new RfC's runtime. You weren't exactly advised to do that, you know. The other user was talking about what to do in a similar situation "in the future". In this situation, the closure review train has already left the station, and will soon be arriving in the heavenly City of Consensus. Just wait a little, please. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Donald Trump[edit]

If you have a case for blocks/topic bans, make it at WP:AE or request Arbcom look at the situation. Further accusations of editors being "Russian agents" without providing proof will be treated as aspersions and may result in blocks or topic bans. --NeilN talk to me 05:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A number of right-wing POV pushing users are engaged in tendentious editing to maintain a whitewashed status quo version of the article that avoids coverage of numerous scandals, specifically the Mueller investigation, instead following a line that more or less reads: "it's a witch hunt, no collusion!". Yes this article is a BLP, yes this topic is covered elsewhere in greater depth, but the Russia scandal and the issues surrounding numerous members of Trump's campaign, are some of the most significant things about Donald Trump, covered massively in RS, and will only become more significant over time. I suspect at least some of these users to be paid Russian/GOP/NRA advocacy agents -- Trump World PR reps. Others may simply be partisans. Sure there are issues with trolls and socks, but some are wikilawyering. Some, I assume, are good faith editors. At this point I have spent some time engaging in the discussion, and I am ready to disengage and file some RFCs and probably an ArbCom case. As a first step, here I am. Also, in before someone says that I'm the one engaging in POV pushing: the vast majority of RS have covered Trump in great depth including his scandals. I may have given up my impartiality to engage on the page over the last few days, but I submit I was doing so in the interest of ultimately making progress in the dispute. I won't hide my own POV about Mr. Trump and I don't intend to act as an admin on that page, just an interested editor. Andrevan@ 03:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

See [2] Andrevan@ 03:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Non-content comment: I suspect at least some of these users to be paid Russian/GOP/NRA advocacy agents. POV pusher? nah mate, you're a conspiracy theorist. Just ... and you said it all serious. Alright, line up here if you're a Russian spy. Vlad will take down your names. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm just upset Putin hasn't paid me this month and my rent is due soon!--MONGO 03:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I know! My paycheck is late as well. Kim Jong-un and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi always pay on time. Don't be a deadbeat Vlad! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
And here I thought today was May 24th, not April 1st. -- ψλ 03:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC):
Kind of wish I was a Russian spy, I hear the pay is not to bad. But in all seriousness, I have been mentioned in this as well. You can take a look at my talk page for some discussion on this. It sounds like a take a break and reassess yourself type situation. PackMecEng (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
One has to love it when he opens a question out of the blue on your talkpage with a harassing comment:[3] "Pleasure to make your acquaintance. I am guessing you are a right wing American politics editor and supporter of blocked user who I warned about the username policy just now." This was right after he harassed a blocked editor about their long established username which gets zero traction from other commentators [4] and above he calls out others as POV pushers when he just got through posting he plans on violating WP:SYNTH by stating: [5] "What I'd like to ultimately add to the lede is the idea that Donald Trump is the most scandal-ridden president in recent history." There are a few more issues of POV pushing to be sure like his refusal to budge on his DS violation of a challenged edit.--MONGO 03:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a simple fact that there have been more Trump scandals in the last year than there were for 8 years under Obama. Yet our article is whitewashed and held hostage by tendentious partisans such as yourself and PackMecEng and others. I edited the article for a couple days and I'm more or less done finding out what I wanted to find out, so feel free to make this about me if you like, but that's not a very productive use of time. Andrevan@ 04:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
If I was a tendentious partisan I'd be over at the Hillary Clinton article outlining her transgressions, but I supported that article for FA when it was at FAC and the last thing I did was try and muff up the works. You on the other hand have deliberately tried to provoke those you call partisans because they don't agree with your edits. You've gone to the talkpages and harassed them. And right here you're stating: "I suspect at least some of these users to be paid Russian/GOP/NRA advocacy agents -- Trump World PR reps." Wow.--MONGO 04:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"Wow" is right. For me, personally, I'm most shocked by all this in combination with Andrevan being an administrator. -- ψλ 04:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
You already admitted in the linked diff that you are a partisan. Andrevan@ 04:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
He made no such admission. You made an interpretation. Lepricavark (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm still not sure why Hillary Clinton contains so much more information about Travelgate and Whitewater than Bill Clinton does. And there's 7 paragraphs about "her emails". There's neither need nor motivation to outline transgressions more at Hillary Clinton, even for a "partisan" editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I have not look at that page for some time and its possible much of that was added after the FAC. I do not recollect the article had that much coverage on the issues you mention. If Andrevan feels so strongly about the Trump article lacks adequate details then he can fix that by making sound arguments that do not attack other editors nonstop. I strongly urge him to review BLP and AGF at this point because he is starting to look unhinged.--MONGO 04:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Secret paid editing rings are a reality, see: Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia, [6]. We also know Russians were paying social media users on Reddit, Facebook, and other places[7][8] Andrevan@ 03:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah it is a thing, but to make those types of serious accusations requires serious proof. PackMecEng (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll be interested to see this proof. Whatever it is. -- ψλ 03:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I told you at User talk:PackMecEng that POV-pushing must be demonstrated, not just alleged. Apparently you didn't believe me, because here we've seen a lot of alleging and no demonstrating. The only thing you've demonstrated so far is how to violate WP:AGF. AGF violation is rampant among the general editing population but unacceptable from an admin, who is expected to set an example of proper behavior. My considered and humble advice is to withdraw this before your adminship becomes a real issue, and, optionally, start building AE cases against the editors of your choice. ―Mandruss  04:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The recent diffs with respect to User:MONGO are [9] [10] -- it's going to take me a long time to put together cases for user behavior going back some months. I was hoping by starting the discussion here, people might help me out. Andrevan@ 04:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Andrevan, while I believe that some of these editors are partisan and their edits show it, I very much doubt you'll find evidence of collusion between them. For instance, I feel secure enough about MONGO and Winkelvi that I will vouch for them. And even if they were colluding, it would be happening off-wiki and you'd have a hell of a time proving it. In other words--OMG I can't believe I'm using this term--it may well be that you're on a you-know-what hunt... This is not to say that all of them, or some or all of them together, are productive in this regard, but I do not believe they're collaborating in some nefarious way. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, if you have a good reason to know that MONGO and Winkelvi are good faith editors, you could send me some information about via email so that I focus my attention at the proper editors. Andrevan@ 04:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Is this really happening? -- ψλ 04:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
You're certain something nefarious is going on there but you need help identifying the perpetrators? This is approaching the comical. ―Mandruss  04:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
It is already pretty obvious from this thread alone who I need to look at. Perhaps my pending investigation will act as a deterrent in the meantime. Andrevan@ 04:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
"Perhaps my pending investigation will act as a deterrent in the meantime." Well, that was pretty chilling. Talk about an editing and commenting killer. Yikes. -- ψλ 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Andrevan: Are you familiar with xtools? particularly, are you familiar with the one that gives you any editor's entire editing history to peruse? Let's take MONGO's xtools stats: 13 years, 70k edits, and a bunch of featured articles (e.g. Retreat of glaciers since 1850 or Shoshone National Forest). Winklevi's go back six years, 27k edits, no FA/GA's but significant contributions to article like Billy the Kid and Robin Williams. I wonder why the KGB would have considered these to be necessary contributions. In any case, thanks Putin, we have some great articles on parks and forests thanks to your agent MONGO. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I wrote the Retreat of glaciers article along with my comrades before Putin put me on his payroll, but Putin pays us to maintain it because we want global warming!!!--MONGO 05:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Mr rnddude, you forgot to mention that I just wrote the Dell Bull article and significantly improved the Lyle F. Bull article. They are about two U.S. Navy Admirals, father and son, with the son have recently been the Chief of Naval Air Training. Perhaps someone now needs to get in touch with the Pentagon to have him investigated. Since I'm Russian Wikipedia Spy and Infiltrator, and all. Could be I'm trying to promote the Admiral's Navy career because he's actually a mole? (this is all tongue-in-cheek, of BLP violations here!). -- ψλ 05:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Come on, rnddude. The Russians aren't stupid, they know how to create a convincing cover. They sure fooled you! ―Mandruss  05:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, apparently Andrevan has caught onto that possibility too. Sleeper agents, but of course... how could I have been so blind? Mr rnddude (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • With this thread and his behavior at FCAYS's talk, Andrevan's not having a great day. How many more of us need to point that out before he starts listening? Lepricavark (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Call for WP:BOOMERANG for Andrevan[edit]

Looking over Talk:Donald Trump, I am seeing what appears to me to be Andrevan doing what he accuses others of doing: POV pushing and engaging in tendentious editing. (Note that this does not imply that those he oppose are or are not doing the same sort of thing). I think ANI should take a close look at Andrevan's posting history and perhaps issue some warnings. Again, this does not exclude dealing with other troublesome users.

I am willing to take the time to prepare a detailed case with diffs, but for now I just want to start the conversation.

Because Andrevan has a habit of accusing those who have a problem with his behavior of being partisan, let me make my position clear: I have an equally strong dislike for Trump and Clinton, for Democrats and Republicans. This is based upon my opinion that the ability of politicians to deceive us far exceeds our ability to detect deception, and I reject all claims that "MY politician is different!" as being signs of successful deception. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Not sure if we are in Boomerang territory yet, but this post certainly appeared to be disingenuous. It's not okay to go to another editor's talk page, accuse them of being partisan, and then further accuse them of escalating the discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Amen on a lack of a decent candidates to vote for in 2016. I voted for my write in Bigfoot.--MONGO 05:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Hopefully someone will WP:TROUT Andrevan and close this thread, which is (at best) a waste of time, and may get one or more editors sanctioned if it keeps going for another day. to be clear; the top thread is the waste of time, not Macon's boomerang suggestion) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Now I'm interested to know what editors would get sanctioned and for what, power~enwiki. Care to enlighten? -- ψλ 05:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Primarily Andrevan. If anyone wants to discuss this with me further, please do so on a user talk page and not here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Boomerang me if you must, but Wikipedia is under attack by Russian/GOP agents and partisans. FCAYS is probably one of them, and I would not assume that just because there is a lengthy history going back years that the user cannot also be a paid editor. We know that the Russians spent time building profiles and activating them later.[11][12][13] This campaign started in 2008 or 2009. Andrevan@ 05:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The above seals the deal for me. Andrevan should be topic banned from all articles involving post-1932 American politics, broadly construed. We don't need a disruptive editor accusing veteran editors of being paid by the Russians without providing any evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
      • At first I thought your suggestion too harsh, however, it occurs to me that there's no way out of this and if he's going to continue to edit such articles, how can he have that kind of view regarding other editors and edit collegially? His attitude has to be the worst case of WP:BATTLE I've ever seen in a veteran editor, let alone an administrator. -- ψλ 05:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • e/c Andrevan, is there some concrete discussion or a specific edit you can point to? I looked at the talk page and see the usual back-and-forth of contentious political articles. I'm not saying "diffs or gtfo", but more like "it would help to know if you're saying that editor so-and-so is trying to cover up Russian influence by removing references to Mike Pence's balalaika playing, or whatever". Yeah there's partisan editing going on, but we don't need paid editors or Russians for that. Our partisans are selfless enough to do it for free. MONGO and Winklevi have been around forever (probably before 2008) and Drmies' advice about them is sound. Maybe the article can get better once there are more secondary sources. The stuff currently in the newspapers generally is too recent and frantic to be much of a reference for assessing due weight. (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
"We know that the Russians spent time building profiles and activating them later." I think I saw this plot in a 1980s Kevin Costner movie. -- ψλ 05:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• And the chance of anyone here who is not a counterintelligence professional ferreting out long term clean skin accounts of state actors is pretty slim and, based on your edits here, your chance is exactly zero. Please drop this. If you feel Wikipedia is a playground for professional POV pushers then go work constructively on the article to balance the POV. Use the SOCK and COI procedures we have to get the low hanging fruit and dispute resolution to manage POV.
Hell, for all we know this whole thread you started could be a Russian effort to discredit the non-pro-Trump position with your initial salvo at FCAS about his username ploy to establish yourself. Yeah... that's bullshit but it is just as likely as the claims you are throwing about. Entering the hall of mirrors is seldom fulfilling and can lead to even pros barking at reflections. Jbh Talk 05:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
(Wow, much e/c) Andrevan: yeah there was also the Russia vs Poland wikidrama (government payments probably not involved, but the EEML was real). I don't see any allegation of Russian government involvement in that Ghouta mediation page. The usual partisan nationalists, sure, that's like death and taxes, but we're used to it. Let me ask a different question: what do you want the readers of this thread to do? We can't sanction anyone for COI or collusion without solid evidence. The Trump article is already under the usual BLP, DS, page protection, and constant intense scrutiny from all sides. Everyone in the world has an opinion about Trump that the Wikipedia article won't affect. Even if there is some weird manipulation happening (and ok, even if it's impossible to pinpoint specific instances, maybe you can detect its presence by smell), do you have reason to think it's worse for the Trump article than the general run of politics articles, or for that matter celebrity articles tended by their publicists? This is Wikipedia and a super high profile article like Trump is going to be crap no matter what. I wouldn't freak out about it. If you haven't been around long, you'll get used to it. The Galloway/Philip Cross thing is probably more significant because it's much easier to exert influence when the readers aren't already polarized. Nobody cares what the "other side" (whichever one that is) says about Trump. (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not asking for any action, I'm trying to have a discussion and solicit opinions. Maybe some people have been seeing what I've seen, with that Philip Cross dispute and others, that there's been a sharp rise in recent activation of Russian social media accounts, and attempts to control information. Andrevan@ 05:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see Jytdog's recent comment at [[14]] which supports the idea of FCAYS being a Russian agent, as well as the timing and connection to Sarah Palin as discussed in the sources I linked above.[15] Andrevan@ 05:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Jytdog is a very outspoken editor, and if they thought that Factchecker was a Russian agent (or was being paid by anyone for their editing) I am certain they would not shy away from saying so, if they had the evidence to back up hat contention. Jytdog said nothing of the sort, so it is not appropriate for you to assume that your conclusion from Jytdog's data is also their conclusion, especially as they did not specifically say so.
As for the general question of Russian agents infiltrating Wikipedia, it is, of course, not impossible for the Russian government to attempt to influence American culture by skewing articles in the Internet's primary English-language source of instant information, but the editors you have chosen to select as possible agents are, frankly, absurd choices, people who have been here for a long time and shown their allegiance to the Wikipedia model of editing.
I have absolutely no doubt that there are editors in the American politics subject area who are pushing their points of view, but that in itself proves nothing, and since you have provided no hard evidence to support your particular theory, I'm inclined to believe that those editors do so because those are their personal points of view, and that they are not editing on assignment from elsewhere. Frankly, I don't know how you would go about proving someone is a Russian agent, but I do know that you can't just cast aspersions left and right without backing it up with sufficient evidence. I think you need to stop, now, because if you don't a topic ban or a block is almost certainly headed your way, and it will be supported by editors of all sorts of different political views. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


No admin action required here, continue discussion on talk:Young blood transfusion Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This person created a horrible article about a medical procedure under development that is being hyped as snake oil, with no MEDRS sources, bad sources, and some things that were not true or gossip. They nominated it for DYK and it was approved and was queued, but happily this was noted at WT:MED, and I posted at TW DYK here and it was yanked by User:Black Kite, for which I remain grateful. We are discussing how to improve the review process so this doesn't happen again.

I and others worked over the page and got it to a decent stage, like here. (My cursing edit note in that diff is because of "help" from Littleoilive oil, who has taken to following me around these days. That is another story.)

Violetriga has been peppering the talk page with personal attacks and comments like this (after I said i wasn't responding to a rhetorical question) I'm guessing you're not able to understand the question then. Want to try and answer them rather than taking the simple way out? and in response to my effort to discuss and eliminate the gossip in the page on the Talk page, they wrote this: Or you are operating outside of your zone of knowledge

Here they support keeping a FRINGE, shilling claim about health effects in the article, writing So "Karmazin claims ..." doesn't make it clear enough, give me strength. None of this was reported as factual, all was clearly "claimed". The disputed content was Karmazin claims in an interview with New Scientist that "Whatever is in young blood is causing changes that appear to make the ageing process reverse". He pointed to how carcinoembryonic antigens fell by around 20 per cent and stated that most participants showed improvements within a month.[4][5]

When someone pointed out that we don't amplify FRINGE claims that way, the response was Daft. So we can't report claims even when they are clearly and unambiguously written as claims? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. We can't even use New Scientist and The Economist as sources. Hmm. They have no understanding that this would open the door to all kinds of lunatic charlatan claims in WP.

They wrote here Yep. Everything was accurate. And properly sourced. I look forward to the new version of this article completed by those who have ripped everything else out of it. and wrote this: We're supposed to be building an encyclopaedia not wholesale deleting content. How pathetic. .

They have no conception of what MEDRS calls for, nor the broad and deep consensus in the community over this and have ignored any effort to explain. (eg the diffs above, this earlier one, this later one, here,

About their constant claims that "everything is sourced and accurate", the article included from the beginning that Peter Thiel was a "prominent investor". This was not supported by the source provided, as I pointed out here -- Please read their responses in that short section. After I removed that incorrect claim, they restored it. I and others kept trying to remove this and other gossip, and Violetriga restored it e.g here.

The kicker here was that after I brought the Theil stuff to BLPN, they finally acknowledged that this is gossip about Theil and should not be in the article, and write here to someone else: Agreed, which is why I removed it and similar on Peter Thiel. Argh.

Again, this is the person who wrote, vehemently and dismissively to every one else just yesterday: I still maintain that secondary sources are used, that nothing unprovable is claimed, and that the article does not contravene policy. My examples are given. (diff)

The lack of basic competence - of the ability to read a source and summarize it, is clear in the initial example of Thiel being described as a prominent investor when the source doesn't say that, and just today when they removed content with edit note more incorrectly sourced claims then removed it again after it was restored, here, with an an edit note Removed because it is not what the source says!! when the source says:

Interest in parabiosis, however, is now coming back. A recent article on is sure to spawn interest and another cycle of snake oil promises....

What is the current state of the science in terms of parabiosis and anti-aging effects? Any specific health claims for humans is definitely unproven at this time, but the research is intriguing (i.e., perfect for snake oil)....

Given history, however, it is likely that young transfusions, or even some form of parabiosis, will now also take on a life of its own as the latest snake oil product. Already there is a company called Ambrosia who is running a “study,” and as reports....

Hopefully I will be able to tell you in 10-20 years if transfusions of plasma from young donors is of any clinical benefit. Until then the treatment will likely have a second life on the fringe as snake oil. Given that this is likely to be a very expensive treatment, it will probably be elite snake oil for the wealthy. What was that edit note again? Oh, Removed because it is not what the source says!!.

People they reverted have included me, User:Natureium, User:Seraphimblade, User:Winged Blades of Godric, and User:Doc James. People whose input they have ignored have included all those as well as User:RexxS. Yet they keep harping on the talk page about "collaboration".

This person is a former admin (log), which is ... mind-boggling.

This was the first time I have encountered this person on a health topic, and I would like it to be the last. Violetriga has wasted the time of several people over the past three days, insulted us, edit warred, and misrepresented what they have done. Please ban them from editing about health and medicine, including research.Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Even as I waa writing this, they went back to DYK and suggested a new hook: [Did you know ...] that ‘’’young blood transfusions’’’ can be bought?. Unbelievable. I don't think there will be consensus to use the front page of WP to advertise for a company selling snake oil through an unethical clinical trial and I cannot believe this was even proposed. Look at the first hook they proposed: that the blood of young people may extend your life? Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It was that insane DYK hook that led me to bringing the article to WT:MED in the first place. I can't think of any reason this article should be featured on the front page. Natureium (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to WT:MED, if I didn't say it before, and for all your work on this. You found the best sources we have used thus far. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the general WP:DYK concerns are unlikely to be resolved in any way other than a full ARBCOM case. As far as the other concerns: for persons of a certain generation, "former admin" is not entirely a badge of honor; I'd like to hear what defense they have before supporting a TBAN but the evidence Jytdog presents (and comments on Talk:Young blood transfusion) looks pretty damning. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't suggest "former admin" is a badge of honor, but more the opposite. I take it to mean that you have no excuse for not knowing/following wikipedia policies. (Also applies to current admins, as seen above) Natureium (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The BN thread shows this to be a routine desysop for lack of use of the tools, Violetriga can get the tools back any time just by asking. There is absolutely no shame in this. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Talk:Young blood transfusion looks to me like a standard (cough) content discussion for that type of subject. There's a legitimate debate in Wikipedia about perceived MEDRS expansionism and violet/riga looks to be on the side favoring a narrower approach, no big deal. I don't see admin involvement being needed here now that the DYK is handled. DYK itself should die, but that's a separate matter. I did see a bunch of creepy news stories about young blood transfusion a while back, so I'm glad to have seen updated info in that article just now. (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
This is what Jytdog is doing rather than collaborating? I’ve responded many times in many places and I’m not about to spend hours going through diffs. Jytdog has obviously put a slant on this report, leaving out their behaviour which is uncivil and unhelpful. I’ve been trying to improve the article but they don’t engage properly in discussion. violet/riga [talk] 08:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Last month at WP:ANI, violet/riga did say I clearly have WP:OWN issues on articles that I have just created.[16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


I think this discussion is likely to shed more heat than light. There's active discussion of the content at talk:Young blood transfusion and the DYK discussion is unlikely to promote the article with a hook flattering of obvious quackery. Violetriga and Jytdog are both inclined to be obsessive, absolutely not like me in any way at all, I might add (cough), and just need to chill. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Phabricator login broken?[edit]

Moved to WP:VPT

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talkcontribs) 13:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Next cryptocurrency topicban[edit]

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

Shiftchange's comrade, Ladislav Mecir, is the next cryptoadvocate for your consideration.

Per their editcount they have ~8.700 edits; ~8,300 of them in the last four years, almost entirely focused on crytocurrencies. Here are their top edits:

On the talk page

What brings us here today is this comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash: Bcash is not a derogatory term. As said by the sources, it is a failed rebranding attempt. Having failed to rebrand Bitcoin Cash to Bcash in case of the Bitstamp and Bitfinex exchanges or to convince wallet providers or significantly many journalists to push their agenda, the proponents of the rebranding are now trying to use the Wikipedia for the purpose. While it is not in their power to use the Wikipedia to rebrand Bitcoin Cash, they are at least trying to pretend that the failed Bcash rebranding has got the same notability as the original and widely used Bitcoin Cash name. which they have restored twice, despite my warning to them at their talk page, first here with the doubling-down-on-the-crazy edit note rv., this is confirmed by the cited sources and again here.

There is of course no source on the Talk page or in the article, that says that "proponents ...are now trying to use the Wikipedia for the purpose".

(The alt name, "BCash", for the crytpocurrency, is something that its advocates find actually insulting. Vehemently so. Shiftchange for example, had !voted at the Rfc on mentioning BCash" in the lead as follows: Oppose Its a derogatory slur used against Bitcoin Cash for the purpose of propaganda. Its not a description or common name. No software developers or exchanges refer to it that way.)

The comment above was an addendum to Ladislav Mecir's earlier !vote, here (sorry, that is four diffs separated by some diffs from others) which is too long to copy here, but makes the same argument as Shiftchange, albeit "supported" by citations. I use the scare quotes because their summary of what those sources say is often not supported by the source cited.

Their comment in another RfC on the talk page about about removing a blatant POV testimonial section sticks out like a source thumb among the "deletes".

at the article
  • This recent diff series is typical. Looking through that, they added"
    • tabloidy ref (Independent) with a passing, postive mention, to the first sentence, added this ref, linked to a section with "good news" about Bitcoin Cash, added some more unsourced content to a section that was unsourced, etc. and then reverted to keep it when it was removed.
  • before then, added this source to the first sentence, with "bad news" about Bitcoin.

and there is plenty more. This person is an advocate who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"Shiftchange's comrade, Ladislav Mecir"—note this edit proving the claim is unfounded. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
"comrade" in the sense of editing promotionally and aggressively in favor of Bitcoin Cash. This is not even a little ambiguous. Being aware that Shiftchange was worse than you is no sign that you see how badly you are editing and behaving. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog wrote: "The alt name, BCash, for the crytpocurrency, is something that its advocates find actually insulting."—Note that in my comment cited above I actually wrote that "Bcash is not a derogatory term."
Here Jytdog wrote: "The comment you made here ... amounted to personal attacks on other editors."—There are several reasons why this is unfounded:
  • Here is an edit made by Jytdog claiming that there have been attempts to recruit users with specific viewpoints to edit the article.
  • There have been attempts by proponents of said specific viewpoints such as this, this and many others, actually leading to page protection.
  • In my response to Jytdog's claim at my talk page, I also wrote:
    • Let's consider a Wikipedian XY that is not a proponent of rebranding of the Bitcoin Cash to Bcash. Then, maybe surprisingly for you, the comment I made, speaking about "proponents of the rebranding" does not concern XY at all. Thus, logically, it could not amount to "personal attack" on her.
    • Now let's consider a Wikipedian XZ that is a proponent of rebranding of the Bitcoin Cash to Bcash. Then, maybe surprisingly for you, the comment I made is not a personal attack on her either, since it just claims that XZ wants to claim that the Bcash name is at least as notable as the Bitcoin Cash name, which is exactly what the "proponent of rebranding" implies.
Jytdog should be more careful when accusing anybody of wrongdoing and deleting their comment based on unfounded accusations. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help here. I will leave it to others to evaluate your rhetoric and respond.Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog wrote: "Their comment in another RfC on the talk page about about removing a blatant POV testimonial section sticks out like a source thumb among the "deletes"." - note that I just made a comment not claiming that the section should be kept, but claiming that the contents of the section does not correspond to its title. If that is a reason why I am a "Shiftchange's comrade" remains to be judged by somebody else than Jytdog, as it looks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog wrote: "almost entirely focused on crytocurrencies"—note that, e.g. the statistics of the Cox's theorem page mentions my authorship to be 3'677 bytes and my authorship of the Bayesian probability article to be 2'865 bytes. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll just note that I've noticed Ladislav Mecir trying to own a page or dominating discussion on a talk page, see e.g. Talk:Cryptocurrency#Controversial in cryptocurrency articles. I suspect that many of the articles noted at the top of this thread would fit into that class of articles being owned or dominated by LM. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for any WP:SPA focused on cryptocurrency. It's exactly like creationism, climate change denial or homeopathy. These are quasi-religious cultists and the wider Wikipedia community lacks the time and the patience to continue to argue with them. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose lots of areas have WP:SPA editors, that's no reason to enact a TBAN here. If you really feel that is necessary, let's invoke General Sanctions in the area first. I do agree with the comment at [17] that the Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash feud has spilled onto Wikipedia, based on my own editing experience and the diffs in this thread. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it is, because the SPAs have an absolutely homogeneous agenda, promoting crypto. SPA religious editors may be from different sects, but SPA crypto editors are almost all members of the crypto cult. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not quite homogeneous; the specific dispute here is that certain Bitcoin Cash supporters feel that is the one true Bitcoin, and opponents feel that it's some form of scam. A lot of the other crypto-currencies have no wide-spread interest, importance, or significance, and are edited merely by people who stand to profit from promoting them. Those articles are overwhelmed with promotional material from "the trade-press" (as a charitable description of what others would simply call "unreliable sources" and "blogs", i.e [18]). power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
User:power~enwiki this is not a content dispute, and no, it is a not a binary thing. Generally for each one of these currencies there are fierce advocates for it, and most everybody else (inside the crypto-communities and outside) looks at the currency/project with some interest, or perhaps some skepticism, or maybe doesn't look at all and is just bored by the whole thing. There are a few of these currencies that have been outright scams. I haven't read anything that said that Bitcoin Cash is illegit or a scam per se.
The issue here is the behavior of this advocate, as it has been for each other advocate I have brought here. The issue is the advocacy.
You know as well as I do that that Wikipedia is always vulnerable to activists, due to our open nature. This vulnerability sharpens, if there are online communities of activists. This vulnerability sharpens to the point of bloody hell, when there are online activists with financial interests in their object of advocacy. There is almost nobody involved in the online communities around these cryptocurrencies, who doesn't hold the currency and believe that they are going to change the world through the technology. This is like (not exactly like, but like) some kind of prosperity religion thing, and it is all happening online.
Wikipedia is not an extension of the blogosphere -- not a place for people to come here and preach their currency-religion and state their paranoias like they are facts. LM's statement of "fact" (on which they have by now not just doubled down, but quintupled down) that the proponents of the rebranding are now trying to use the Wikipedia for the purpose is not a statement of fact but rather an expression of the paranoia of the Bitcoin Cash community. He has no self-insight into how unacceptable that statement is, here in WP.
This is a symptom of the underlying approach to WP. Fortmit.
I'll add that our content about each one of these currencies is going to be paltry and slim in the eyes of these people. WP is a lagging indicator of notability by design; we are not going to have the level of detail they want for a long long time, if ever; we are not going to track the roller coaster of valuations as the coin markets gyrate. Not what we do here. Not what WP is for. These crytocurrency people do not understand this. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I still think you're reading too much into the specific diff of the proponents of the rebranding are now trying to use the Wikipedia for the purpose. I take it to simply mean that there is POV-pushing in this area (which everyone agrees is happening), and not an accusation of canvassing. There's definitely some biased editing here by Ladislav, if General Sanctions were in place and he had been warned about them, I would support sanctions. I don't currently feel they are necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
It is a direct claim about what other people are actually doing here in WP. Reading it as anything else is reading against its very plain meaning. I get it that Bitcoin Cash advocates in their reddit forums are all paranoid. Edit warring to retain that level of paranoid attack on other editors here in WP - to revert with an edit note that this is confirmed by the cited sources is just... bizarre. There are no cited sources that say that people are coming to Wikipedia to try to rebrand the currency. None. This is paranoid crap that Ladovic obviously cannot restrain himself from. So we need to restrain him. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Mecir's comment about being sourced was in regard to the "Bcash is not a derogatory term. As said by the sources, it is a failed rebranding attempt." rather than any other claim. - Bilby (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
That is obvious. And that is not why the comment was removed. Which is also obvious. The edit note was a twisting nonresponse to what was (and still is) problematic. Jytdog (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support TBAN and support general sanctions for cryptocurrency per Guy and Power. We are currently getting flooded with crap about crypto, and I think this editor is being disruptive, but I don't think Jytdog and Guy should have to get a topic ban discussion going every time we need one. Let's streamline dealing with the stuff, please. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No comment on the topic ban, but I agree that cryptocurrencies should be under discretionary sanctions. I'll make a formal proposal below. MER-C 20:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose For a topic ban I'd want to see ongoing disruption that haven't been managed via other means. I can;t see any other means having been tried, but then I can't see evidence of long term disruption - after years of editing on these topics, no ANI threads about the editor (noting that there was one in 2014 which briefly included discussion about his editing, but that was a) 4 years ago, and b) not the focus of the discussion), a clean block log, no history of 3RR violations, and going through his talk page for the last two years I can find no formal warnings, with the occasional concerns seemingly met with discussion and at times compromise or agreement. There may be more elsewhere, but it isn't obvious, and hasn't been presented here. What has been presented here is enough to say that a warning is appropriate, but jumping to a topic ban for a few recent edits of varying quality is a big step. With all that said, if we end up with general sanctions, then all editors would be aware of the limits for their behaviour, so stepping out of line could reasonably warrant tbans for anyone, and that would be fair enough. - Bilby (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support given his recent edits to cryptocurrency (e.g. [19] reverting the word "controversial" in the lede) @Ladislav Mecir: is up to his old article ownership again. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RPP[edit]

Almost clear now Hhkohh (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi there, just a heads up that there seems to be a 20+ page backlog at WP:RPP. Thanks. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  12:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:RPP is now very backlog again![edit]

There are 27+ remaining request. Can some admins deal with it? Hhkohh (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving articles to draft space without discussion[edit]

This is normal practice by NPR and AFC editors. If abuse is suspected, that's a different discussion altogether. Primefac (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I saw something that concerned me. It may very well be fine under policy, I'm just not sure. Here's a diff of moves by Bradv (log). He's just the person I noticed, there may be others that do this. I'm not after sanctions, just wanting to know if this is kosher or not.

The question is about moving articles to draft space without any discussion or any admin bits. Because this removes it from searches, this is effectively deleting the article, and effectively the same as userfying an article. It would seem that this is something that should either require a discussion at an XfD board, or at least the admin bit and accountability under WP:ADMINACCT. Is this the accepted way to deal with what he is calling "undersourced articles"? Since I'm not sure, I wanted a broader discussion re: the appropriateness of this. Dennis Brown - 16:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Mop-holding or not, I think it's generally accepted that if someone makes an "administrative edit," they are still subject to ADMINACCT (NAC is probably the best example). But this whole question of draftyfying (how the heck do we spell that?!) has come up somewhere else recently; I'm sure there's a discussion on another board but I can't for the life of me recall where. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 16:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Hence my mention of ADMINACCT. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:DRAFTIFY does say that "To unilaterally move an article to draft space, you should: [...] be accountable for your draftification decisions per the standard described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability." Natureium (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a fairly widespread practice, not limited to just one or a handful of users, and is aided by some userscripts that make it somewhat automated. ~ Amory (utc) 18:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Draftifying articles is standard practice at NPP. See WP:NPPDRAFT. Natureium (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dennis Brown that users draftifying articles with no oversight seems a bit concerning because it does seem comparable to deletion. Could something similar to WP:PROD with its corresponding Category:Proposed deletion be created so there would be a Category:Proposed draft for oversight? Serial Number 54129, you might be thinking of this recent discussion on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion [20] regarding using RM discussion in place of AfD, with some raising the concern that this hid the discussion from AfD regulars. WP:DRAFTIFY seems like a useful thing but could maybe use some clarifying and oversight. DynaGirl (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed by the community in several different ways, and it is allowable. The most recent discussion directly affecting this was in September 2017 and closed with clear consensus in favour of maintaining the practice (or, if you want to split hairs, clear consensus against a proposal prohibiting it, but reading the discussion shows very strong support for it.) There is consensus in favour of this practice, and that discussion was pretty heavily attended. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Is there a way to view a list of articles recently moved to draft? I see this regarding finding drafts [21] but seems these include articles which originated as drafts. Is there a way to only view articles moved to draft as a means of oversight? DynaGirl (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I took a look at Special:Log/move and there isn't much in the way of finding this info easily. It seems like a filter could be set up to track moves from the mainspace to either userspace or the Draft: namespace. Killiondude (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I have reports setup on the subpages of User:JJMC89 bot/report/Draftifications. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
If people want to delete articles without scrutiny there are cleverer ways of doing it than moving to draft. Thincat (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Most get sent to AfC as far as I know. The ones I see often get fixed up and returned to mainspace. In one case recently I disagreed with the draftification so strongly I returned it to mainspace and sent to AfD, but that is really unusual. Most draftifications I see make good sense. New page creators should watch their creations anyway. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I appreciate the feedback. Again, I had never really ventured into moves and these discussions aren't easy to find (not even linked here but I trust the parties making the claims here). Since there isn't a system log that tracks this, I see oversight is a challenge, but that is just how it is. Dennis Brown - 07:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I believe the majority of NPP editors use the MoveToDraft script (don't quote me on that) which does keep a log on user subpages. I assume it might be simple enough for the script's author to set up a global log more amenable to oversight. So that might be an option for a little more transparency. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
As JJMC89 notes above, his bot logs draftifications here Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a lawless area but I have found only a trickle of abuse. Sorting by creation date shows up the dubious ones. Thincat (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I see several that are moved back, a couple socks, etc. so I'm no less concerned now. I've bookmarked the bot page, but imho, this should have a system log, searchable by date or user. Same as our other logs. Dennis Brown - 12:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It is my view that draftification is often a good response to an article on a probably notable topic which is not currently in good shape to remain in mainspace, particularly when it does not currently demonstrate notability clearly. I have done it on a number of occasions. I don't see why it should require admin rights, or any special permission beyond auto-confimed, which is required for any move, although I could see requiring extended confirmed. I dfo that that moving a draft to mainspace for the3 purpose of sending it to WP:AFD is a form of gaming the system and should be subject to sanction. This is true in my view whether the page had previously been in mainspace or not. I would favor a log of pages moved from mainspace to draft, including one maintained by bot. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This behavior by Bradv is an extremely disturbing breach of our deletion policy. He needs to cut that shit out or to lose tools. Carrite (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • No, it’s normal practice that the community has approved of (see my link to the village pump RfC/discussion above). Use of page mover in this way is actually one of the most common reasons for requesting the flag. It’s why I requested it before I got my sysop bit, and plenty of NPP regulars request it for the same reason. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin dashboard count oddities[edit]

Template:Admin dashboard - As I'm looking at the count for CSD, it says 133. I manually counted 43 and found no others listed. Likewise, Open SPI investigations says 156 - I didn't manually count them, but 156 seems high even for SPI. Why it is over counting on CSD, and possibly on SPI? — Maile (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

There were quite a few G13's that were deleted earlier. Sometimes it takes a bit for the count to catch up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
For CSD yeah it takes time to update, for SPI Category:Open_SPI_cases does have 156 members, though ~50 are awaiting archival and ~50 are CU complete; the code was subtracting a category that has been deleted since 2014 to calculate open cases; I made it now subtract those awaiting archival (though with the number so high does it matter..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • A day later, we still have a greatly inflated count on the number of CSD. It's worse than yesterday. As I write this, we have 37 actual items at CSD, but the Dashboard count says it's 176. — Maile (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#CSD_backlog? (better place to discuss this), something strange with pagesincategory for the csd category. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. — Maile (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding the high SPI count, as of this edit there are 4 cases only waiting for an administrator (this status means any administrator, not just an admin SPI clerk). That number is pleasantly low at the moment but is sometimes quite high. As a clerk I tend to avoid those cases because there are others that need attention from a clerk specifically, while any administrator can act on this set - the requests are typically from a non-admin clerk asking for an admin to review deleted edits or block an obvious sock, and they explain exactly what it is they need an admin to do. If someone interested would like to take a look at Category:SPI cases needing an Administrator from time to time (or watchlist it?) your efforts would be appreciated. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata Infoboxes RfC closure request[edit]

Since the ANRFC request hasn't attracted much attention and this is quite an important, complex, and controversial RfC, requesting an admin, hopefully three, to fully assess and close RfC on the use of Wikidata in infoboxes. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with a closure by a committee of three uninvolved editors. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems problematic to me that we cannot find candidates to close this... I mean, i understand why people are hesitant and that many of the familiar faces are in the discussion themselves, but somehow, we have to close this right. suggestions ? —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 07:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't regularly patrol ANRFC, though I probably should... but don't take a lack of closure as automatic "hesitation" on anyone's part. Sometimes big discussions just are a hurdle to get stuck into. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll be on the panel, as long as someone else does all the work. Swarm 20:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Isn't that always the goal of group projects :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't mind taking a stab at writing a closing statement; I almost did that a few weeks ago, but decided it might not be the wise thing to do alone. As long as there are at least 2 other volunteers willing to review my statement before I add it & close the RfC, I'm fine with taking my share of the heat. (I figure after 15-16 years of watching stuff unfold at Wikipedia, I know something about the issues involved & can make a plausible closing statement. Especially about an issue I have no real interest in.) Is there someone besides Swarm willing to help bell the cat? -- llywrch (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I've started drafting a closing statement, but have seen no interest from anyone else to assist me in this. While I consider the result fairly straightforward, & am willing to issue it alone if need be, any decision would be much more acceptable to all involved if it were not the opinion of a single person. (And if I encounter too much blowback over a solo decision, that may lead me to stop offering to close further RfC. That's not a threat, just an admission I'm not much of a hard ass.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd look at it, but I opined in the discussion, and made a comment in a related one, so that wouldn't work. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd offer to help, but I don't think I can be sufficiently objective, since I have a rather strong opinion on the topic. Deor (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Revdel query[edit]

The content has been determined to be inappropriate but not revdel-worthy; the revdel has been undone and the content has been removed. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can the administration clarify for me why my recent comment at Talk:Bastard brothers has been considered so heinous as to warrant not just hatting but revdeling, while all the snidey comments and putdowns directed toward me in that thread are considered absolutely fine and not worthy of admonishment? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Much worse than that it was judged "intemperate". I must admit I read it during the 7 hours it was visible and thought it was perfectly reasonable. But these things never get reversed, do they. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I would support unrevdeling. L293D ( • ) 22:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I also thought the last comment there, calling PCW a pedant, was quite offensive. But of course it's a bit tricky to compare it now with what was, or what wasn't, said afterwards. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The post was rev-deleted using criteria #5 which I don't see would apply in this case. In addition, the use of RD#5 is supposed to include a clear summary as to why the edit is being rev-deleted, which didn't happen. Has anyone asked WereSpielChequers to explain the revision deletion?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ponyo, no, you are the first to ask. You are an admin, so you can still see the deleted edit. To my mind that comment, specifically the last six words of it, takes things into different territory. Earlier comments about pedanticism or saying that nobody cares about an article are not great, but in my judgement the edit that I deleted was sufficient to justify deleting it and my comment to its author. Feedback from others who've read the deleted material would be appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 08:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
And why are the last 6 words so terribly offensive that nobody is allowed to see them? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
And I did not say that nobody cares about an article; I said that nobody cares about that particular change to the article, which was apparent by the calling of it "pedantic" and the lack of response on the talk page for about a week. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with Ponyo that the comment did not fit the criteria for RD5. I am assuming that WereSpielChequers deleted the comment under RD5 because the comment could not really be construed as "grossly" insulting nor offensive (although could be interpreted as being derogatory toward specific group of people), nor was it a BLP violation since it wasn't directed at anyone in specific. Instead it was just a rhetoric done in very poor taste and should not be repeated. Alex Shih (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows that my comment was not being derogatory to a specific group of people, and before people start going down the homophobia route, I will state here that I am what society terms a "gay man" (I don't like the term, but that's the generally used label), and I have spent lots of time in gay bars and even the odd drag bar. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
PaleCloudedWhite, that is irrelevant. It doesn't change that the remark was done in poor taste, especially when considering the context that the remark was used to criticise the quality of the discussion, and therefore puts the metaphor you have used in a negative light. Whether or not the remarks warrants revision deletion is another question, and personally I think not really. I would have just asked you to strike your comment out. Alex Shih (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
If the remark was done in poor taste, it was only a response to all the poor taste remarks made toward me. When you read the thread you will see that I do not respond to the first comments directed toward me about great aunts and pedantry etc. I stick to the "comment on content, not contributors" mantra (even though the other user is not during the whole thread). But I have to have it thrown at me again, don't I, as a parting shot. Last year I was similarly abused by another editor, and in my ignorant belief that the WMF cares about conduct, I took the matter straight to ANI, where my complaint was brushed aside. From that I learned that I shall stand for myself, because it's obvious the WMF and its representatives won't. But now I find that if I stand for myself in the face of abuse, a WMF representative comes along to silence me. How nice. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Good job he's not just "buzzing about removing text which he doesn’t understand"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I've undone the rev-del as the comment falls a long way short of what rev-del is intended for. Fram (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

While I agree with unrevdelling, the comment itself wasn't necessary. Neither was Giano's haughty and defensive response to PaleCloudedWhite's reasonable argument that "While the Bastards worked in a provincial style this should not detract from a positive evaluation of their work" is peacockery, because it very obviously was. As it is, the offending bit of waffle has been excised from the article, and everyone should find something better to do. Fish+Karate 11:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page moved, auto archiving not updated[edit]

Can someone check and see if I got this fixed correctly. I was using OneClickArchiver on Talk:Alex Jones, but the page had been moved in January but the auto archiving settings were not updated, the page name was not changed. The script put the archives at Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)/Archive 13 and Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)/Archive 14 which I moved the contents to Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 14 I think everything is OK but Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)/Archive 14 will need to be deleted. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Note - The moving admin is away til June. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, there's a first time for everything. I'm actually not "away" until June, but I have limited availability. This is within my bandwidth, though. bd2412 T 20:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@BD2412: Sorry Face-tongue.svg - FlightTime (open channel) 20:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Block review of Quek157[edit]

There is a clear consensus in favor of the block, which, as always, can be appealed if the user wishes to return. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since this has been raised on my talk page by enough users, I'll bring it here for review: I blocked Quek157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) last night with a NOTHERE rationale, partially because it was the quickest thing I could get to that had an indef block, but also because at the time I felt like it described their behavior. This was being raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive984#User:Quek157 at the same time, but I did this on my own without being aware exactly of what the ANI was about. I described them on my talk page as a crazy person who was being disruptive in just about everything he did, which I think is a fair description (see: 1, 2, 3,4, 5, and 6, where he was warned to stop using ANI for frivolous requests.)
From his deleted contributions we have The Canvas Hotel and Talk:The Canvas Hotel, which occurred yesterday which Chrissymad adequately described here though for any non-admins (him essentially trying to pad his CSD log with multiple nominations). Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/, an SPI filed about IP edits from 20 days ago, Draft:Ocean Nuclear, where we have the double CSD nominations again.
After looking at the CSD log-padding from yesterday, I saw this, where he removed a valid tag on the grounds that someone who wasn't part of NPP couldn't place it, which given the other issues with CSD, led me to revoke NPR. After that, he decided to retire and placed the retired banner on ANI, Kudpung's talk, my talk. At this point, I was worried he was going to continue spamming that banner on any page he had been active, so I decided to block. Given the past disruption, I thought indef made sense, and I went with NOTHERE both because it was easier on mobile, but also because at the time and given the interactions with others that I had observed, that was the sense I got. I changed it to disruptive editing per CIR this morning after more people raised it on my talk page.
I still think the block was good, and is still needed to prevent future disruption to the project, but I'll open it up for review since this went to ANI and my block was largely based on factors outside the ANI, the issues raised there not really impacting my block, though they do go hand in hand with it.
Anyway, I'm opening up the block for community review to see if there is a consensus to overturn it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • From my interactions with them, I don't think WP:NOTHERE is the best rationale. I got the picture of someone who genuinely wanted to help but didn't really know how to go about it, and perhaps had some struggles with English proficiency (they seem to be from Singapore, though English is taught and spoken there). So if anything, it'd probably be reasonable as a WP:CIR-type block. ansh666 19:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree with that, which is why I changed it this morning. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse block I think any of the three would have sufficed, CIR, disruptive editing or not here, particularly the first two. I gave several examples on Tony's talk of why I thought this was appropriate but there are dozens of others both deleted and not. At best, if Quek was not disruptive, they were definitely incompetent, causing disruption and I do not say that lightly or with any malice. Their responses to people were often rushed and incomprehensible and they had little understanding of NPP or even basic communication. Their retiring under a cloud is also evidence to me that they did not intend to work through the issues or address them. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse block too given the disruption and inability to stop it after concerns were raised on his TP. L293D ( • ) 19:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse block - reading through the history of this, I see a lot of IDHT and incompetence. The 'taking my ball and going home' attitude, posting {{retired}} in various places, is the icing on the cake. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 20:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment A restriction might be more in keeping with the problems. He appears willing to learn and get out and do things that are more advanced, but is stumbling on some of them. Singapore English, like its sister Malaysian English which I am very familor with, is quite distinct from American or British English and that explains why some of his comments read as they do. Nothing wrong with Singapore English. Legacypac (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Out of respect for the blocking admin I won't go as far as to call it a bad block, but an over-reaching one, IMHO. I make no comment on the whole NOTHERE palaver except to say that if editors are being described in the most egregious terms it is possible to be blocked for, then perhaps leave blockings to the desktop...?! :)
    As has been noted, they undoubtedly made constructive edits, and substantially so. But they have not, naturally, attracted attention. Part of Qedk's problem is one of language. Not to the extent of incompetence, but sufficiently to make it easy for editors that do not wish to have patience with them not to have to do so. What we have here is a newbie who has committed the cardinal sin of trying to do too much too soon. I have been, also to some extent, following (not hard to do of course when they pop up on the watchlist at every refresh!), as evinced by some discussions on my talk. I did advise them (advice encased in a barnstar) to slow down, but perhaps I should have been more emphatic.
    As I said elsewhere, I doubted—and I have read nothing here to persuade me otherwise—that there was a problem that could not be solved by education. Now we are here, of course, it's somewhat too late for that...but full on indef? No. Topic ban from deletion discussions? Fair enough. Mentoring? Absolutely. Rope, as they say, is cheap. But I think we all could have been slightly more helpful in terms of advice, once upon a time, and here we are. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I largely concur with Serial Number 54129, especially the sentiment about "the cardinal sin of trying to do too much too soon." — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Their numerous edits to Canberra MRT station and other mainspace pages seem reasonable. I think a much lesser restriction may have sufficed (e.g. a six month ban from opening discussions at WP:AN/I and nominating pages for deletion). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
He said before that he was going to keep to article space, but didn't actually do that. That would have solved a lot of his problems. Natureium (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse block but if there is to be an unblock, I would only support that under protest, and subject to Quek being banned from editing any other namespace than main 'article namespace' and no maintenance work - so no AN/ANI/AIV etc, no NPP/AFC and no CSD/PROD/XfD work, just article writing. We are, realistically, at the stage where Quek's very small number of useful changes (often spread out over 5 or more individual edits) come at the cost of people like TonyBallioni spending hours of time managing Quek. Tony's a great writer, he could have rustled up a GA or three, or gone far with an FA in the time he's worked to fix Quek's messes and tried to get them headed in the right direction for the umpteenth time. Good faith contributors can very occasionally be a net negative to the project and I'm afraid at this time, Quek is a net negative. Nick (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse I don't feel a strong need to pick at nits over the rationale, but this flameout could've been predicted weeks ago. This wasn't the triggering event I'd have chosen, but Tony made a tough block and saved us all some more disruption. Would be happy to try some conditions for a return, but that's really up to them. ~ Amory (utc) 21:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse block Competence is required. While Quek wasn't a malicious user, they were too immature and too incompetent to constructively contribute here. The endless spamming of comments and replies, spamming threads at ANI, incompetent NPP, unintelligible comments, highly dramatic conduct, outright lies that they were an experienced user who has been here since 2007, rejection and deletion of warnings, refusal to listen to good faith advice, I'd say all of these things validate a NOTHERE block, but even if they didn't, a CIR block, or a general DE block would easily stand in for a NOTHERE rationale. Part of me sympathizes with Quek, because he fundamentally seems like a nice person, but he's too unhinged and disruptive to be anywhere near a net positive. Swarm 21:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse block This user is clearly a net negative, and is unwilling to change his behavior in response to the numerous concerns by numerous editors raised to him. If it were a correctable issue of CIR, my opinion might be different, but he has shown himself to be incorrigible and obsessed with inserting himself everywhere. There are probably several reasons that could have been given for blocking him, but the end result is the same. People can stop cleaning up after him. He accused me of stalking him (and helpfully provided a wikilink to the word creepy), and while I had landed on that page from my watchlist, I had been checking after him because although I didn't see any one thing worth blocking, it all adds up to a mess detrimental to the project. Natureium (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse block my suspicion arose at an AFD, and a play on a disambiguation page West Coast Highway. I figured initially it was really not worth pursuing [22]. However I went to the users talk page regarding the behaviour at the disambiguation [23] and was subsquently reverted. I have since spent some time at Tony Ballioni's talk page querying others regarding the behaviour. I agree with others, that there were signs of a positive contribution. However, behaviour on being challenged, has a pattern which is not acceptable and not a net positive in the end. JarrahTree 00:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse block - Competence is required and unfortunately at this present time this editor doesn't have that competence to edit here, As noted above the editor is a net negative here and no amount of mentoring will help them, As a side note I will say NOTHERE was probably the wrong choice but either way endorse block. –Davey2010Talk 02:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I will remain in dissent; believing Wikipedia would be a slightly better place if no block had been placed for us to endorse. I fully agree with Serial Number 54129 and hope he will transclude his own RfA very soon. Even today.--John Cline (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current events vandalism spam[edit]

User blocked by Oshwah Malinaccier (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The current events pages are currently getting lots of vandalism. Can someone please step in and stop this?  Nixinova  T  C  07:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This is a CheckUser block so non-CheckUsers cannot lift it. Additionally, they have not requested an unblock on If they do, it can be handled through the normal processes for appealing CU blocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meta has globally unlocked Solomon203, and there are some evidence that it may not be a sock of Nipponese Dog Calvero. Please further check to see if need to unblock the user or not. --B dash (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It was argued in the Steward request that Solomon203 (talk · contribs) is a different person from Nipponese Dog Calvero (talk · contribs). If it *is* the same person then the block would obviously be kept. The global unlock was not exactly a clean bill of health; it just shifts responsibility to three individual wikis (including this one) as to whether they want to unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unenforceable consensus to revert Jimbo's unilateral page move[edit]

Jimbo's move has been reverted by Fram and the closure of the move request is being discussed elsewhere. ansh666 22:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On 19 May, Jimbo Wales moved Meghan Markle to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. He did so without any explanation and against the consensus reached on the talk page, while the page was under move protection in an effort to prevent undiscussed moves. There was, of course, immmediate objection to this move. A move back was requested within minutes and was recently closed. Jimbo Wales said that he had made the move because "it was fun to do so", adding: "In similar circumstances in the future, I hope to do it again." Several administrators have already weighed in on the issue on the article talk page. Dekimasu said that the "move should never have taken place per the procedure explained at Wikipedia:Requested moves", that it "should have been reverted", and that the outcome of the move discussion "most consistent with normal operating procedure at WP:RM would be to move the page back to the stable title." DrKay closed the move discussion, saying that Jimbo Wales's move was "performed outwith the normal processes of Wikipedia" and that the "logic of the arguments below favors the common name, Meghan Markle", but that he could not "reverse a decision of the founder". NeilN's prediction was accurate.

I am not here to seek any sanctions. I only have a few questions for administrators:

  • Is this really a matter in which two community decisions, based on Wikipedia policy, should be ignored? Are regular Wikipedia users voluntary slaves who produce the content but do not get to decide about it?
  • Does Jimbo Wales own the content of Wikipedia after all? I am aware that WP:Ownership of content suggests not, but this charade has proven that policy amounts to nothing.
  • Why was the move discussion allowed to proceed if (as NeilN had predicted) the article was to remain at the new title regardless of its outcome? I suspect it was because a) there was a hope that the community would support the decision of Jimbo Wales, thus sparing Wikipedia the embarrassment his action had caused, b) forbidding the discussion would have seemed tyrannical. Instead of closing it right away, the discussion was allowed to drag on, eventually reaching the monstrous 150000 character count and leading to (in the words of Dekimasu) a "diversion of a large number of hours of a significant cross-section of editors that could have been better spent elsewhere." Put simply, we discussed for nothing and reached a decision that meant nothing.
  • Now what?

I implore everyone not to discuss the title of the article here. That has been discussed ad nauseam. What I would like to know is what this all means in terms of policy, procedure, and precedent. Surtsicna (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I mean, I don't see why we can't move the page back. At-least, if we have a discussion here first with a consensus to do that per policy guideline etc, then it is less likely to cause a disturbance. Keeping the page there would completely accede that we the community are less than Jimbo/undermine community processes which I don't think would be a good outcome. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • JW is almost irrelevant here as an editor; his value is as a figurehead, a go-to guy for the press. But he certainly has no superior position, and, indeed past events have suggested a lack of suitability for adminship. This was an egregious move, outside all process, making a laughing stock of the community, consensus and procedure. What is the point in putting time and labour into this thing—the two most important commodities we possess—if they can just be overturned on a whim? The word is—ironically considering the original question was one of royalty—absolutism, and that was got rid of in 1647, 176 or 1848 depending on your very western historical experience. It has no place here, and nor is it a "bit of fun." —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Re: "against the consensus reached on the talk page": Evidence, please. I see a strong consensus in favor of moving Meghan Markle to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Any editor would have been free to make that move. Yes, Jimbo is getting special treatment here; we are being asked to undo a page move that nobody would have complained about if someone else had made the page move. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
"That nobody would have complained about"—moving through protection while a discussion was taking place? Correct about special treatment: any other admin would have been hauled in front of the beak and defrocked. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Rubbish You get defrocked by a bishop, not the beak. GoldenRing (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The argument and discussion about not moving the page to Duchess of Sussex started weeks before the move was even made, so I find "nobody would have complained about if someone else had made the page move" to be utterly meritless. And WP:NOTVOTE, most of the support !votes were not policy based. Anyhow, as Surtsicna said, there is no reason to rehash the move here - the close was done, per our community processes, and unless that is contested, we should follow and move the page back to Meghan Markle. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Had I been following the page I would have made the same move. This is whining for the fun of whining because he is Jimbo. Legacypac (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't think you would have made the same move. The page was move protected in deference to talk page discussions regarding the title. And Jimbo unilaterally moved the page anyway for the fun of it, by his own admission. This has already been explained above, so there is really no excuse for your careless casting of aspersions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Wow! Legacypac is a liar regarding what he would do! Who knew? Oh, wait. There is another explanation which I won't get into because it contains words like "jerk" and "posting accusations of casting aspersions while casting aspersions". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Eh? Lepricavark (