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 A request for adminship is open for discussion. Speedy deletion criteria for undeclared paid editing Guild or WikiProject of paid editors Automatically forming columns while using <references /> Wikimedia Movement strategy discussion - Cycle 3, debate the challenges identified by the research Wikibooks as part of cross-wiki search results Opening sentences of lead sections Wikimedia referrer policy

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Military college dispute getting out of hand

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Military college dispute getting out of hand (Initiated 38 days ago on 12 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

RfCs

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy

Needs uninvolved closer please. Thanks. (Initiated 49 days ago on 1 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Teamwork closure is requested by the RfC proposer Guy Macon at "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closers needed for a very sensitive RfC." Therefore, I shall abide to request for teamwork and wait for two or three closers interested. --George Ho (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

While a team of closers were found (in the afore-linked thread), current plans are to relist it.So deferred for 30 days(ideally)!Winged Blades ^Godric 18:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, the discussion was moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy, so I changed the link in the header. --George Ho (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ali Hassan Salameh#RfC on whether the article should include more detailed background about his father

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ali Hassan Salameh#RfC on whether the article should include more detailed background about his father (Initiated 62 days ago on 19 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Alsee (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Hasan Salama#RfC on what aspects of Hasan Salama's life should be mentioned in the lead

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hasan Salama#RfC on what aspects of Hasan Salama's life should be mentioned in the lead (Initiated 62 days ago on 19 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Done. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:American_Revolutionary_War/Archive_13#RfC_about_infobox_changes

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:American_Revolutionary_War/Archive_13#RfC_about_infobox_changes (Initiated 75 days ago on 6 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Edited to update link to correct archive page. Snuge purveyor (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Dismissal of James Comey/Archive 2#Deletion of name info

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Dismissal of James Comey/Archive 2#Deletion of name info (Initiated 66 days ago on 15 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bahá'í Faith#Request for Comment: Lead Section

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bahá'í Faith#Request for Comment: Lead Section (Initiated 64 days ago on 17 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#RfC: Should the article include events related to Trump's tweets that the Obama administration has wiretapped him?

Could somebody kindly assess consensus at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#RfC: Should the article include events related to Trump's tweets that the Obama administration has wiretapped him? Early close requested because discussion has ceased for a while and the debated issue is kind of moot. (Initiated 54 days ago on 27 May 2017) — JFG ^talk 05:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ethereum#RFC on lede paragraph

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ethereum#RFC on lede paragraph (Initiated 60 days ago on 21 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Vladimir Lenin#RfC regarding the parallel drawn between the cult of personality of Lenin, and that of George Washington

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vladimir Lenin#RfC regarding the parallel drawn between the cult of personality of Lenin, and that of George Washington (Initiated 55 days ago on 26 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)#RfC: Disposing a body

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)#RfC: Disposing a body (Initiated 54 days ago on 27 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:McMahon–Hussein Correspondence#RfC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:McMahon–Hussein Correspondence#RfC (Initiated 50 days ago on 31 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017#2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine

An uninvolved closer is needed please. Thanks. (Initiated 19 days ago on 1 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017#WHO's estimate of Cholera outbreak in Yemen

An uninvolved closer is needed please. Thanks. (Initiated 19 days ago on 1 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017#Destruction of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri (Mosul)

An uninvolved closer is needed please. Thanks. (Initiated 19 days ago on 1 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017#.5BReady.5D Prodigy

An uninvolved closer is needed please. Thanks. (Initiated 23 days ago on 27 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Middlebury, Connecticut#RfC about pushpin map in infobox

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Middlebury, Connecticut#RfC about pushpin map in infobox (Initiated 43 days ago on 7 June 2017)? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Russo-Georgian War#RfC: Responsibility for the war

(Initiated 44 days ago on 6 June 2017) Need some help closing this discussion since it's contentious + I'm involved + opinions are mixed. Thanks! Banedon (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Already done by RileyBugz, to whom I thank. --George Ho (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada#RFC_on_inclusion_of_Peter_Boyce_quotation

A bot has just removed the RFC template as "expired" (see [1]) but no Admin has weighed in to make a determination on whether there or not there's consensus for the proposal. I'm wondering if an uninvolved admin can take a look and make a determination? (Initiated 36 days ago on 14 June 2017) Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence

A solo closure by an uninvolved editor may suffice. Nevertheless, I welcome a joint closure performed by two. (Initiated 31 days ago on 19 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should Wikibooks pages be displayed in search results

The request is a little early, but this should not imply early closure, which should be performed by uninvolved editor, also not involved in the previous discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 135#RfC: sister projects in search results. (Initiated 27 days ago on 23 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Breitbart News#RFC: Where should the statement about misleading sources be?

Discussion went stale; a closure by uninvolved editor is needed please. Thanks. (Initiated 24 days ago on 26 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#Category:Television programming by language

(Initiated 156 days ago on 14 February 2017) Stale discussion, no contributions after early April. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 30#File:WernerHerrmann.jpg

(Initiated 339 days ago on 15 August 2016) The discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 30#File:WernerHerrmann.jpg has been relisted SEVEN FIVE times since August 2016. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I have relisted all of the simple discussions that I can disposition. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – OTRS agent, I left a statement on the discussion about the status of that file's claimed pending ticket. seb26 (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Already done by Sandstein. Deryck C. 18:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 4#America-Freedom to Fascism

(Initiated 89 days ago on 22 April 2017) -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 5#Hinduism redirects

(Initiated 54 days ago on 27 May 2017) -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 7#Staten Island route

(Initiated 79 days ago on 2 May 2017) -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 1#Template:Black Power movement

(Initiated 38 days ago on 12 June 2017) Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 1#Template:NRHP dab cleanup

(Initiated 27 days ago on 23 June 2017) Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Done. Deryck C. 18:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 9#Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE discussion/survey close request

(Initiated 73 days ago on 8 May 2017) A long discussion has accompanied a slow-motion revert war over the inclusion of a journalist's cited views, which may be UNDUE. The talk thread is at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 9#Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE and resumed here Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 11#Goodin redux. Could an Admin please review and close these discussions so as to settle whether there is consensus to include the comments of Mr. Goodin in the article? Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 227#Review of a decision to remove an external link per ELNEVER

Where do we stand on accepting or rejecting bach-cantatas.com as a source for Wikipedia content? (Initiated 41 days ago on 9 June 2017). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Quoting_number_of_Google_News_hits

(Initiated 102 days ago on 9 April 2017) Discussion has faded out on this "No original research" topic - closure by an uninvolved editor would be welcome. Batternut (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#"Quick fails"

There has been a discussion of the wording/content of the good article criteria. It has been open for around two weeks with no edits for four days; closure by an uninvolved editor would be appreciated. 22:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Milburn (talk • contribs)

Just in case: (Initiated 17 days ago on 3 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#rpm or min-1?

This needs a stake driven through its heart, per WP:SNOW and WP:IDHT. Hopefully an Admin can get the message across. I suggest if the editor wishes to pursue this, rather than carry on debate at articles, or at the WikiProject level, they must make a proposal to change WP:UNITS, and WP:CARUNITS and WP:MCNUM will defer accordingly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done. @Dennis Bratland: ANRFC does not try to force an end to ongoing discussions that aren't set up to explicitly require closure. If you want fresh pairs of eyes in the discussion, please request further input on the talk pages of the other WikiProjects and guidelines you've referred to. If you are concerned about the behaviour of an individual editor, please take it up with them directly or request intervention at WP:ANI. Deryck C. 18:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 June#James Martin Hayes

Needs uninvolved editor to close this. (Initiated 21 days ago on 29 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed minor modification regarding G13

Would an uninvolved administrator or editor consider closing this request. (Initiated 36 days ago on 14 June 2017) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (16 out of 923 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Álvaro Morata 2017-07-19 19:50 2017-09-11 14:11 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Slon02 Cohen Bramall 2017-07-19 15:45 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Brookie Philippe Hoerle-Guggenheim 2017-07-19 12:17 2018-01-19 12:17 create Repeatedly recreated: Repeatedly recreated by undisclosed paid editor Doc James Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iloveartrock 2017-07-19 03:41 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Ad Orientem Syd Barrett 2017-07-19 03:38 2017-08-19 03:38 edit Persistent sock puppetry Ad Orientem Mungaru Male 2017-07-18 17:49 2017-10-18 17:49 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Ponyo Yash (actor) 2017-07-18 17:48 2017-10-18 17:48 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Ponyo Sool, Somalia 2017-07-18 08:13 2018-01-10 19:22 edit,move Up protection El C Mystirium 2017-07-17 17:43 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Courcelles List of Prime Ministers of Israel 2017-07-17 00:32 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page Slon02 Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation 2017-07-16 21:35 2017-07-23 21:35 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts CambridgeBayWeather Human factors and ergonomics 2017-07-16 21:35 2017-07-23 21:35 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts CambridgeBayWeather Maksim Maksimov 2017-07-16 20:49 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Upping the level Malinaccier Varun Pratap Singh Bhakuni 2017-07-16 14:38 2018-01-16 14:38 create Repeatedly recreated Primefac Festus, Missouri 2017-07-16 03:22 2017-07-30 03:22 edit,move Persistent vandalism: Coordinated attacks Ks0stm Manoj 2017-07-16 00:04 2017-10-16 00:04 move Persistent vandalism Dennis Brown

WP:AN/CXT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to move forward with Mathglot's proposal (see #Proposal), which will cause a mass deletion of the pages on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review, with the option to save certain pages from deletion within a two-week window. As part of the proposal, there is also a consensus to amend WP:X2 in the manner S Marshall specifies in this edit.

Opposition to this change revolved around the argument that the articles which would qualify for mass deletion should be improved instead of deleted. Elinruby proposed alternatively that we should focus on recruiting editors fluent in foreign languages, Mathglot initially proposed to mass-draftify the articles instead of deleting, and Sam Walton argued that the articles contained valid content that didn't deserve mass deletion.

A majority of other editors, however, argued that many of the articles involved are poorly sourced BLPs that have the potential to harm their subjects if left unimproved. Given the large number of articles and low number of editors involved, it will likely be months before these articles are improved. Additionally, a user who is not fluent in both of the languages involved in a translation will not be able to adequately evaluate the validity of the machine-translated content; the article may appear unproblematic to such a user, but the content translation tool could have subtly altered the meaning of statements to something false.

In short, the consensus is that in the long run, the encyclopedia would be better off if these articles were mass deleted. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: The process for working out how to cause the mass deletion has been established. To mark an article for retention, please strike it out. To unambiguously identify an article for deletion, include the word "kill" in the same line as the article. The articles will be deleted on or after June 6, 2017. Thank you for your patience. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

---

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)

Update: This link is now located at .../Archive_61#X2 revision. Mathglot (talk) 01:10, 1 April 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)
• Support @S Marshall:'s revision or a nuke from orbit. I wasn't active when this situation was being discussed originally, but having now read over the discourse on the matter, it is clear that our current approach isn't working. No one else is stepping up to help S Marshall do this absurd amount of reviewing, leaving us stuck with thousands of machine-translated BLP violations. It's all well and good to say that AfD isn't cleanup and deletion solves nothing and we should let articles flower patiently into beautiful gardens, but if no one's pulling the weeds and watering the sprouts, the garden isn't a garden, it's a weed-riddled disaster. Give the gardener a weed whacker already. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support the bold edit required to X2; it's true, of course, that AfD is not clean up- but neither should it be a barrier to clean up. In any case, moving a backlog from one place to another is hardly helpful. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Question @Elinruby and Yngvadottir: As users who (from a quick glance) seem to have been active looking through these articles, do you think the quality is on average worse than a typical random encyclopedia article, and if so, bad enough that speedy deletion would be preferable to allowing them to be improved over time as with any other article? I don't mean to imply that this is necessarily the case, but I think it should be the bar for concluding whether mass speedy deletion is the correct answer. Sam Walton (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• (I wish I'd seen this earlier; thanks for the ping. I feel I have totally let down S Marshall; I just couldn't stand it any more.) On the whole ... yes. Support deletion of those remaining that have not been marked as ok/fixed. As I tried to explain in the initial discussion, the basic premise here is incorrect: as it states somewhere at Pages needing translation into English, a machine translation is worse than no article. It will almost always be either almost impossible to read, incorrect (for example, mistranslating names as ordinary nouns, or omitting negatives ...) or both. Some of these translations have been ok; many have been woefully incomplete (just the start of the lede), and they all require extremely careful checking. Yes, what lies in wait may include BLP violations. I sympathize with the article creators, and I am usually an inclusionist; I put hours of work into checking and improving some of these, and I'm not the only one. But please, enough. We'd wind up with decent articles faster if these were deleted, and the majority that are bad do a disservice to their topics. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• You haven't let me down. You've given me a truckload of support with this.—S Marshall T/C 13:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Still oppose mass deletion -- @Sam Walton: What she said: Thank you the ping; this discussion was seeming a bit reiterative and I had mentally checked out. Like @Yngvadottir: I have put considerable effort into some of these articles. In fact, two or three of them are my own translations, which I would not have attempted without the translation tool, btw. Some are from my translations on French law, and I think 1) they cover important and previously missing topics and 2) they are high-quality technical translations. In most cases they speak for themselves. A couple are not perfect, reflecting the state of the French article, yes, and need work. But while these articles -- I am speaking here specifically of my own translations that appear on this list -- may be imperfect they are still reasonable stubs that can be built upon, and they also support more important articles by helping to prevent redlinks in some of the top-level articles on French law and also the French colonial legacy in Rwanda and the Congos etc. See Biens mal acquis for example. That was painful but I am proud of that translation. I have also encountered other people's translations on that list that made me proud of Wikipedia; the one on a cryptology algorithm for example comes to mind, or Essai sur les mœurs et l'esprit des nations. I am an inclusionist, I have to admit, and yes yes, great wrongs and all, but I do think it is important that (for example) articles on Congolese history mention that there have been civil wars (beyond "unrest", and no, I am not kidding). The worst BLP problems I am aware of are in the articles on Dilma Rousseff and I don't believe they are on this list or were created with the tool. Some of the worst PNT pages I have seen predate the translation tool, for instance Notre-Dame de la Garde, which took me years to finish, and Annees folles which is as we speak an incredible mess requiring research in addition to copy-editing and translation. Yngvadottir is correct in saying that inappropriately translated proper nouns is a frequent problem. I recall a Hubert de Garde de Vins who became "wine", and yes, this did reduce the sentence to gibberish. It's annoying enough to make me wanna regex. But. Not mass deletion. I suggest case-by-case intervention in the case of egregious problems with particular users. It's not as though more that a very few users even try to translate. Or perhaps we should revise the criteria for translation user privileges. But even there -- one of the people tagged as delete on sight has created a number of skeleton articles about Quebec. These articles should be be fleshed out not deleted; we should have articles about Quebec. Some of the authors are unquestionably notable, the equivalent in my small culture of Simone de Beauvoir or Colette or Andre Gide. It seems to me that an article that says: this author was born, drank coffee, won the Governor-General's award and wrote these books, is better than having nothing at all. The placeholder takes the topic from unknown unknown to known unknown, or little-known in this context, I guess. We do know a little more about the folk dances of Honduras because there is a very bad article, for which I have done what I could. There are many different problems with the articles on this list. Someone has created multiple articles about, apparently every madrassa in central Tunis. Who am I? Some of the articles I have rescued at PNT were about the medieval wines of Provence, which might seem equally trivial to some. Some of the important but very flawed articles I have noted maybe should not be in the article mainspace -- I am thinking of the ones about the Virgin of Guadeloupe, pretty much everything flagged Mexican historical documents, the Spanish procession of the flowers, etc)--but an interested Spanish speaker could build these out. These topics are unquestionably notable. We should have an article about the Virgin of Guadeloupe, really, people, we should. My suggestion would be recruiting. We desperately need a Portuguese speaker and additional help with Spanish. Some of the unreferenced BLPs sitting around appear to be very fine even though they are unreferenced, and may in fact veer into fluff. But they don't approach liability for libel if that's the concern. I avoid them, personally, because I have in the past deciphered Abidjan l33t about a beloved soccer player, only to be told that we don't as a matter of policy consider these leagues notable. Fine then, they should not be on the PNT to-do list. I'd love to see the translation workflow improved but we should be encouraging the people expanding our horizons is what I think. I am sorry for the very long answer but I appear to be a voice wailing in the desert on this topic and I have now said pretty much the above many times now. Nobody seems to care so oh well, it's not like I don't have other work I can do on the history of the Congo and figuring out what Dilma Rousseff had to say about her impeachment. Reliable sources say she was railroaded (NPR for one) and that is not included in the article at all right now. The articles on Congolese history airily write off genocide and slaughter as "some unrest". In a world where these things are true I really don't care whether on not we find a reference for that Eurovision winner. Someone who cares can do that and I think ethnocentrism is a bigger issue on Wikipedia that these translation attempts. Move the ones that don't meet a minimum standard to some draft space or something. Educate the people who are creating this articles instead of shaking your finger at them. The article creation process is daunting enough and I myself have had to explain to new page patrollers that this punk band is in fact seminal whether you have heard of them or not and whether or not they sing in a language that you can understand. But I have been here enough to do that and I assure you, most people will not. Wikipedia wants to know why its editors grow fewer cough cough wikipedia, lookee here. I will shortly wikilink some of the examples I mention above for easier show-and-tell, for the benefit of anyone who has read this far. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support removal of these attempted articles (especially to avoid BLP problems laying around). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support [2] I'd say "do a disservice to their topics" is a mild way of putting it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blanket deletion. Having just checked a bunch of the remaining articles I found plenty of perfectly reasonable, non-BLP articles here, and any bad articles I did find were certainly not in greater number than you would find by hitting Random Article, nor were they particularly awful; the worst offenses I found were poor but understandable English. There's a lot of valid content here, especially on non-English topics which we need to do a better job of writing about. FWIW I'll happily put some time into going through this list. Sam Walton (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Please take a look at the 20 articles I just reviewed here; none had any issues greater than needing a quick copyedit. Sam Walton (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Samwalton9: Thanks. It's been a long, hard slog. I appreciate it if any of these can be saved. However, did you check for accuracy? It's possible for a machine translation to be misleadingly wrong. And the miserable translation tool the WMF provides usually doesn't even attempt filmographies: look at that specific section of Asier Etxeandia. This is not acceptable in a BLP. Somebody who reads the original language (Spanish? Catalan?) needs to go through that article sentence by sentence and film by film. Unfortunately it's not a matter of notability (that's almost always attested to by the original article), it's a matter of whether we have time to save this article. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
      • That names of works likely don't get automatically translated properly is a good point that I hadn't considered, thanks for pointing that out. If that's one of the primary issues then I'd favour a semi-automated removal of "filmography" or similar sections, if possible. It just seems that there's a lot of perfectly good content in here. Sam Walton (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I looked at the first one you listed, it is a mass of non-BLP compliant (non-neutral, no-inline source) material. Letting stuff like that hang around is not just bad for that BLP but as an example for other BLPs to be created and remain non-compliant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Sam Walton, you didn't answer Yngvadottir's question. Can you speak the source languages? Remember that because of the defective way that software feature was implemented, you cannot assume that the translator speaks English and in many cases they obviously couldn't. (In practice the source language matters a lot because the software accuracy varies by the language pair. Indo-European languages are often but not always okay, and Spanish-English translations have particularly high accuracy, approaching 80%. Japanese-English, for example, has much, much lower accuracy.) So the correctness of the translation must be, and can only be, checked by someone with dual fluency in the source language and English.

            In the real world you can establish some rules-of-thumb. For example, you can quite safely assume that everything translated by Rosiestep is appropriate and can be retained. The editorial skills of the different translators varied very widely.

            All in all the best solution is for a human who's fluent in the source language and English to look at each of these articles and form an intelligent judgment. The thing that's preventing this solution is that, having looked at the content and formed the judgment, I can't then remove a defective article, because the defective wording in WP:CSD#X2 encourage sysops to decline the deletion unless it's a WP:SNOW case... so I've got to start a full AfD. Every. Single. Time. The effort for me to clean up is out of all proportion to the effort editors put into creating the damn things with a script.

            If you don't want the articles nuked (and that's a reasonable position), then please support the X2 revision I have proposed.—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

When you say "the first one you listed" are you talking about Tomokazu Matsuyama? Yes, if so. it is indeed an unreferenced BLP but... I suspect five minutes of quality time with Google would take it out of that category, and it's essentially a resume, something like the placeholder articles I mentioned above. I think that perhaps we are better off knowing that this Japanese contemporary artist exists. Why not do a wikiproject to improve these like the one we just had on Africa top-level articles? It does seem to me that you could use a break from this wikitask and a little gamification might well get er done. I share your sentiment that in some ways we have our fingers in the dyke here, but the dyke does serve a purpose I think...In short I respectfully disagree with the current approach to these articles. Elinruby (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Break

@Alanscottwalker: I found a reference for his influences in less time than it took to add the ref code....Elinruby (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Elinruby: Did you mean to ping me back here, many days after I commented, to tell me you found a pretty crappy commercial source? When I looked at it awhile ago, the article was filled with non-npov/non-referenced/BLP violating text. It is, thus, no comfort that since I commented, awhile ago, someone has according to their edit 'removed the worst of the puffery', and you added that crappy commercial source - its still not policy compliant (even if it is marginally better, since I flagged it) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I brought you back here to tell you that while it may be have been unsourced, fixing this is extremely trivial. I don't give a hoot about this particular article, but his gallery is not a "crappy commercial source" imho and if you want people to fix then article then you should enunciate your problem with it. Sorry if that doesn't fit your preconceptions Elinruby (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding a non-independent crappy commercial source is not fixing. It is selling. We are not in the business of selling. What you call "trivial" sourcing does nothing to fix just makes it worse - "trivial" should have tipped you off. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@AlanscottWalker: Um no.... I was using the term in its software development meaning. I apologize for picking the wrong dialect to make my point. I thought, since you were critiquing the software tool, you might know something about software even though you don't seem to be familiar with the features of this instance of it, or for that matter with a representative sample of its users. Commericial, hmm. The same could be said of my article about the thousand-year-old Papal vintages, you know. That vineyard is selling wine today. Is that article also commercial crap? Since it is a direct translation from French Wikipedia, are you saying that French Wikipedia is commercial crap? You really don't want to make me argue this point, seriously. Incidentally what is with the arbitrary insertion of a break in the discussion? Consider, for just a moment, that I might actually have a point. Entertain the notion for a minute. Why are you belittling my statement? Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Critiquing software tool? No, I was clearly critiquing an article in English on the English Wikipedia. And I was referring to the crappy commercial source - you pinged me, remember, so that I would know you added it to the article. That was not done in French, it was done in English. As for break, that is your doing, why should I have any idea why you added the crappy source, and then wanted to tell me about it in this break. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Let me use small words. CTX is software. Bad translation can happen with or without software. Lack of sources can happen without software. In software development "trivial" means "easy". Do you see now? Be careful who you patronize next time. 01:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall:I'd consider supporting your proposal, perhaps, once I have read it, but could you provide a link for we mere mortals who don't normally follow these proposals? I also disagree that all of these articles require a bilingual editor; some just need a few references and/or a copy edit. But you know I disagree at this point. And if you do, god help us, nuke all of these articles as opposed to one of the other courses of action I have (again) suggested above, please move mine to my draft space if you find them that objectionable. Some sort of clue as to what your issue is would also be nice. Elinruby (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The revision I want to make is this one. The intended effect is so that a human editor, who has reviewed the script-generated content and given it due consideration and exercise of judgment, can recommend the content for deletion and receive assistance rather than bureaucracy from our admin corps.

  The basic problem with these articles is that they are script generated and the scripts are unreliable. Exactly how unreliable they are varies according to the language pair, so for example Spanish-English translations are relatively good, while for example Japanese-English translations are relatively poor; and whether the articles contain specific grammatical constructions that the scripts have trouble with.

  You can test its accuracy, and I recommend you do. The script it used, during the problem period, was Google translate. I've just picked some sample text and run it through Google translate in various language pairs, first into a different language and then the translated text back into English, to see how it did. These were the results:-

Source text	Korean	Punjabi	Farsi
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition	Fourth and seventh years ago, our ancestors left the continent, a new country born in Liberty.	Four score and seven years on this continent, first our father a new nation, brought freedom and dedicated to the proposition	Four score and seven years ago our fathers on this continent, a new nation, the freedom brought, and dedicated to the proposition
And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.	And when he saw the multitude, he went up to the mountain, and his disciples came, and opened his mouth, and taught him, saying, Blessed are the souls of the poor: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.	Jesus saw the crowds up on the mountain, and when he sat, his disciples came to him and he opened his mouth, and the poor in spirit was teaching, that theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Yes: interestingly the algorithm interpolated "Jesus" into the text.)	And seeing the multitudes, he went to the mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came to him and he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying: Blessed are the poor in spirit: for the kingdom of heaven.
Editors agree not to publish biographical material concerning living people unless it is accurate	The editors agree not to post electrical materials about living people unless they are the correct person.	To publish the biographical material about the editor, it is right to disagree,	Editors agree to publish biographies of living people, unless it is accurate.

I encourage you to try these and other examples with different language pairs. Can you see why you need to speak the original language in order to copyedit accurately?—S Marshall T/C 22:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

But that is not a fair test since it magnifies any word choice errors. There *will* be errors, yes. We clean them up at WP:PNT --- ALL THE TIME. And no, it is not necessary to speak the language always, though it certainly help. I really suggest that maybe you just need a wikibreak from this task. Bad english can mostly be fixed. There are the occasional mysteries, yes. There are colloquialisms, yes. This does not justify wholesale destruction of good content. I was just here to get the link as I mentioned your proposal to one of my PNT colleagues; I need to go but I'll look at your proposal the next time I log in Elinruby (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The liquor was strong but the meat was rotten.

Translation wonks will recognize the (apocryphal) story behind the sentence above, concerning literal mistranslations exacerbated from there-and-back translation. (The story perhaps originated after the NY World's Fair of 1964, which had a computer translation exhibit in the Russian Pavilion.) In any case, I'm just getting up to speed on this topic and will comment in more detail later.

Briefly: yes, you definitely have to speak the language to copyedit accurately. I'm actually in favor of a modification to WP:MACHINETRANSLATION to make it stronger. I fully agree with the worse than nothing statement in the policy now, but I'd go one step further: the only thing worse than a machine translation in an encyclopedia, is a machine translation that has been copyedited by a capable and talented monolingual (even worse: by someone who knows a bit of the language and doesn't know what s/he doesn't know) so that the result is beautiful, grammatical, smooth, stylish, wonderful English prose. As a translator, puh-LEEZ leave the crappy, horrible, machine-gobbledygook so that a translator can spot it easily, and fix it accurately. Copyediting it into proper English makes our job much harder.

If it's too painful to leave it exposed in main space, perhaps moving to Draft space could be an alternative. In fact, rather than a mass-delete, why not a mass-Draft-ify? (Apologies if someone has already said this, I'm still reading the thread.) More later. Mathglot (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

mass-Draftify would work for me. And yeah I disagree with you too a little, but I knew that. My point is, we all agree that an issue exists so what do we do? I also have some more reading to do before I comment on what S Marshall (talk · contribs) is proposing. I have a story about the policy but I want to make sure it pertains to this discussion. Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Elinruby is certainly correct to say this "wasn't a fair test", because going through the algorithm twice doubles the error rate. But a lot of people reading this discussion will speak only English so this is the only way I can show them what the problem is ---- without that context, they may well find this, and the original discussion at WP:AN/CXT, rather impenetrable because they won't understand the gravity of the concerns.

  It was even more unfair because it was me who selected the examples and I don't like machine translations. In order to illustrate my point I went with non-European languages and convoluted sentence structures. If you tried the same exercise with a verse from "Green Eggs and Ham" then you'd get perfect translations 99% of the time. (It tripped me up with the Sermon on the Mount because quite clearly, the algorithm recognised that it was dealing with a Bible verse, which I found fascinating.)

  The script is particularly likely to do badly with double-negatives, not-unless constructions, adverbs of time ("since", "during", "for a hundred years"), and the present progressive tense, in some language pairs.

  It would certainly be possible to construct a fairer text using more random samples of language.—S Marshall T/C 10:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall: alright, I grant you that there aren't many bilinguals here. This *is* the problem in my view. I'll also specify that I don't claim expertise outside the Romance languages, and very little for some of those. But allow me please, since I know you speak or at least read French, to propose a better example. There are common translation errors that can occur, depending on which tool exactly was used. The improperly-translated name (nom propre) problem was real but is now mostly fixed. The fact that a writer whose novels were written in French gave them titles in French should come as a shock to nobody. The correct format for a bibliography in such cases *is* title in the actual language of the words in the book, webpage or whatever. Translated title, if the title is not in English, goes in the optional trans-title (or is it trans_title?) field of the cite template. Language switch to be set if at all possible. If it is not, let me know, and I can reduce the number of foreign words that English wikipedia needs to look at. So. In all languages, pretty much, words like fire and sky and take tend to be both native to the original people and likely to carry additional meanings, as in take an oath, take a bus, take a break etc. On the other hand what the software tool does do extremely well is know the correct translation for arcane or specialized terms, often loanwords, like caravel or apse or stronghold. These words are in my recognition vocabulary not my working vocabulary and using the tool in certain instances saves many lookups. When there is a strong degree of ambiguity or divergence in meaning (like the example on my user page) then THEN yes a fluent or very advanced user is needed. There are known divergences that a bilingual would spot that an English speaker would not. Sure. "Je l'aime beaucoup, mon mari" is a good example. But the fact that this is true does not prove that every line of every one of these articles still needs to be checked before they can be permitted to continue to sully Wikipedia, or that each of these lines needs to be checked by you personally. If you feel overwhelmed, take a break. Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• I speak English, French, German, Gibberish and Filth.  :) Joking aside -- I'm not concerned about noms propres. I'm concerned when the script perverts or even inverts the meaning of the source text. It's quite hard to give you an example because the examples I've discovered have all been deleted, and there's only the one non-English language we share, but perhaps an administrator will confirm for you the sorry history of Daphné Bürki. It was created as a machine translation of fr:Daphné Bürki and the en.wiki version said she was married to Sylvain Quimène, citing this source. Check it out; the source doesn't say that. In fact she was married to Travis Bürki, at least at one time (can't say whether she's still married to him). We had a biographical article where the subject was married to the wrong bloke. It's not okay to keep these around.

  Draftification is exactly the same as deleting them. Nobody is going to fix these up in draft space. The number of editors who're competent to fix them is small, and the amount of other translation work those editors have on their hands is very large, and it includes a lot of mainspace work that's more urgent than fixing raw machine translations in draft space, and it always will; we can get back to fixing draft space articles about individual artworks when every Leibniz-prizewinning scientist and every European politician with a seat on their national parliament has a biography. (We're on target never to achieve that. The democratic process means new politicians get elected and replaced faster than their biographies get translated from foreign-language wikipedias.)

  I don't object to draftifying these articles if that's the face-saving solution that lets us pretend we're being all inclusionist about it, but it would be more honest to nuke them all from orbit.—S Marshall T/C 00:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• I am just coming back to this. I agree about the relatively few translators and the large amount of work, and yet, we so fundamentally disagree. Some of the designated articles do are, in my opinion, within the top percentiles in article quality. Others have in fact been fixed up. You and I consulted about one once. Others, yes, need work, and I at least do get to articles that I say I will get to. Slowly, at times, sure. I have no problem with articles that don't meet a certain standard not going to mainspace, but I don't see why you singly out the translation tool as your criterion. I mention noms propres because I have mentioned one above from Notre-Dame de la Garde where Commander de Vins came across as wine, and this did make the sentence gibberish. But that article did not come out of the CTX tool. Ihave no idea what the Leibniz prize is, but I am not sure it's more notable, in the abstract, than Marcel Proust, but fine. Work on that all you like, sure. But don't tell me it's more important that some mention in Congolese history that there have been civil wars, or I will just laugh at you. The sort of error you mention above with Daphné Büki -- I'll look at it myself shortly, if it's from French I don't need an admin -- can be made by anyone who knows less than they think they do. Automated translation not needed. Now, I propose that since we are talking about this we work out some sort of saner translation process. For instance, if African football leagues are by policy not notable, as someone once told me, fine then, the article should not be in the translation queue. Put something in there about a minimum number of references, require the use of trans-title in the references, whatever is agreed upon is ok with me. Your proposed change would preserve most of by not all of the articles that have been worked on, which is a slight improvement I guess, except you'll also nuke the 3-4 articles that needed nothing and a whole lot of biography that I've avoid because people tend to write me snooty messages to inform me that the person isn't notable, and why waste work when articles like History of Nicaragua are so lacking? Elinruby (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay, I've gone through this and thought about it, and I'm conditionally a Yes on change to X2 and nuking the list, with an option to save certain files.

S Marshall, I take your point about draftification being pointless, as they'll just sit there with most of them never being edited ever.

I believe you've also persuaded me that the nuke is appropriate, given some conditions below. In order to keep Elinruby and Sam Walton (and me, and others) happy about not deleting certain files we are working on or wish to work on, I had an idea: what if we agree to allow a delay of two weeks to allow interested parties to go through and mark files in the list we want to keep so when the nuke-a-bot comes through, it can pass over the files thus marked. (I don't know if we can gin this up for two weeks from yesterday, but that would be auspicious.)

More specifically, to Elinruby's (22:03, 1 April) "So what do we do?" question, I think here's what we do:

• Those of us who want to retain files, mark them with {{bots|deny=X2-nukebot}} to vaccinate them against nuking.
• Change X2 accordingly
• Somebody develops the nuke script
• Nuke script should nuke "without prejudice" so that if someone changes their mind later and wants to recreate a file, it shouldn't be "salted" or require admin action to "undelete"; you just recreate it in the normal way you create any new file.
• If needed, we run a pre-nuke test against sandbox files, or can we just trust the vaccination will be respected?
• Start the script up and let 'er rip

Elinruby, if this proposal were accepted, would you change your no to X2 modif to a yes? Sam Walton, would you?

Naturally for this to have any value, we'd have to agree to not vaccinate the whole list, but just the ones we reasonably expect to work on, or judge worthy of keeping. If desired, I can envisage a way to greatly speed up the first step (vaccination) for all of us. Personally, I won't mark any file translated from a language I don't know well enough to evaluate the translation. But, going through all 3500 files is a burden, since there's no point my even clicking on the ones in languages I don't know. If I knew in advance which ones are from Spanish, French, etc., that would be a huge help. If you look at 1300-1350, you'll see that I've marked them with a language code (and a byte count; but that was for something else). I could commit to marking another 200 or 300 with the lang code, maybe more. If we could break up the work that way and everybody just mark the files for lang code, then once that's done, we could all go through the whole list much more quickly, to see which ones we wanted to evaluate for vaccination.

I really think this could be wrapped up in a couple of weeks, if we get agreement. Mathglot (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Entirely happy with this idea.—S Marshall T/C 19:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Agree. Amisom (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• This is fine with me. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Are there any objections to moving forward with this? Tazerdadog (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Almost two weeks of SILENCE sounds like "go for it". Primefac (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm still good with this as proposer, of course, but just to reiterate: we'd still need a two-week moratorium *after acceptance* of the proposal before nuking, to allow interested parties to vaccinate such articles as they chose to. I assumed that was clear, but that "go for it" got me a little scared, so thought I'd better raise it again.

On Tazerdadog's point, what is the procedure for deciding when to go forward with a proposal? Are we there now? Whatever the procedure is, and whenever we deem "acceptance" to happen, can someone close it at that point and box it up like I see on Rfcs, so we can then start the two-week, innoculation period timer ticking without having more opinions straggle in after it's already been decided? Or what's the right way to do this? Mathglot (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Request formal close, per Mathglot. Do I need to post on ANRFC?—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

X2-nuke interim period

Wow, cool! Glad we made some progress, and just trying to nail down the next steps to keep things moving smoothly. To recap my understanding:

• we are now in the "inoculation period" with a fortnight-timer which expires 23:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC) an interim period where we figure out how to implement this.
• during this period, anyone may tag articles in the list at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review with the proper tag to prevent nuking two weeks hence

A couple of questions:

• do we have to recruit someone to write a script to do the actual nuking?
• what form should the actual "vaccination" tag have? In the proposal above, I just kind of threw out that expression: {{bots|deny=X2-nukebot}} but I have no idea how we really need to tag the articles, and maybe that's a question for the script writer?
• will the bot also observe strikeout type as an indicator not to nuke? A possible issue is inconsistent usage among editors: for example, some editors have not used strikeout for articles they have reviewed and clearly wish to save (e.g. see #1601-1622)

As for me, I will continue to tag a couple hundred more articles with language-tags as I did previously in the 1301-1600 range, to make it easier for everyone to find articles translated from languages they are comfortable working with, and that they therefore might wish to tag. Mathglot (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Updated by Mathglot (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Let's make two lists, one of articles to delete and the other of articles to retain for the moment. I don't think that it will be necessary to formally request a bot. We have quite a few sysops who could clean them all out with or without scripted assistance.—S Marshall T/C 15:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  I would implement it as a giant sortable wikitable - Something that looks like this:

Name	Language	Vaccinated	Notes
Jimbo Wales	es	Tazerdadog (talk)	Translation checked
Earth	ar	--	Probably Notable
My mother's garage band	fr	--	X2'd, not notable

Tazerdadog (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the current list easier to deal with than creating a new table, or two new ones? Can we just go based on strikeout type, or add some unambiguous token like, nuke=yes in the content of the items in the enumerated list that need to be deleted? I'm just trying to think what would be the least work to set up, and easiest to mark for those interested in vaccinating articles.

If we decide to go with a table, I might be able to use a fancy regex to create a table from the current bullet list. Although I definitely see why a table is easier to view and interpret once it's set up, I'm not (yet) persuaded that there's an advantage to setting one up in the first place. For one thing, it's harder to edit a table than a bullet list, because of the risk of screwing up cells or rows. Mathglot (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The real advantage of the table is the ability to sort by language. This way, if we have a volunteer who speaks (for example) only English and Spanish, they can just sort the table by language, and all of the Spanish articles will be shown together. It's harder to edit, but in my opinion, the ease of viewing and extracting the information far outweighs this.

I have created a list that removes all struck items at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review/Tazerdadog cleanup list. I'm currently working on getting rid of the redlinks as well. Once that is done, we can move to a vaccination model on the articles that have not been cleaned up in the articles thus far. The vaccination can take virtually any form as long as everyone agrees on what it is - I'd recommend that we vaccinate at the central list/table rather than on the article however. Once the two weeks expire, it's trivial to extract the unvaccinated articles and poke a sysop for deletion. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: This was posted over at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review as well but wanted to mention it here. Timotheus Canens has created a language-sortable table in their sandbox at User:Timotheus Canens/sandbox that I think is similar to what you were thinking. Mz7 (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And we may have to recreate the table, as I didn't notice it and have been continuing to mark language codes on the main list (and shall continue to do so, unless someone yells "Stop!"). Also, not sure how trivial it is: given a full set of instructions what to do, then, yes, it's trivial, but this is not formatted data (yet) and there are all sorts of questions a sysop might have, such as, what to do with ones marked "moved", or "redirected", and other situations I've come across while going through the list that don't spring to mind. We don't want to burden the sysop with an illy-defined task, so all of those situations should be spelled out before we ask them to take their time to do it, as if there are too many questions, they'll either give up, or they'll do whatever they feel like. Mathglot (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timotheus Canens: Tazerdadog (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

And am still doing so on the main page, and so have at least six others since the message just above this one was written. Mathglot (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

X2 countdown and vaccinate indicators

Floating a proposal to get the clock started on the two weeks. Any user can write "Vaccinated" (or anything equivalent , as long as the meaning is understood) on the list on the same line as the Strike out any article they want to vaccinate. I can then go through and use regex to remove the vaccinated articles line-by-line from the delete list. I will then separate out the articles with no substantive commentary attached (anything beyond a language or a byte count is substantive) for an admin to delete or draftify. Any article which has been individually substantively discussed will be evaluated independently. If this is OK, we can start the clock. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC) Updated Tazerdadog (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

People are already using strikeout type as the "vaccinate" flag so no additional method is needed though I see nothing wrong with using both, if someone has already started with the the other method. Mathglot (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I have been placing substantive commentary on plenty of articles, with the intention of facilitating the work of the group as a whole, in order to aid people in deciding whether that article is worth their time to look at and evaluate. In my case at least, substantive commentary does not indicate a desire to save, and if you intend to use it that way in the general case, then you need to suggest another indication I can use as a "poison pill" indicator to ensure it is nuked despite the substantive commentary. Mathglot (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Strikeout works even better than my idea, as it is easier to write the regex for. I was figuring that substantive commentary at least deserved to be read before we nuked them, although unless a comment was actively positive on the article I would have sorted it as a delete. If you want every article you commented on to be deleted, I can use your signature as the poison pill. Otherwise, use what you want, just make sure it is clear what it is. Ideally, place it at the start of a line, so I don't have to think when writing the regex. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: If you need a tester, feel free to shoot me a pattern; I'm a bit of a regex wonk myself, plus I have a nice test app for it. Can't use my sig as poison pill, cuz often my commentary is unsigned cuz I did them 20 or 50 at a time, with the edit summary carefully explaining what was done, but no sig on the individual line items. Beyond that, quite a few have commentary by multiple people, so even if I did comment (and even sign) others may have, too. The only clear way to do this, afaics, is to have an unequivocal keep (or nuke) indicator (or more than one is okay, if you want to OR them) but anything judg-y like "substantive commentary" seems risky to me. In the latter case, we should just get everyone to review all their edits they forgot to strike, and strike them now, or forever hold their peace. In my own case, no matter how positive my comment, or how long, if there's no strike on the article title, it's a "nuke". It occurs to me we should poll everyone and get positive buy-in from all concerned that they understand the indicator system, to make sure everyone knows "strike" equals "keep" and anything else is nuke (or whatever we decide). It won't do to have 2,000 articles nuked, and then the day after, "Oh, but I thought..." Know what I mean?Mathglot (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I think the solution is to draftify until everyone agrees that no mistakes have been made, then delete. I'm happy to do the grunt work of the manual checking of longer entries, and I don't think it is particularly risky to do so. However, the vast majority are short, and can and should be handed with a little regex script. We do need to make sure that the expectation of strikeout = delete instead of strikeout = resolved was clear to all parties. As for a deleteword, literally anything will do if it is unique and impossible to misinterpret. I would recommend "kill" as this deleteword, as it is clear what the meaning is, possible to write the regex for, and currently has only a couple of false hits in the page that can be worked around easily. Does this work for you?

The reasoning for checking longer entries is to try to catch entries like this:

|Battle_of_Urica -seems fine, at least not a translation issueElinruby (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Tazerdadog (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: If by "draftify" you mean quarantine, i.e., staging/moving all the to-be-deleted files someplace prior to the hard delete, I totally agree. (Whether that should actually be the current Draft namespace is debatable, but might be the right solution.) As far as regexes, I count 738 <s> tags, 732 </s> tags, 587 keepers, and 2785 nukers as of May 7 ver. 779254187. Mathglot (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Ok, sounds good. By draftify, i meant "Move out of mainspace to a different namespace where the content is accessible for translators, but unlikely to be stumbled upon accidentally by someone who thins they are reading an actual encyclopedia article." it also should be noted that when any of these pages are deleted, it should be a WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. if someone asks for a small number to be restored after they have been deleted so that they can work on them they can just ask any admin to do so. I think that's all that needs to be resolved for now, so I'm going to go ahead and start the two week countdown until someone yells at me to stop. Pinging some participants: @S Marshall:@Elinruby:@Yngvadottir: Tazerdadog (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

For clarity, the process is: At the deadline, June 6, 2017 all struck articles listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review will be retained, and all unstruck articles will be deleted. Articles with significant commentary attached will have the commentary read before the deletion, but the default is the struck/unstruck status unless the commentary indicates clearly the opposite result is better. The work "kill" may be added to unambiguously mark an article for deletion. On or after June 6th, the regex nerds will compile a list of articles to delete and retain. The delete list will be moved to draft space (or subpages of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review), where it will be audited briefly just to make sure nobody made a systematic error, then deleted. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Per #deadline it's June 6. Your clarifications on "draftify" and the process all sound good, otherwise.
P.S. Note that one article matches /kill/i but none matches /\bkill\b/i. Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, I was unaware of that discussion, thank you. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot and Tazerdog: so for purposes of making life easier I will strike what I think should be struck. At one point people were checking my work so I was rather tentative initially. I am following the regex discussion but haven't used it in a while so save me the trouble of looking this up -- did you conclude that "kill" would be useful, or not? Elinruby (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: If the title is strikeout type, it will be kept; if it isn't, it won't. Placing "Kill" on an article has no effect at nuke time, but it does have a beneficial effect now:, i.e., it saves time for others. It lets others know that you have looked at this one and found it wanting, so they should save their breath and not even bother looking at it. For example: You marked #18 Stevia_cultivation_in_Paraguay "really, really bad". That was enough for me not to bother looking at it, so you saved me time, there. If you want to place "kill" on the non-deserving items you pass by, that will help everybody else. I may do the same. But in the end, on Nuke day, the "kill" markings won't have any effect. Make sense? Mathglot (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: yeah it does, thanks. And indeed I seem to be the most inclusionist in the discussion so if I think it's more work than it's worth I doubt that anyone else in the discussion would disagree. Elinruby (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Re-pinging@Tazerdadog: on Elinruby's behalf for confirmation. Due to the ping typo above, he may not have seen this, and it's really his call, not mine. Mathglot (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot's interpretation above is basically correct. Please do not duplicate work you've already done just to add the kill flag, but please strike entities that could be ambiguous (I will manually evaluate your intention based on comments that you left, but the default is the struck/unstruck status unless you are clear in your comments otherwise). Please do use these flags from now on, or on any where your intention is unclear. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog I'm looking at formation of the strikeout tags enclosing the linked titles, and found 43 anomalies that might trip up the nuke pattern. I'll probably starting fixing these tomorrow. Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

assumption for User space items

@Tazerdadog: I notice that various contributors are strikeout-tagging Userspace items: see #14, 15, 691, and 695 for example. I have not been tagging any of them, my assumption being that all User space items will be kept automatically regardless of presence/absence of strikeout title (and ignoring any "kill"), and since it's trivial to skip over them with the regex it's not necessary to tag them. If you agree, please make a note at WT:CXT/PTR, or let me know and I will, so everyone can save their breath marking these. Mathglot (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That was my assumption as well, all entries outside of mainspace should be fine. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

rescuing clobbers by CXT

@Tazerdadog: I just rescued #2611 Garbacz. This was a good stub created in 2008, then clobbered in 2016 by ContentTranslation tool, leaving a rubbish translation deserving of deletion. I just rescued it by reverting it back to the last good version before the clobber, and struck it as a keeper.

I'm concerned that there may be an unknown number of formerly good articles of long standing in the list that we don't want to delete, simply because they got clobbered by CXT at some point and thus ended up in the list, and time ran out before anybody got a chance to look at them. If I can get a list of potential clobbers in the next week, I will check them all out. (Am betting it's less than a couple hundred, total; but maybe S Marshall would help out, if it turns out to be more than that.) Shouldn't be too hard to create such a list:

pseudocode to generate a list of possible CXT clobbers

# Print out names of Titles in CXT/PTR that may be clobbers of good, older articles. # (Doesn't handle the case where oldest version is CXT, followed by user edits to make it good, # followed by 2nd cxt later which clobbers the good version; but that's probably rare.) # For each item in WP:CXT/PTR list do: $line = text from next <ol> item in list If the bracketed article title near the beginning of $line is within s-tags, next loop Extract $title from the $line If $title is not in article space, next loop Read Rev History of $title into array @RevHist Get $oldest_es = edit summary string of oldest version (last index in @RevHist) If 'ContentTranslation' is a substring of $oldest_es, next loop Pop @RevHist: drop oldest summary from @RevHist so it now contains all versions except the oldest one If 'ContentTranslation' is a substring of @RevHist viewed as a single string, do: Print "$title possibly clobbered by CXT" End For

Are you able to create a list like this, or do you know someone who could? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Why not just ask the deleting administrators to check the translation is the first revision before they push the button?—S Marshall T/C 23:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

That would be a shitton of work for the deleting admin. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

3.6 metric shit tonnes, to be exact. ;-) And thanks for the ping, Taz. Mathglot (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: I think I've maybe got your query: I see from Samtar's query that you use MySQL. If that's the case, then to do this, I think you can take Samtar's query 11275 exactly as it is, with one more WHERE clause, to exclude the oldest revision:

AND WHERE rev.date > @MIN_REV_DATE

where @MIN_REV_DATE is either separately selected and assigned to a variable [as there would be one min value per title, it would have to either be an array variable or more likely a 2-col temp table with title and MIN date, which could be joined to rev.] Edited by Mathglot (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC), or probably more efficiently, a subquery getting the oldest rev date for that page using standard "minimum value of a column" techniques. So the result will be a subset of Samtar's original query, limited to cases where ct_tag was equal to 'ContentTranslation' somewhere other than in the oldest revision for that page. (By the way, I don't have access to your file structure, so I have no idea if 'rev.date' really exists, but what I mean by that, is the TIMESTAMP of that particular revision, whatever the field is really called. Also, again depending on the file structure, you might need to use techqniques for groupwise minimum of a column to get the min rev date for each page.) Mathglot (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Unfortunately, I've never used MySQL before. I was hoping I could muddle through with some luck and googling, but I had no such luck. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: And I could totally do it if I had the file structure but I don't; but my strong hunch is that this is very easy, and needs one additional "WHERE" plus another query (probably the groupwise MIN thing) to grab the min value to exclude in the new WHERE. OTOH, if you have access to Quarry, shoot me your query by email if you want, and I'll fix it up, and you can take that and try again, and with several back-and-forths I bet we can get it. Or if you've got zip, I can try a few establishing queries for you to try, and then we can try to build the real one depending on the results you get from those. (Or, we can just wait for someone else to do it, if they will; it really should only take minutes.) Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog and S Marshall: I don't think this is getting enough attention, and your previous request appears to have stalled at V Pump. This is not good. We need to get this list. Is there someone you can lean on, or request help from, to kick-start this? Alternatively, if someone will give me access to Quarry, a MySQL account permitting SELECT and CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE (or even better, MEMORY table) and a pointer to the file structure descriptions, I can do this myself and create a list to protect these articles. Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

*Bump* Mathglot (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thanks, Cryptic for db report 19060. We now have the list of clobbers, and can attend to it. Please see WP:CXT/PTR/Clobbers. Mathglot (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

X2 Nuke time

The time agreed on by consensus has passed over a month ago. In the interest of getting things rolling again, here are the lists of articles to be draftified, and the list of articles we were able to retain.

In the interest of making my work easy to check, here are the steps and regex I used to identify what should be draftified or retained:

Technical regex stuff

Working on the wikitext: Plaintext find and replace <s>| with |<s> Replace regular expression ^[^|].* with | (removing lines that do not start with a pipe, reducing the list to just the articles) Plaintext replace | wit nothing regex replace ^[\n\r]+ with nothing (remove blank lines) plaintext replace ''' with nothing For the to be draftified: regex replace ^[<].* with nothing (remove strikeouts) regex replace ^[\n\r]+ with nothing (remove blank lines) Regex replace ]].* with ]] (remove everything after the first pair of closing square brackets) For the to be retained: regex replace ^[[].* with nothing (remove strikeouts) regex replace ^[\n\r]+ with nothing (remove blank lines) plaintext replace <s> with nothing Find the string "kill", manually deal with any instances (only one used in the correct context was [[Gangsta Black]])

Pinging @MusikAnimal:, who has a bot designed to move pages to draftspace en masse. Also pinging @Mathglot:, @SMarshall:, @DGG:, and @Cryptic:. Please ping anyone whom I have forgotten.

Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixing ping @S Marshall: Tazerdadog (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

If there are no objections, can we get started on this @MusikAnimal:? Tazerdadog (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: I'll also wait just a tad bit to make sure there is no opposition. Correct me if I'm wrong, we want to do the same thing as last time – move to draft space without leaving a redirect, then deactivate the categories? Also, I need something to link to in the move summary. The page should clearly describe why we're doing this and that there was a relevant discussion, etc. Not sure if this discussion will suffice, but anyway lots of people were confused last time so the more clear we can be the better — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Heh, scrolling up it looks like this is the right discussion to link to (via PermaLink). Please confirm :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Should be the exact same as last time - move to draft space, and then deactivate the categories. The above discussion is the appropriate one to link to. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Despite a big review effort in May-June coordinated by Mathglot and Elinruby, which has saved about a third of the articles in question, we still stand to lose many babies in this bathwater. The intent still seems to be that mass-draftification will be quickly followed by mass-deletion. Now the original discussion on X2 was closed urging a degree of caution ... Administrators must apply judgment and speedily delete only CXT articles that would obviously require more effort to fix than to start from scratch. However, this present talk of "nuking" suggests that little further review will be carried out before wielding X2.

If this is the case we will be deleting articles such as Jessica Vall, which has been extensively edited and expanded, leaving virtually nothing of what originally emerged from CXT. Other cases include Juana de la Concepción, Isabel Hubard Escalera, Pedro Pablo Oliva. They are now articles in clear English, well referenced and probably to certainly notable. Elinruby, you did a lot of work to improve Berta Cabral, are you content to see it go down the pan? Domingo Pais is now a valid redirect; Aphelion (disambiguation) is a valid disambig page. Are we to condemn all these because of the circumstances of their birth?

Yes, the articles listed should be moved to draft space, which should allay any BLP concerns. Then, they should remain there until individually reviewed. Those still in garbled English (referring to people as "it" and so on), unreferenced or adverts, can then be tagged X2 without more ado. Those that competent editors have worked on and made into decent articles should be moved back to mainspace: Noyster (talk), 10:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Noyster: I am perfectly happy to leave the articles in draftspace indefinitely instead of deleting them. However, it is time to get them out of mainspace. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Poking people on this, any objections before we move forward? Tazerdadog (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: The "to be draftified" list above contains a lot of red links and redirects. I assume this is stale data? Should the redirects be moved along with the target, and the deleted pages simply skipped? — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal:, the list I used was the master list located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review, and the list was taken from the wikitext at approximately the time I posted the list. No effort was made to remove the red-linked pages in that list. Redlinks should definitely just be skipped. I think redirects should also be skipped, as they can't realistically be faulty translations. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I am preoccupied with non-Wikipedia things at the moment and will be for several days more. Personally I think X2 is a huge mistake but I've been through the list thoroughly and though I am sure I have missed some good articles, since I found more every time I looked, I can't realistically commit right now to more than I have already committed to. So. My question is, how would I find these articles once they are in draft? Berta Carbral was, as I recall, an Endo999 special on kind of an important topic -- given the egregious errors I have found in some of his other work though, I can't really trust it without putting it under a microscope. Despite the previous work. I have enough going on with his articles on military fortifications, which I have said I would rescue. (And I really have to say that banning him would have made much mor sense than this ham-handed wholesale deletion. But I digress.) I can't really take the BLP claim seriously since the two articles out of the 3500 on the list that DID have BLP issues have been left to languish on the list. But ok. This was decided, albeit on the the basis of wildly exaggerated fears, and I guess we're doing it whether it's a good idea or not. Elinruby (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Correcting myself -- Berta Cabral was not created by Endo999, and as Noyster remarked, it's really not that bad, so I have pre-emptively moved it to my draft space, as it fits a category of article I have tried to fish out of this mess. I am fairly sure there are others that should not be deleted either, but just tell me how to find them and I guess we'll go from there. I do stand by my comments on Endo999 tho ;) Elinruby (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

When this mass move to draft space finally takes place, what I think should happen is that a list of articles moved will be retained and its location made known at least here and at WT:PNT, with editors encouraged to continue reviewing them one by one. Editors having reviewed an article may then move it back to mainspace or tag X2, but no mass delete: Noyster (talk), 07:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

We will certainly widely publicize the location of the drafts once the move is made. Are there any objections to proceeding with the move itself? Tazerdadog (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank)

Recently, there has been some confusion on whether or not the 7 July 2017 UNESCO decision to list the Old Town of Hebron, specifically the Cave of the Patriarchs, as a World Heritage Site, can or cannot be listed in the main list of World Heritage Sites in Israel. I have proposed that it be listed there, while other co-editors have disagreed with me. Wikipedia policies outlined in WP:Naming conventions (West Bank) do not specifically deal with the historical/geographical aspects of sites in the West Bank and which places were, in antiquity, called by different names. For example, the geographical place known as the "Land of Israel" is also a country historically defined as such in the Midrash and Mishnah (compiled in 189 CE). Saying that a place (Hebron) is in the Land of Canaan, Judea, Palestine, the Land of Israel, the Holy Land, or whatever, is NOT necessarily a political statement, as it is a historical statement. It just so happens that the Government of Israel calls the country by its historical name. Had the Wikipedia article, "World Heritage Sites in Israel," been titled "World Heritage Sites in the State of Israel," the resentment in having Hebron or the Cave of the Patriarchs listed there may have held up, insofar as that is disputed. But, historically, there is no dispute whatsoever about its historical connections to these geographical names. If UNESCO wanted to politicize something, as in the recent case involving Hebron (see: UNESCO puts Hebron on endangered heritage list, outraging Israel), does that mean that we, on Wikipedia, must also politicize the same thing? Of course not! Please clarify Wikipedia's policy in WP:Naming conventions (West Bank) with respect to the use of geographical names used in antiquity, and which are NOT meant to offend any ethnic group, per se, but only mention its historical context.Davidbena (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I think in general to avoid conflict, both categories can be added. So if there's a CAT for Palestine Heritage, you can also have one for Israel heritage, which I added. Also, in general the only people to use categories are editors involved, I don't think any reader ever uses these. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I would also agree to that. The use of the category, "World Heritage Sites in Israel", is still valid with respect to the Cave of the Patriarchs and/or the Old Town of Hebron for the simple reason that its being designated as a World Heritage Site is irrelevant of the country, seeing that the identification of the place itself is undisputed, although the UNESCO board members have opted to take a political stand by not calling the country of its location "Israel," using instead the word "Palestine." The name of the country is disputed merely on political grounds, but should not have any legal bearing on making mention of the country based on its accepted use and understanding, broadly construed. By "broadly construed" I mean that "Israel" and "Palestine" are one and the same country, the one word used in place of the other by Jews and by Arabs.Davidbena (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. UNESCO did not accidentally call it a "Palestinian World Heritage Site" — and it is not Wikipedia's place to insert itself into the controversy and revise it based on editorial POV. For example, let's conisder the argument above:

• "The name of the country is disputed merely on political grounds, but should not have any legal bearing on making mention of the country based on its accepted use and understanding, broadly construed. By "broadly construed" I mean that "Israel" and "Palestine" are one and the same country"
• "it is a historical statement. It just so happens that the Government of Israel calls the country by its historical name. Had the Wikipedia article, "World Heritage Sites in Israel," been titled "World Heritage Sites in the State of Israel," the resentment in having Hebron or the Cave of the Patriarchs listed there may have held up, insofar as that is disputed. But, historically, there is no dispute whatsoever about its historical connections to these geographical names."

Following the above logic should we also add it to "World Heritage sites in the Ottoman Empire"? Probably not right? I don't think the UNESCO classification is meant to refer to "historical territories" (in which case, we would have to add it "World Heritage sites in the Ottoman Empire" or "World Heritage sites in the Kingdom of Jerusalem" or "World Heritage sites in the Roman Empire" (since Israel was "erased from the map by the Romans" as is so often pointed out, though no maps existed at this time, aside from a stone Babylonian tablet that depicted Babylon as the center of the world.) So to the point, its fairly obvious that UNESCO doesn't classify sites based on where they existed historically, but rather where they exist in terms of modern geographical boundaries. So, no, absolutely not, and I recommend other editors become involved in this discussion to make sure Wikipedia is not used as a platform for this kind of personal advocacy. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The tag Category:World Heritage Sites in Israel was recently added to Cave of the Patriarchs. I removed it, and there is now a discussion fork on this topic underway at Talk:Cave of the Patriarchs#Categorisation with respect to status as World Heritage Site. Snuge purveyor (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• PROPOSAL: Since, as far as historical topography is concerned, no juridical legitimacy or anything "binding" can be ascribed to UNESCO's decision of 7 July 2017 to mention the Old Town of Hebron (the Cave of the Patriarchs) as a World Heritage Site in Palestine, anymore than its decision earlier (in 2001) to mention the fortress Masada as a World Heritage Site in Israel, as you can see here: UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Israel, although both places are located in the so-called "West Bank" captured by Israel in 1967 (or what some hope to be the future State of Palestine). UNESCO's use of nomenclature in this most recent matter is based purely upon political motives. However, in terms of Wikipedia's recognition of this unresolved border dispute, or its leaning towards any one side in the Arab-Israeli conflict, let it be resolved that we, as neutral observers, steer clear from taking any political stand, but maintain a neutral point of view, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL. In consideration of which, it is here proposed that the following disclaimer be appended to the Wikipedia pages broadly construed with the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely, that an asterisk (*) be placed after the word "Israel" in the category known as "World Heritage Sites in Israel," with a reference to the effect that the proper name "Israel" is used here apolitically, that is, as a geographical/historical toponym, often used in the same sense that "Palestine" is used, and whose recognized borders may actually be disputed; or vice-versa, the proper name "Palestine" is used here apolitically, etc. This may bring some succor to this complex and troubling issue.Davidbena (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Madame chairwoman! Madame chairwoman! I rise to a point of order!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• SIMPLIFIED REVISED PROPOSAL: As per Wikipedia's recognition of the unresolved border dispute between Israelis and Palestinians, or its leaning towards any one side in the Arab-Israeli conflict, let it be resolved that we, as neutral observers, steer clear from taking any political stand, but maintain a neutral point of view, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL. In consideration of which, it is here proposed that the following disclaimer be appended to the Wikipedia pages broadly construed with the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely, that an asterisk (*) be placed after the word "Israel" in the category known as "World Heritage Sites in Israel," with a reference to the effect that the proper name "Israel" is used here apolitically, that is, as a geographical/historical toponym, often used in the same sense that "Palestine" is used, and whose recognized borders may actually be disputed; or vice-versa, the proper name "Palestine" is used here apolitically, etc. This may bring some succor to this complex and troubling issue.
• My contention is that you cannot call half of the country "Palestine" and half of the country "Israel," when both toponyms were used for ONE and THE SAME country. Besides, it was the British who first proposed dividing the country in 1937, and which proposal eventually led to a war between Jews and Arabs, each trying to gain as much control of the country as possible. As far as borders are concerned, nothing has been resolved between the two parties in this dispute ---- a dispute, mind you, which I call one of the great "political intrigues" of the 21st century! Davidbena (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Your definition of NPOV is odd, to say the least. I agree with Seraphim above: we should call it what UNESCO calls it. The insertion of asterisks and argumentation is saying that we have more authority to name these sites than UNESCO does, which is patently ridiculous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: editors have been "politicizing" the situation since who-knows-when. But why do you insist on politicizing the situation when it negates Wikipedia's stated policy? As you can see here, the Israeli objection to calling regions of the country by two names - the one "Palestine" and the other "Israel" - based on political motives, or more precisely, on the now defunct 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan, is what we are dealing with here. (For the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan, see discussion here [Green Line]). Israelis view the entire country as one, but to give two separate names for two regions of the country is inherently wrong and is based on perpetuating an errant political stand taken by the British in 1937 who sought to divide the country. Moreover, the 1949 Armistice Agreement is no longer binding. While some might refuse to recognize Israel's de facto claims and hold of this territory, hoping to return to the pre-1967 border, the reality is such that the entire country is called "Israel" by the Israelis who live here. What's more, in a broader sense, the country's historical and geographical names have never changed, whether Palestine or the Land of Israel. So, I object to your claim that UNESCO has got more authority than do editors here on Wikipedia who have looked at all the facts. Are you saying that UNESCO's decision to mention Hebron as being in "Palestine" was not politically motivated? As for Wikipedia's naming conventions, the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed. My proposal is to leave the "West Bank" just as it is (since it only describes a geographical region that once divided positions held by Israel and Jordan), but to add a disclaimer there, stating to the effect that Wikipedia's use of the words "Palestine" and/or "Israel" are meant to be understood apolitically, and as purely geographical-historical terms used in antiquity. In this manner, we steer clear from politicizing the situation. Whenever editors mention "Israel" and their intent is to describe a political case involving the State of Israel, or the Government of Israel, the words "State of Israel" or "Government of Israel" should preface their editorial entry. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your wall of text doesn't interest me in the least. Our naming convention can be simply stated: we call things by their common names whenever possible. If you're taking the position that when UNESCO names a UNESCO World Heritage Site, it doesn't create the common name for that UNESCO WOrld Heritage Site, and we should look instead to what other non-UNESCO entities call it, then your position is extremely foolish and does not deserve any serious attention. Certainly, it's not going to get any more from me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I see no potential justification for Beyond My Ken's argument. "Israel" and "Palestine" are not part of UNESCO's name of the site, but only of the list UNESCO assigns it to. As List of World Heritage Sites in Israel includes sites not (yet) designated by UNESCO, but with a tentative designation by the State of Israel, it would be absurd to move a site based on UNESCO's choice of country. After all, it's a World Heritage Site, not an Israeli or Palestinian Heritage Site. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, Arthur Rubin, you see no justification for using UNESCO's name for a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Is that correct? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It should be remembered that UNESCO has an overwhelming Arab membership, those who may have some slight "bias" in their country designation for Hebron, a place, mind you, under Israeli control, and where Jewish towns have sprung-up as in former times, where there was once a large Jewish population before being evicted. I think that Arthur Rubin's point is clear, namely, that when institutions like UNESCO dispute with the Government of Israel who controls the site, this is where maintaining our neutrality should step-in. After all, why do we have WP:NPOV, if not to be upheld in these cases?Davidbena (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying that the 13 Arab nations which are member states of UNESCO completely dominate the other 137 nations which are members, despite being outnumbered 10.5-to-1, and that's not to mention the 10 Associate Members? [3]. Davidbena, you're throwing a lot of baloney around, and it appears your motivation is not to uphold our naming conventions, it is to win a picayune "victory" for Israel over Palestine. That, Davidbena, is violating WP:NPOV, in case you were wondering.

(And yes, Davidbena, I'd be saying precisely the same thing to an editor who was trying to win such a "victory" for Palestine over Israel. I'm actually a very strong supporter of the right of Israel to exist and to be safe within its borders, although I'm far from pleased with their policies regarding the West Bank. You see, one can criticize Israel and not be antisemitic or pro-Palestinian. I think both sides have behaved terribly, and neither has done much to help craft a solution to a terrifically complex problem.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:, just for the record, what I meant to say is that Israel is vastly outnumbered by the Arab States in the UN and at UNESCO, who can often sway the balance in any vote.Davidbena (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It appears that "Palestine" is not part of UNESCO's name of the site. Even if it were, we need to decide which lists and categories it belongs in. As it stands, if Hebron were excluded, we would need to take Category:World Heritage Sites in Israel and List of World Heritage Sites in Israel out of the Category:Israel hierarchy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The UNESCO name for the site is "Hebron/Al-Khalil Old Town" and it lists the country it is in as "Palestine". [4]. As long as "Hebron/Al-Khalil Old Town" is use as our name for the site, I don't see any real reason it can't be listed in both Israel and Palestine categories, since both claim the territory. However, the article itself should describe is as being listed as in Palestine, although the Israeli claim can be mentioned as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like to disagree with BMK here. The WP article on Hebron indicates clearly, both in the text and in its categories, that Hebron is part of contemporary Palestine and not part of contemporary Israel (although of course it is significant to Jewish history). I don't see any reason why articles on World Heritage Sites in Hebron should be classified differently by country than is the town itself, particularly since in literally all other cases the WP lists of world heritage sites by country follow contemporary national boundaries. Newimpartial (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

How many other UNESCO World Heritage Sites are located in a place which is claimed by more than one country? (That's a serious question, I don't know and would like to find out whether this case is sui generis or not.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

BMK, in addition to the Hebron site, Battir and Church of the Nativity are in Palestine / claimed by Israel. I know there are zero World Heritage Sites in Taiwan. Unsure about other disputed areas. Snuge purveyor (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Then perhaps those two sites should be used as models for how the new site should be categorized. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking through our encyclopaedia, I've also found that the site Chersonesus is claimed by both Ukraine and Russia. Our infobox on that page does not list a state party, but it is listed in Category:World Heritage Sites in Ukraine, as this was the original designation by UNESCO and they are maintaining it. Snuge purveyor (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The Mughal Gardens in Kashmir are in territory claimed by India and Pakistan (but administered by India); heritage sites in Tibet would also classify as "disputed" and the declaration of the Hoh Xil region last week was particularly contentious from this point of view. Currently WP does not list the new site among the World Heritage Sites in Tibet (it is in Tibet, and straddles the border between the Tibet autonomous region and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China). The sites in Lhasa, designated as the "Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace", are currently listed on WP as "UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Tibet" which is a nested subcategory of "UNESCO World Heritage Sites in China", for what that's worth. As far as I know, UNESCO itself recognizes the Kashmir site as part of India and the Tibet sites as part of China. Newimpartial (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I have posted a response to this conversation here. Snuge purveyor (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

There is falsehood being used as an argument here that must be corrected. If you look at Israel's response to the Hebron listing, for example here and here (these examples chosen by Davidbena), what you will find is statements like "the move negated the deep Jewish ties to the biblical town and its ancient shrine" and "Israel will present to the world the historical truth and the Jewish People's deep connection—of thousands of years—to Hebron" and similar. What you don't find there is a claim that Hebron lies in the modern state of Israel. That's because Israel has never taken steps to annex the site and on the contrary operates a military government there based in the international law of occupation. This is not a place which is claimed as sovereign territory by two nations, so all arguments based on that assumption have to be set aside. In summary, "World Heritage Site in Israel" is false because it is not in Israel. It would be beyond absurd to add a category that makes a claim even beyond Israel's own claim. Israel's objection to the UNESCO listing should be mentioned in the article, but we are not supposed to use categories as a way of promoting fringe opinions on a dispute. Zero^talk 10:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Zero0000:, a colleague on the Cave of the Patriarchs Talk-Page has suggested a good solution (see here), and that is to rename the category to read: List of World Heritage Sites in Disputed Territories. This seems to be the most compromising thing that we can do under the current circumstances. Anyway, my own suggestions have not gained much ground here. (As for why Israel has not "formally annexed" the Hebron region is simple to understand. The international and public outcry which would ensue after such a declaration has prevented Israel from doing it on several occasions. Does this mean that Israel does not view the country as united as one nation and one country under the banner of the political State of Israel? Of course not! Israel still sees the country as one, insisting rather on "de facto annexation" of Hebron, rather than "de jure annexation," for the reason I mentioned above). Anyway, in the spirit of compromise, can we agree to change the category to read: "World Heritage Sites in Disputed Territories"? ---Davidbena (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

David, your facts are wrong and the "compromise" is not a compromise at all but rather a surrender to the Israeli fringe position. Zero^talk 20:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Lol. Believe me that I am at ease with my conscience, knowing who is actually in control here. Nothing can be done in Hebron without the approbation of the Israeli government. As for Wikipedia, here we're trying to "paint" some civility into the overall "convoluted" picture. Let's hear what other editors have to say about the change of category to "World Heritage Sites in Disputed Territories."Davidbena (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it would be particularly useful as a category. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The solution propososed just above by Davidbena is to use a new category: List of World Heritage Sites in Disputed Territories. That category would more accurately be titled List of World Heritage Sites in Territories disputed by Wikipedia editors. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That could end up being a much longer list, couldn't it? If people go back to "historical" assertions of belonging for heritage sites, the whole idea of discrete territoriality would be basically out the window. Newimpartial (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Guys, you made me laugh here. So my suggestions, once more, have garnered no support. Fine. I have no qualms about that. Consensus is what matters here. On a lighter note, I have read where the Israeli Prime-Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, wants to build a museum near or adjacent to the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron so as to preserve the memorial of Jewish history on that site. Perhaps then we can discuss the name of the category such a museum would conjure up in our minds. Maybe, "The Israeli-built museums in Palestine." Wow, that for me would be like preserving the country's mediaeval namesake, which I'm perfectly fine with. Cheers!Davidbena (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

A Question to Administrators: Is the use of the word "Palestine," as a "political entity," correct when used as it is in the current category, "World Heritage Sites in Palestine"? The question must be taken in consideration of the following facts: It is true that the Government of Israel has not made any "de jure" declaration of annexation with regard to Hebron, although the Israeli government has and still does place Hebron and the "West Bank" on maps that are designated entirely as "Israel," or the "State of Israel." I have read also in other places that there is actually a "de facto" annexation of these places by the Government of Israel (which sources I can provide if anyone is interested in seeing them). On a practical level, however, any authority that the Palestinian Authority might have over the Arab population of Hebron and its immediate regions has been given to it by the State of Israel, with respect to civil laws and administration, and must still coordinate with Israel over security matters based on the Oslo Accords. This means that the State of Israel is still an active player in everything that concerns life in Hebron. Land Administration of this region is still largely in the sole hands and responsibility of the Israeli Government, under the “Custodian of Absentee Property & Israel Land Authority of Judea and Samaria,” an office attached to the Israeli Ministry of Defense/Civil Administration, and which bases its jurisdiction on the "Absentee Property – Judea and Samaria Act- 59/1967." So, is it correct for us to be listing any "World Heritage Site" in Palestine (the political entity known as such), simply because UNESCO decided to do so?Davidbena (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Your "question to administrator" is not an administrator issue. Admins don't rule on content, only behavior. In fact, this entire thread is essentially a content dispute that should have been shut down long ago. I request that this thread be closed'. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

So then based purely on your recommendation that administrators are only required to intervene in behavioral issues or whenever there is misconduct of Wikipedia contributors, I am alleging here what to me seems to be a blatant "misconduct" by co-editors wishing to advocate their own political agenda, infringing upon the guidelines set in WP:SOAPBOX, insofar that they are pushing a "pro-Palestinian" ("anti-Israel") agenda, hoping to expunge the fact that the Israeli Government controls the administration of the "West Bank", and to highlight their displeasure over Israel's hold of this territory (mind you, disputed territory, based on Disputed legality of Israeli settlements) the same co-editors have insisted on using the word "Palestine" with regard to the West Bank (in the sense of a political entity, and in spite of the fact that there is no sovereign "State of Palestine"), when they should have rather steered clear from this contentious issue and used the word "West Bank" instead, just as it is outlined specifically in Wikipedia's policy, described under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank). There's no need for us, as impartial editors, to politicize this issue, hoping to influence others by calling the region by a different name. The category that now reads "World Heritage Sites in Palestine" ought to be changed to read "World Heritage Sites in the West Bank."Davidbena (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

What's more, per Wikipedia:Consensus defined, "Consensus is often confused for the attainment of a specific percentage of votes in support of something. As Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is not based on votes, but on consensus as defined above. Therefore, consensus constitutes not an inflexible number, but a range of criteria and factors which can mold to every one of the discussions on Wikipedia."Davidbena (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Block review of Lopunny

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Final 5 Frenzy. Mz7 (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

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

---

I blocked Lopunny (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for page move vandalism. However, I see I became aware of his vandalism because I reverted his revert of my revert of an IP's edit at 2002, so I might be considered WP:INVOLVED. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Jumping immediately to a 1 week block for vandalism? Seeing some strange back and forth movements, but not a lot to immediately jump up to 1 week block. Also where is the escalating warning. Personally I think this a bit overreaction for the actions presented. Also remember the cooldown blocks aren't appropriate either. Hasteur (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what cooldown blocks have to do with anything; this was certainly not a cooldown block. Anyway, if it had been me, since there's also a history of productive editing, I'd have probably pointedly asked them what was going on, and given them one final wakeup call before blocking. So I'd suggest unblocking, and replacing the block template with such a note. But vandalism isn't some minor infraction, it strikes at the heart of what we're trying to do here, and if this block had been placed by someone less involved with the editor, it would be on the aggressive side, but within the range of common practice. There's no need for an escalating series of blocks starting with 24 hours or anything, we block vandals indefinitely all the time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Unblocked, now. The editor has a mixture of reasonably good edits, reverting vandalism, and adding vandalism. I was actually considering that the account may have been compromised, as this is a new type of vandalism, but he self-corrected the last page move. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing, as they had some ok edits, then this vandalism, so I wondered if he was compromised (my little brother did it) or just goofing around and not realizing we take that seriously. It is a little unusual. I agree with Floq on the duration. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Based on edits since the block was undone, I've reblocked indef. This is just a returning troll (admins can look at deleted contribs). --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Final 5 Frenzy, which revolves around the pattern of page move vandalism at Portal:Current events/2016 April 14. Mz7 (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Edit histories with revdelete

When doing a revision comparison, has anyone else noticed the new "Browse history" dropbox? Reason I am asking is that, if a version is revdeleted, you can still view the user name and edit summary in that dropdown box, even though said user name and edit summary have been hidden. You can't view the actual edit diff, thankfully. I presume this is a WMF issue, but... Feel free to move/forward this to a better place (it's not coming to me right now) per BEANS, and then revdelete this. It's OK, my user name and edit summaries are usually relatively safe... 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I was unable to replicate this. Can you confirm it works when logged out or logged in to a non-administrator account? Tazerdadog (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Same here - here is a sample page Sandbox33 - the info is only showing in the slider when logged in as an account with that access (e.g. admins) @78.26: if you have more info we can get a phab case open if this is a non-admin leak. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into this. Indeed, the slider does not show the information when I am logged-out. I don't have a non-admin account, so I can't check that, sorry. (I'll create one if you think it would be useful.) That said, I don't really think this should be visible to me unless I make a deliberate effort to view the material (for cause). I do not know if material suppressed by the WMF shows up. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I just tested it with a suppressed edit summary and it shows in the browse history dropdown (but not in the normal diff), which matches with it showing RevDel'd details to an admin (I'm an Oversighter). It looks like the browse history dropdown circumvents unhide=1 in the URL (that is, it shows everything you're entitled to see without asking for confirmation as the normal diff does). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@78.26:, I think you should create a non-admin account, and confirm for yourself that it isn't a non-admin leak. Once that's done, we can (and should) have the discussion about whether the feature can be improved by forcing admins to make a deliberate effort to view RevDeleted material. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

We almost certainly should require a deliberate effort if only because some material is revdel'd because it is disruptive (e.g. material that causes certain browsers or operating systems to crash). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I just tried with the above sample page and it will not display the removed details to me. Home Lander (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, 78.26 here under the brand-new-shiny alternative non-admin account. I can confirm there is not a non-admin leak. So, let the discussion commence regarding ease of viewing rev-delete material for admins. Thanks everyone. Shellacked! (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be better for admins to see the username crossed out - they could, at the same time, see who the user is and the fact that the username was deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Od Mishehu, in Preferences there's a "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" option. Primefac (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving under the assumption that we want to have admins make a deliberate effort to view revdeleted material, what is the cleanest way to implement this? Some kind of Phabricator request? Tazerdadog (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sleeper socks?

I stumbled upon HDouglas, GDouglas, JDouglas, NDouglas and MDouglas. All accounts were created the same day, within minutes of each other. Each user page is identical or near to it. I can't imagine we have five relatives that all decide to create Wikipedia accounts the same day. Each account generally has only edited their user page. I worry that after a month it's too late to get any SPI results. Am I wrong to assume there's something odd here? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)

NDouglas has posted at BikeSally, which has similar behavior, including the comments when creating their talk page. Looks like that account has existed since 2010. Home Lander (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

HDouglas, GDouglas, JDouglas, NDouglas, MDouglas, BikeSally, and Buaidh are  Technically indistinguishable, but I'm not really getting a sockpuppeting vibe here. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Do they edit from Colorado, as they all claim? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't make a habit of speaking for other people, but I'm guessing that Ks0stm would tell you that we really shouldn't say. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Buaidh, who is included in the above group, has been on Wikipedia since 2006 and has 170,000 edits. This page suggests he might have crossed paths with User:BikeSally. I'll leave him a note that he's been mentioned here. It occurs to me that the Douglas-named accounts might all have been created in preparation for a Wikipedia-sponsored event in June 2017 near Denver. (See also Wikipedia:Meetup/Colorado/Wiknic/2017). EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

And Buaidh edits everything Colorado; I doubt there's a town or a major politician in the state whose article he's not edited. So if he's indistinguishable from them, they're definitely in Colorado. I'd be absolutely shocked if he were involved in anything untoward. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting the account creator userright is the proper way to prepare for an edit-a-thon, not this. Further, why would Buaidh put stuff on the userpages if they anticipated new users that would need accounts? Even if I knew the Douglas family and they all planned to be at that event, I wouldn't create them accounts and user pages. This is either some poor thinking by Buaidh, a mistake from the CU check, or this is evidence of an attempt at socking. I'm not sure which but I didn't volunteer at WP:NPP to find stuff like this. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Account creator is for if you are creating some or all of the accounts, but it looks like all of these accounts were created by a browser that wasn't logged into an account. If you've been here 10+ years, and you want to go socking, you know not to use similar names and not to edit all the userpages; at worst, this is mildly confusing, and at best (I don't see why not to think this) it's an experienced user helping some newbies. Nyttend (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Jodie Whittaker

Already requested at WP:RPP. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Could an Admin please semi-protect Jodie Whittaker, who has been announced as the new doctor in Doctor Who.. loads of vandalism as a result. JMHamo (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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

XTools 3.0 Beta

The XTools and Community Tech teams are pleased to announce the public beta of XTools 3.0! After a year of work, we have rewritten the code for increased maintainability and stability. We have also redesigned the interface.

You are more than welcome to help us test it at xtools.wmflabs.org. We welcome your bug reports and feature requests on Phabricator (Please tag it with "tool-labs-tools-xtools").

On behalf of the XTools team, ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say something · What I've done} 05:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a bug tracker for it? On the user edit count page, the Time Card chart shows days from Monday through Sunday on the Y axis, but hovering over the bubbles shows that the data points are in the opposite order - ie a bubble at the Monday level according to the Y-axis is labelled Sunday and vice-versa. GoldenRing (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Although I'm sure Matthew will see this report, phabricator (project Tool-labs-tools-xtools) is where bug reports can go -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Indeed, that's the correct place. If you have trouble with Phabricator, feel free to drop a note on my talk page and I can file the bug on your behalf. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say something · What I've done} 16:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hey, it looks super sleek! Feeding your data hunger. Great work! Mz7 (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thank you so much! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say something · What I've done} 19:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hey! I'm admin worthy! Katie^talk 19:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  Heh KrakatoaKatie, when someone like me is only 113 points behind you, I wouldn't boast to much about it :p Mind you, it's a bit like googling yourself, wikipedia-style isn't it?! :D — fortunavelut luna 19:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  *Basks in her perfectionism while wondering if this thing is really a good idea* Katie^talk 20:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  913 of worthiness - well how about that? You could have been more worthy if you'd only created more deleted pages. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  We have a slightly-cooler one that Enterprisey adapted from ScottyWong's tool, now at [5]. Maybe Enterprisey and Matt should get together and implement one tool instead of two? :D --Izno (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see the algorithm behind this thing...pointless without it. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The original code for AdminScore was in the old XTools, so I migrated it over 1:1. Wasn't aware there was another one.

@Train2104: Indeed, I'll put it in our documentation. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say something · What I've done} 21:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Enterprisey's code. I think the one in XTools and the one Enterprisey put together are both adapted from Scottywong but Enterprisey has poked his since. --Izno (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I used the algorithm from Scottywong's Python code, and then added a couple more "score components". Mine is Javascript-based because I was tired of waiting a super long time for the tool to load. At the moment, the XTools version looks like it caps each component at +100. Mine just uses logarithms to make sure that going from 9 to 10 years, for example, gives you less points than going from 1 to 2 years. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd also like to make a pass at XTools', it should not be returning consistent 100s like it currently is. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say something · What I've done} 08:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Matthewrbowker: Not exactly something that I find urgent enough to file a bug report over, but it would be nice to have a time zone label on the time card so that people know whether it's in local or UTC. I'm sure it's in UTC, but from looking at my time card pattern that's not clear right off the bat. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: Thanks for the report. Go ahead and file a task anyway, as that way we can track it. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say something · What I've done} 21:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yuck – I miss lists of the top edited pages in each namespace in the Edit Counter – I hope they restore that functionality: I found it quite useful on occasion, esp. for remembering what pages I had visited in Draftspace... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Noted, thank you for the feedback. T171150 has been filed if you'd like to track it. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say something · What I've done} 08:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Signature question

Does WP:AGF and WP:NPA apply to customised signatures? I've recently come across an editor with a customised signature that attacks a certain group of editors, and doesn't show good faith towards that group. Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with problematic signatures "Wikipedia's Username policy describes accepted practices and behavior in naming and operating a user account on Wikipedia that apply to both usernames and signatures" Username policy: "The following types of usernames are prohibited: Contain words or phrases that are likely to offend other contributors ... Contain or imply personal attacks or contain contentious material about living persons" If it applies to the username, it applies to the signature. — Maile (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Following further discussion at User talk:Maile66, it seems that the particular editor I had in mind has already been discussed. There are better things for me to waste my time on that pursuing this particular issue, although I am glad to learn that the general principle holds firm and is backed by policy. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Need one more editor to volunteer joint closure on referrer info RfC discussion

We had Winged Blades of Godric and Cyberpower678 declaring themselves last month as volunteers to do the joint closure on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy. However, the RfC discussion was relisted for an extended time. Its proposer Guy Macon, who can explain more than I, has concerns about WMF staff trying to influence the WMF into reconsidering the abidance to the consensus. Therefore, I believe that more volunteers, including uninvolved but experienced administrators, are needed to do the joint closures, especially to "address the question of whether Wikipedia or the WMF has the final authority on what referrer information we send," quote from Guy Macon. Any more volunteers, like a third and/or fourth closer? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC); see newer comments below. --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I find this in bad faith. Everybody and their brother knows that a strong majority of editors here support having no referrer information; canvassing to have "four closer" admins is a blatant attempt to over-emphasize the view of the English Wikipedia editors on a topic that they may not have a binding opinion on. To use excessively-legal terminology, consensus here can't over-turn jurisdictional issues. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• George, this is process for process sake. You could have 1 closer or 100, it will make no difference to the outcome. The consensus is clear and could be written up in 5 minutes by anyone with even a basic grasp of Wikipedia policy. That the result is not actually binding on the WMF is completely irrelevant to determining the outcome. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I know that the majority supports one of the options. The joint closure was requester previously one month ago by Guy Macon himself. I'll talk further at one of talk pages. --George Ho (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I commented at the RfC discussion. --George Ho (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

After discussion with power~enwiki, I have struck out the comment that would imply "canvassing", so here's the more neutral request: "Though I welcome a fourth closer, if three total closers should suffice, then I can ask for one more closer, i.e. the third closer. That's it." I also modified the header to avoid what's considered canvassing. --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"Canvassing" accusation against Guy Macon is withdrawn and then disregarded. --George Ho (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Msaiflodin

Can some administrator please offer a second opinion on User:Msaiflodin? This editor isn’t a Vandalism-Only Account because the editor isn’t a vandal, but the editor wastes the time of New Page Patrol by creating pages that are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. (I know that NOTHERE is meant to apply to editors. I am not sure whether this editor is here constructively.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Saifudsin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
• Msaiflodin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
• Nazir Mohammad (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))

Saifudsin is the older account which created the same article before word for word. Nazir is another sock based on Commons contribs which has another word for word posting of that article. Both socks indeffed and master blocked 72 hours. Both socks have files at commons and the article has been created on another wiki. This is a clear COI with socks so if the master returns to the behavior then he will likely be indeffed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked all three at Commons and deleted both images. Nyttend (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Admin inactivity

This is quickly degrading into something no one should be proud of. There are a lot of opinions regarding admin inactivity, but WP:AN is not the place to bring it up. To answer the initial question, whether this is the right place, the answer is that WP:Administrators is the policy that dictates what we do in admin inactivity and is probably the best place to raise the issue. If an RFC develops, then a note here and at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and other places. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

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

---

I hope this is the right talk page to ask: is this an appropriate way to retain admin tools from an essentially non-active admin? He states here that he does a "yearly check in to retain admin flag." But as you can see from the edit -- a talk page comment expressing hostility to Wikipedia and expressing sympathy for an indef blocked editor, or this bit of thumb-your-nose nonsense to the 2016 a recent de-sysopping warning, this may not be the sort of activity that our active admin policy requires -- or is it? It seems to me to be gaming the system, but this is obviously not my area. FYI, I came across the issue when checking the indef ban on Ottawahitech. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There are quite a few admins who log in once a year to remain 'active'. Wikipediocracy keeps track of them. The short answer is: There is no policy based reason to remove tools from an admin who is meeting the activity requirements and not abusing their tools. Unless the community decides it wants to tighten up the activity requirements to prevent this sort of behavior, nothing can be done about it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I see. Well, the editor is doing no harm, much as I disagree with his sentiments on Ottawahitech's talk page. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

(Moved from talk page)

I'd move that the policy be changed to remove tools from sysop just logging in once a year to keep them. Far as I'm concerned that is an abuse of the system. Let them actually do something constructive with their tools, not just log in once a month.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 21:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Whatever limit you pick, someone's going to game it. One logged action a month isn't hard at all if all you want is to keep your bit. It is onerous if you're active but mostly edit content, or if you have wildly-varying amounts of free time. —Cryptic 21:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with admins with no logged admin actions, but who continue editing. The current state of policy does not allow for these admins to be desysopped because of admin-inactivity, as long as they keep editing as editors. See this discussion on BN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• RFC Feb 2017, and not the first time this has been discussed. As I understand that process, if an admin does let time lapse until they are desysoped, all they have to do is ask for reinstatement:re-sysopping process. Once an admin, always an admin, if you really want it badly enough to show up every couple of years. It is concerning to look at admin logs and see some who got the tools and never did much at all with them. — Maile (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Really the entire inactivity and re-sysopping procedures need to be looked at. The inactivity is far too easily gamed at the moment - but as cryptic points out, just reducing it wont stop people gaming it. Coupled with the rubber-stamp process of re-requesting it.... Likewise admins who want to take a break should not be prevented from doing so for fear of losing their tools. So some sort of comprehensive review of the entire process is in order, rather than just looking at one part of the problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

And even if they forgot to do their token yearly edit until the day after the year had gone by, it seems very easy to get the tools back judged on the notices of people listed at WP:FORMER. There's another page somewhere (for the life of me I can't locate it at the moment) that shows of the 1,300 or so "live" admins, only 700-ish have made at least one edit/other action in a the last rolling three month spell. Admins gaming the system like this are not really here to help. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, in the particular case raised here, Syrthiss is clearly taking the piss; but, more broadly, that's because we allow that to happen. And it would be both instinctively unfair, and smack of playing the man not the ball, to focus on the individual rather than the systematic issue. — fortunavelut luna 11:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Cool to see that my note to a friend who has had a troubled past here is interpreted as something sinister. I may wish to come back and devote time to the encyclopedia as much as I did probably before most of you even registered or made an edit. I abide by the rules and make my edit when the system notifies me that I am required to, as I have done several times over the years without comment. I protect my admin account with a strong password and two factor. So, I'm going to pull out an old saying that I hope still is the core for folks: assume good faith. Syrthiss (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

and Shawn is reminded that they need to inform folks when they mention them here. I mean, it even has a scary orange bar notice. I assume they just missed it. Regards. Syrthiss (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as your RfA was more than a decade ago, couple with your lack of actual contributions, I doubt you'd pass WP:ADMINACCT. See you this time next year. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a date! Syrthiss (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

After reading your tone-deaf response to the concerns raised here, I am relieved to know you'll be gone for an entire year. Lepricavark (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Uncool. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

As long as the community isn't interested in a sensible activity policy or community-based desysopping, there is no solution to this. Every time the activity policy is brought up, people say this causes problems so infrequently that it isn't worth changing. The subtext there is that there will be problems/gaming, and the community appears to be fine with that (at least until the problems actually appear). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Well it's a valid point. If there is no harm caused by old admins floating by every once in a while to preserve their bit, then why do so many people worry about it? The only possible dangers I see are: (1) possibility of account hacking, and (2) that if they ever come back to more full-time adminship they may not have kept abreast of the latest standards and guidelines. If people can actually point to specific instances of these things happening, or indeed any other problem with inactive admins, then maybe there would be a stronger case for change. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• As for my part, as I just explained to Syrthiss on my user talk page, I didn't really bring it "here" -- I'd raised it on the discussion page, on the other side, where I saw no orange bar, scary or otherwise. It was moved here by a bureaucrat, no doubt correctly. Of course I realize now I should have pinged him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh and in fact, before bringing it to the ANI talk page, I'd initially raised the question at the Wikipedia talk:Administrators, before realizing it wasn't getting much attention. As a longtime veteran non-admin editor I just wanted to ask a question. I got my answer. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh and on the broader issue that I inadvertently raised, I think I get the logic: we do not automatically de-sysop admins for mere inactivity. We give them the option of doing nothing and allowing that to take place. Which is fine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

We must know the % of inactive admins who become active again one day, as Syrthiss says he might. If it's even 5% it's still worth it to have a relaxed policy, I guess. Wikipedia is not paper, with no set limit, so a long list of inactive admins shouldn't be a problem either, as others have pointed out above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Whlrradio

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked by positive SPI check by Bbb23 Hasteur (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Can I get someone to delete all the articles made by Whlrradio (talk · contribs)? They clearly seem to be promoting a band called B.E.R. and a song titled The Night Begins to Shine, using nothing but patently unreliable sources such as blogs or fanwikis. Their username also seems to be promotional in nature. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @TenPoundHammer: while you were ten-pound hammering Whlrradio's talk with all those deletion notifications, could you not have also left the mandatory notice informing them that you have raised this discussion? — fortunavelut luna 15:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer (What did I screw up now?). PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THOSE PAGES THAT I CREATED. I am not an actual radio station you can look it up, it's non existent. It was the name of my YouTube account in 2013. These pages are real people, the song is legitimate and did chart, the show which they were on, Teen Titans Go, IS REAL. PLEASE I am begging you to look them up, it's all legitimate. They are about to be in a new show on Cartoon Network and it is CRITICAL that we have Wikipedia pages for them. What should I do to fix the problem???? Please respond — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 15:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer (What did I screw up now?) Please talk with me about this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 15:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop bullying us, leave us be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 15:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Whlrradio: For a start, you can calm yourself :) they will not be speedily deleted. And there's no need to shout either! — fortunavelut luna 15:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(ec)TPH is not bullying you, but trying to be sure that the articles you created met our basic rules for notability and that you used reliable sources. Also, you keep saying "us" and "we", are you saying there are more than one of you? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore (talk) I work with Warner Music and I am trying to work to create Wikipedia pages for our clients which are the members of the group, B.E.R. I do this on behalf of Frank Enea, William J. Regan, and Carl Burnett. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 15:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

What should I do to improve the reliability of my sources? Everything for The Night Begins To Shine is obtained from the internet. I am not lying about anything, and in terms of iTunes charting I could send photos of it to anyone on here who wants proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 16:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I am really struggling to make these pages stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 16:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore (talk) Hello, I just deleted anything regarding the song charting on iTunes on all pages for Carl Burnett, Frank Enea, and William J. Regan. That was the only thing marked wrong on those pages because iTunes charts are unreliable. That is something I absolutely did not know about. Everything else is from reliable sources. Will the pages still be deleted or will one of you reverse the motion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please calm down, as you were asked earlier, we are all volunteers and work on articles as we can. I am going to let you know, you need to read over WP:COI, as you have an admitted conflict of interest on these articles, as you said above you work with Warner Music. Each article is judged on it's own merits, and whether the subject is notable or not. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That puts a certain slant on things, WP:PAID too. — fortunavelut luna 17:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let it be mentioned the fact that I am not being paid to do this for the group. I am hired by an organization, not the members of the group. Remember, the subjects of this argument are musicians who have to a certain degree notability on the internet. Let me say again, they will be on a major television show airing August 1st to the 4th on the Cartoon Network where they literally are the characters. There has to be individual Wiki pages for them so there is an estabilshed place for their information. Again, I am an employee to Warner Music and am doing this for the group based on information that I have obtained not with incentive by them. I am NOT being paid. I do not see where the coi is. All of this information is obtained from the internet! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 17:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Whlrradio: Thank you; you have been very clear! So you are only hired by an organisation, who pay you, to promote a band that your employer wants promoted? But you are not paid to promote the band? You need to declare your conflict of interest as a bare minimum- before we even worry about your articles. You have now involved multiple editors, and at least two adminisatrtors, and the policy is very clear: 'If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved account.' Obviously, this is something we all wish to avoid; but the proposition is not a complex one, and it sounds like you might not be listening to us? — fortunavelut luna 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Whlrradio: Please read WP:PAID - it addresses exactly this situation, in the section "Meaning of "employer, client, and affiliation"". --bonadea contributions talk 17:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I WORK FOR A RECORD COMPANY. I AM NOT PAID TO PROMOTE THE GROUP. You seem to not understand what I actually do with them. Anyways, where would you wish for me to put the information to prove that I work for them. This conflict of interest deal is ludicrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Whlrradio: Have you actually read the link Bonadea gave you? It explains what you have just asked.Or, indeed, any of the links here? They are all useful, and not posted for our amusement. — fortunavelut luna 18:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Also "There has to be individual Wiki pages for them so there is an estabilshed place for their information". Actually no, there doesn't. Unless they meet WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, no they do not HAVE to have an article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

why won't you just let them have the page. They have some notability. I see tons of wiki articles from completely unknown people but you bother them?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 18:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This was a good edit, at least. — fortunavelut luna 19:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Leave them be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.219.137 (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)BLOCK Whlrradio for clear insurmountable COI (Being paid for their job by record company whose client is the band), repeated "Other stuff exists" arguments in favor of this questionably notable musician, and competence issues for not reading operating documents after being pointed at them multiple times. We've wasted enough time with them. Hasteur (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: suspect 69.127.219.137 IP address is Whlrradio editing logged out which therefore invokes a WP:SOCK charge. Hasteur (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a SPI open: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whlrradio. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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

User wants to leave Wikipedia (I think) Comment

Maybe I'm reading User NANGA incorrectly, or been giving incorrect advice. Maybe it's a little of both. This user came up as CSD, wanting to delete their user page, and at the same time was requesting a user name change. I advised them on how to change their user name. Looks to me like they want a quick action, without having to read a lot of Wikipedia instruction (my guess). Or maybe it's all just confusing. Down at the bottom of their last post, it looks like what they really want to do is inactivate their user account ... or ... rename it (maybe). Can anyone on this board handle this request? I don't think the user wants to be referred around to read and post somewhere else. For my own information, what IS the process if a user wants to inactivate their account?— Maile (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop editing Wikipedia? There is no such thing as an "inactive account" other than an account that isn't editing—we can't delete an account altogether for legal reasons as it destroys the attribution for any page they've ever edited. ‑ Iridescent 21:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

per Wikipedia:Changing username#Please consider the following alternatives to a rename, we don't really rename users like that. And as they've already seen, we don't delete user talk pages. However, it's perfectly fine to blank the talk page or leave only a {{retired}} banner, and you could offer to block the account with a "User has retired and requested this account be blocked" rationale. Or if you don't like self-requested blocks I can offer to do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like it if you made the offer. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done (the offer, not the block). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone read about the guy who locked himself inside an ATM last week?

Yes, true story. I'm in a sort of virtual equivalent here. This is my doppelganger account. If someone could revert to this revision of my common.js that I was fiddling with after this VPT discussion, I assume my main account will once again have a save changes button. Maybe I'll get an honorable mention at the Wikipedia:Village stocks out of this.--Fuhghettaboutit2 (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks. Gonna log back in; finger's crossed.--Fuhghettaboutit2 (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes! Back up. But now I'm terrified to make any further changes to it (and I still have no access to an edit summary field).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You do know that using the preview button the JS already executes on the previewed page without saving? Next time, just preview and if the save button disappears, well, you can't save those changes anyway Regards SoWhy 13:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the common.js page entirely, so Fuhghettaboutit should be able to leave edit summaries now, even before undeleting it :-) Convenience link in case you didn't read about the ATM guy. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm putting in a stocks entry for this one. Absolutely priceless.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: You have been sentenced to the Village Stocks.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 00:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a screenshot for what this looked like? I'm curious :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

If not, we can always restore the JS to your last revision so you can make one. ;-) :D—CYBERPOWER (Message) 00:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘You could've probably avoided the public embarrassment by turning off javascript in your browser for long enough to revert. —Cryptic 00:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Or edit at the mobile version, or add &safemode=1 to the edit url. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I never would have thought of the first one, I had no idea that the second would be different, and I've never heard of safe mode. I would have had to use my alternate account, too, had I done this to myself :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all. @Cryptic: Turn off javascript... hmph, should of thought of that. @PrimeHunter: Good to know about the safe mode. @Nyttend: I've screenshotted at File:No save page button.png (I'm going to delete this file later today). I'm going to undelete the js file because the lack of edit summary ability was not from there but from my common.css – not playing nice with the recent "improvements" and anyway, Cyberpower678's link at the village stocks (thanks, lol) will not work except for admins without it existing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. I always assumed that you'd undelete it quickly; this was just a temporary move to allow you to edit normally until you knew how to fix it. Had you not been an admin, I would have just reverted it somewhere, but I figured this way I could be sure of not causing more problems :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll meekly put my hand up and confess that I recently managed to create a user javascript that set the following CSS:

body { display: none; }

The effects can be imagined. I eventually switched javascript off for long enough to fix it. I'd previously tried mobile, which didn't work for reasons I never figured out, but didn't know about safemode. GoldenRing (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You guys do know that modern browsers have Inspectors (press F12 usually) that allow you to change the rendering of a page on the fly? That does include removing custom CSS from the rendered page ;-) Regards SoWhy 18:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking for someone with admin rights on Simple English and or Commons

Cross wiki vandalism only IP/troll- block extended to six months here and ignoring their rants elsewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

---

My talk pages at both are under attack by a cross wiki IP troll (71.218.16.215) that I have blocked here. I tried reporting them at the Commons Vandalism noticeboard but the IP keeps deleting the report. I don't do a lot at Commons and have never set foot in Simple English until tonight. Frankly I would be more than happy to just ignore the little SOB... er creep, but I keep getting notifications which I have to look at since they may be from here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I gave him 2 weeks on commons. DMacks (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I doubt you'll find any Simple admins here, there are only 16 on the entire project, and not all of those are active. Hut 8.5 06:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 72 hours on Simple. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hut 8.5: a few of us also edit here. I, Djsasso, and Bsadowski1 are the only ones with rights here and there so far as I'm aware. only (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help y'all. They have moved on to another wiki to continue their silliness. Rather than play wack a mole I've decided to just turn off cross wiki notifications. It's not a big deal since the only other wiki I edit even rarely is Commons. They can rant to their hearts content in an empty room. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jionakeli

Not needed anymore since the filer has withdrawn complaint and issues are being discussed elsewhere right now. Capitals00 (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

---

I am requesting another neutral administrator who don't edit Indian political and religious articles (WP:UNINVOLVED) to mark this case as closed if they think the evidence is circumstantial and weak. The filer Capitals00 has previously caught many clever sockpuppets who were actively editing without any suspicion. Vanamonde93 has the same POV as Jionakeli. There are many sock/meat farm active n these areas as recently blocked Terabar, ProudIndian007 and Niyazib. In Vanamonde93's RFA, it was pointed out that Vanamonde supported Xtremedood's sock Calm321 --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Marvellous Spider-Man So, you want an neutral admin who doesn't edit Indian political and religious articles. What religion would you like them to practice? Do you want male or female, or is transgendered OK? Could you please indicate what race and ethnicity would be acceptable to you? What other subjects should they not edit? Are there enduring Wikipedia controversies that you would prefer they hold certain positions on?

You do realize that by asking for "a neutral administrator who don't edit Indian political and religious articles" you are insulting every single admin who has ever edited in that area by accusing them of being unable to be unbiased in their close, don't you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't. I thought, I can't ask any specific administrator. I don't know know how many meanings could come out of a statement. No, I don't want to insult every administrator here. I respect all who does hard work here, by protecting this project and giving their time. English is not my first language. I don't even live in any English speaking country. But, I am disagreeing with Vanmaonde93's decision. Maybe I should consult English speaking people somewhere on Reference desk, before posting another comment.

Previously, one of my statements about administrator's privacy was misunderstood. I wanted to write something else and a different meaning came out. --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, you realize that when you accused Vanamonde93 of having not made a neutral decision in closing the SPI, and of "protecting" Jionakeli, you were accusing the wrong administrator. The SPI was closed by Vanjagenije, not Vanamonde93. [6] I think you owe everyone involved a great big apology.

And, listen, you're not a newbie, you've been here a year and have 14,000 edits. If you cannot communicate in English sufficiently to accurately put across your thoughts and idea, why the hell are you editing ENGLISH Wikipedia? Wouldn't you be better off editing the Wikipedia of your native tongue? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are 100% right, I am taking a big break. Sorry to Vanamonde93 and Vanjagenije. I think I also deserve to be blocked for this.--Marvellous Spider-Man 05:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I disagree, that's the kind of thing editors are blocked for if they do it repeatedly and deliberately. Anyone can make a mistake once or twice. Take your break and come back refreshed -- at least that's my opinion.Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think this had to be cleared on the talk page of Vanjagenije first. I have left comments on User talk:Vanjagenije#Jionakeli. Capitals00 (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2017‎ (UTC)

---

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

UAA backlog

15 reports. Could someone clear it please? Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Bangs head against wall* How many times do editors have to see Wait Until The User Edits- but still clog the bloody board up with the likes of this and this?! Hells bells. — fortunavelut luna

• Actually, I've never understood that proscription. If a username is a violation of policy, it is a violation whether or not the user has edited or not. The name has nothing to do with the quality of the edits, and everything to do with the Username policy -- so why are we told to wait instead of nipping the problem in the bud? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:USERNAME says this: "The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional: Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product". That first example is exactly that, and a soft block at the least is needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: But in the same section it goes on to say, "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked." I've always read this, as has BMK, to mean that a user who only adopts a promotional username but doesn't engage in inappropriately promotional behaviours can't be blocked. GoldenRing (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think there needs to be clarification on that then, because I read that if a name is a violation, it's not allowed. Hence a promotional name and no edits = soft block to require a name change, promotional name and promo edits = hard block. I could be wrong though. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position, my interpretation of the policy is the same as RickinBaltimore's, that any violation should be dealt with, even if no editing has taken place. What I was grousing about is that the actual application of the policy by admins patrolling UAA follows GoldenRing's interpretation, which I believe is inappropriate. (Nothing personal towards GoldenRing, who is simply following the ad hoc interpretation followed by most admins at UAA.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, BMK, I also agree- and back in the day had too many submissions rejected on those grounds! Nevertheless, it's still point #7 at the very top of the WP:UAA page, so- — fortunavelut luna 16:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. Nonetheless, that's how I read the policy. The point is made again a bit further down:

Remember that blocking a new user is not actually something we want to do, it is something we do when it is needed to protect Wikipedia from harm. Generally, editors whose usernames are a technical or borderline violation of the Username policy should be given an opportunity to discuss the username and how they may register a new username. However, users who are reluctant to register a new username and are otherwise showing a positive history of contributions to Wikipedia should be allowed to continue editing in a positive fashion and the matter should be dropped. But this exemption does not apply to editors who have a clearly offensive username, disruptive or vandalizing edits, or edits that show a history of problematic bias or conflict of interest.

I still don't see how you can read that to mean, "Block them on sight." GoldenRing (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing:---Can you point at promotional usernames that have turned out to be good contributors?I don't recall coming across one!Winged Blades ^Godric 18:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Protection of article

Protected. Primefac (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Hi, I had requested for protection of President of India article as there is a lot of disruptive editing and Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. Please do the needful thanking --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 13:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done per WP:RFPP. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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