Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard

This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.

  • It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.

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.

Sections older than six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.


Requests for closure[edit]

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

Administrative discussions[edit]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading[edit]


Talk:Suki Waterhouse#RfC on Personal life[edit]

(Initiated 69 days ago on 13 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Suki Waterhouse#RfC on Personal life? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

On hold its pretty evenly split and hasn't had very much discussion --DannyS712 (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted. Marking as {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources[edit]

(Initiated 62 days ago on 20 January 2019) I don't think this was advertised as an RfC, but either way it would probably benefit from a formal closure by an experienced editor. Sunrise (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a formal RfC - no {{rfc}} tag was used. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Subscription required#RfC: Replace template with CS1/2 mechanism where possible[edit]

(Initiated 60 days ago on 22 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Subscription required#RfC: Replace template with CS1/2 mechanism where possible? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel#RfC On DeLong Blogpost[edit]

(Initiated 58 days ago on 23 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel#RfC On DeLong Blogpost? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

On hold its pretty evenly split and hasn't had very much discussion --DannyS712 (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted. Marking as {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki#Request for comments about 2017 charges[edit]

(Initiated 53 days ago on 29 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki#Request for comments about 2017 charges? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Killing of Aya Maasarwe#Description of Aya nationality[edit]

(Initiated 52 days ago on 29 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Killing of Aya Maasarwe#Description of Aya nationality? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

On hold Comment no consensus yet - "Israeli" has 10 !votes while "Palestinian-Israeli" and "Palestinian citizen of Israel" each have 6. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 15:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Marriott International#RFC: citation style[edit]

(Initiated 52 days ago on 30 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marriott International#RFC: citation style. Matthew hk (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2 Hearts (2007 song)#RFC: Original version/Cover version[edit]

(Initiated 51 days ago on 30 January 2019) I'm looking for the closure of the RFC if consensus has been reached. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 15:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Telesur[edit]

(Initiated 49 days ago on 1 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Telesur? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 06:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:World War I#German Leaders and Hussein bin Ali[edit]

(Initiated 48 days ago on 3 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:World War I#German Leaders and Hussein bin Ali? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Venezuelanalysis[edit]

(Initiated 40 days ago on 11 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Venezuelanalysis? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 04:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Gawker[edit]

(Initiated 38 days ago on 13 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Gawker? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC[edit]

(Initiated 35 days ago on 15 February 2019) Would a panel of three experienced editors (or administrators if they so choose) please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC? The closure will be a bit of a minefield, with many simultaneous discussions taking place in the various sub-sections. The closure is already overdue since the closure date was set as 17 March and listed at the top of the page from the outset, a date which has now passed. This RfC was conducted in accordance with the following ARBCOM motion: [1], and its closure should conform to the motion as well. Closers might want to additionally take a look at discussions on the corresponding talk page for the RfC Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

clock In progress Closing RfC discussion for recording consensus. On hold Until 2 more editors are willing to close. --QEDK () 17:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@QEDK: I'd like to help - only 1 more needed --DannyS712 (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712:: sorry, nothing personal against you, but I'm not quite convinced you have the necessary experience for this task. What we need here are highly experienced editors who are deeply familiar with the relevant content policies and with the intricacies of content creation in POV-sensitive areas. Sorry, but you've been around only for six months and I can find no record of you dealing with policy issues of this complexity before. Fut.Perf. 08:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: [2] His level of contribution seems adequate to me, despite the 6 month period his account has been active. - Wiz9999 (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
He seems to me like an editor who has been racking up a high edit count by means of a lot of routine gnoming work in the areas of XfDs, responding to edit requests and the like, but no substantial content maintenance experience in politically sensitive areas, and nothing I can find that shows him deeply engaging with complex policy issues. Sorry, but no. Fut.Perf. 09:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I probably should not have an opinion as someone who is volunteering as one the closers but I do agree with FPAS' viewpoint that editors might regard Danny as inexperienced due to their relative inexperience in edits and age. I'm moving this to the main AN noticeboard for more visibility — and more opinions as to who should be part of the closing panel; and an opportunity for editors to opine on the suitability of editors. --QEDK () 12:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Bustle[edit]

(Initiated 35 days ago on 16 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Bustle? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 08:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting#RfC: Victim names[edit]

(Initiated 32 days ago on 19 February 2019) Could an experienced editor please review the consensus at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting#RfC: Victim names? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

{{Not done}} - RFC is still active. There are reasonable arguments being advanced both for and against, so that the snowball closure rule does not apply. RFC left open. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Reply - @Robert McClenon:, the RFC has been open for over one week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jax 0677: Indeed, it's been open for 16 days; but WP:RFCs typically run for thirty. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
That's what I tried to say at User talk:Jax 0677, and was told by Jax0677 to provide diffs and keep the discussion in one place, when I was trying to keep the discussion in a less public place. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Would it be possible to un-archive the RfC as the bot has archived it? Bus stop (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bus stop: You are allowed to close it even if its archived, but if you want I suggest manually copy-pasting it from the archive to the talk page, with a note explaining. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: I don't want to close it as I am a participant in it. I wanted it un-archived to allow further discussion. Bus stop (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Reply - @Bus stop:, I have moved the discussion back to the talk page, and changed the archive age to 30 days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much @Jax 0677:, that looks perfect, to me. Bus stop (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


  • Reply - @Bus stop:, good to hear, we can close the discussion at the end of this week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Robert McClenon:, this discussion, which is now close to 150 kB in size, has now run for 30 days, and can be closed or relisted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    Comment - User:Jax 0677 - I do not plan to close this RFC. For two reasons, both of which I do not need to disclose, I might not be neutral. Also, RFCs are not relisted. XFDs, which run for 7 days, may be relisted, but RFCs, which run for 30 days, are not relisted. They may be closed as No Consensus, and the closer may advise that a new RFC be posted, but they are not relisted in the way that XFDs are. Perhaps you are confusing different procedures. If so, please read the policies on Requests for Comments and Deletion and Deletion Debates. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    Comment - @Robert McClenon:, thanks for observing WP:COI. Note that I said "closed or relisted", which means not that it should ever be relisted, but that I am indifferent between the two. Regarding the 30 days minimum for RFC, I will keep it in mind in the future, but I never asked any closer to go against policy. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    User:Jax 0677 - See my comments on your talk page. No, I do not have a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Robert McClenon: RfCs can be relisted - Cunard (talk · contribs) does it frequently - see WP:RFC#Length, paragraph beginning "To extend a current RfC". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    User:Redrose64 - Okay. As long as I am not told that I should be closing an RFC that hasn't run 30 days, and as long as I am not planning to close the Aurora RFC for two reasons that have nothing to do with COI, fine. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Robert McClenon: My understanding is that an RfC is no different from an ordinary content discussion in the following regard: It can be closed whenever it seems to have run its course, when all stated arguments have been sufficiently discussed and the likelihood of any significant new arguments is deemed to approach zero. That can be one week or twelve weeks or more (I recently closed an RfC after 8 days), and it is not connected to the amount of time before the bot de-lists the RfC. If most RfCs are closed after 30 days, that's only because (1) editors misinterpret the de-listing as "time to close" and (2) there is often resistance to closing "early" even if the circumstances warrant it, and most of us prefer to avoid that controversy. ―Mandruss  22:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment - It is true that the closer will need to distinguish between statements of position (!votes), some of them well-reasoned, and a lot of mostly marginal discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Rent regulation#RfC about describing extent of disagreement[edit]

(Initiated 25 days ago on 25 February 2019) Would an experienced editor please assess whether there is a consensus at Talk:Rent regulation#RfC about describing extent of disagreement and close if so? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 23:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

On hold the discussion has been open for 10 days and is fairly divided; RfCs normally run for 30 days --DannyS712 (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Gab (social_network)#Gab Dissenter merge[edit]

(Initiated 22 days ago on 1 March 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess consensus at Talk:Gab (social_network)#Gab Dissenter merge and close the discussion? The last comment was ten days ago. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line[edit]

Deletion discussions[edit]


(Initiated 79 days ago on 2 January 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion has meanwhile been relisted. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_6#Bridges_by_city & Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_12#Bridges_by_city_in_Ukraine[edit]

(Initiated 75 days ago on 6 January 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 20#Category:Organizations_based_in_Oman[edit]

(Initiated 62 days ago on 20 January 2019) Discussion stalled since Feb 20. Looks to me like a straightforward close. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5#People_of_African_descent[edit]

(Initiated 105 days ago on 7 December 2018) Already relisted once. Discussion stalled since 25 February 2019. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line[edit]

Other types of closing requests[edit]

William McNulty (relief organization founder) into Team Rubicon[edit]

(Initiated 546 days ago on 23 September 2017) could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus on this long-standing merge proposal, discussed at Talk:Team Rubicon#Proposed merge with William McNulty (relief organization founder). Klbrain (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2019/February[edit]

(Initiated 27 days ago on 23 February 2019) Could an experienced editor relist these, or assess the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2019/February? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Stub sorting proposals don't get relisted, they stay on the same monthly page until closed. See WP:WSS/P#Proposing new stub types – procedure item 6. I'm guessing that Pegship (talk · contribs), who usually closes these, is letting debate proceed for a while longer - after all, there are still some open from November 2018. Pegship, do you want somebody else to close these? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
If anyone can determine a consensus, they're welcome to close them. I've left them un-closed just to see if anyone has more to say; if not, I'll be happy to close them by end of March, which is not that long a stretch for the (much-depleted) troupe of stub sorters. Cheers! Her Pegship (speak) 22:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 26#Hip hop song stubs[edit]

(Initiated 25 days ago on 26 February 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 26#Hip hop song stubs? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your impatience to have things closed. I initiated the CfD and I'm very happy to let it run its course until a volunteer has had time to adequately review and assess the discussion. Things do get backlogged once in a while. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Thousands of Portals[edit]

(Initiated 9 days ago on 14 March 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Thousands of Portals? I think that every discussion has been open for one week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign endorsements#Rapid request to merge with Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign[edit]

(Initiated 31 days ago on 20 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please review the consensus at Talk:List of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign endorsements#Rapid request to merge with Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign? The formal RfC period has run and the last comment was made eight days ago. Thanks,Tvc 15 (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (17 out of 1654 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Jexodus 2019-03-22 20:32 indefinite edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: starting at this relatively low level of protection for now Athaenara
Brahmin 2019-03-22 19:58 2021-03-22 19:58 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of unsourced material. Yamaguchi先生
Cory Booker 2020 presidential campaign 2019-03-22 03:08 2019-09-22 03:08 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Muboshgu
Qutb Minar 2019-03-22 00:36 2019-04-22 00:36 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Repeated disruptive name changing by multiple anonymous / unconfirmed editors Anachronist
Alan Tafoya (actor) 2019-03-21 22:39 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Dlohcierekim
Alan Tafoya 2019-03-21 22:39 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Dlohcierekim
Kunal Kamra 2019-03-21 22:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Dlohcierekim
Unite the Right rally 2019-03-21 18:42 2019-04-21 18:42 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Dlohcierekim
User talk:AGK/anon 2019-03-20 20:26 indefinite move AGK
Draft:Faqeer Gilkar Sahab 2019-03-19 09:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Galobtter
Chakpat 2019-03-19 09:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Galobtter
Ali Muhammad Gilkar 2019-03-19 09:36 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Galobtter
Faqeer Gilkar Sahab 2019-03-19 09:36 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Galobtter
Sujit Mondal 2019-03-19 09:02 2019-04-02 09:02 edit Persistent disruptive editing Oshwah
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet-investigations/DoRD 2019-03-19 08:02 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Oshwah
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/stwalkerster 2019-03-19 01:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Oshwah
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet Investigations/doRD 2019-03-19 00:50 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Oshwah

Thousands of Portals[edit]

The purpose of this posting is to discuss portals, hundreds of portals. There is already discussion at Village pump (Proposals) (see WP:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals) to stop the creation of large numbers of portals by User:The Transhumanist, and the consensus is going strongly in favor of a hiatus, and there have been no new portals created since 22 February, but there has been no agreement to stop the creation of portals. The discussion at VPR appears to have slowed down, with a very clear consensus for some sort of hiatus, although it is not clear whether everyone agrees that the consensus is to stop the semi-automated creation of portals, or to stop the semi-automated creation of portals by TTH, or to stop all creation of portals by TTH (since there seems to be disagreement on what is semi-automated creation). Some editors have suggested that these portals are the equivalent of redirects by Neelix that warrant mass destruction. Anyway, proposals at VPR are just that, proposals. I am bringing the discussion here.

Perhaps I don’t understand, but User:The Transhumanist appears to be saying that we need to use portals as an experiment in navigation and in innovation. I am not sure that I understand whether, by experiment, they mean testing, a new initiative, or what, but I am not sure that I understand what is being innovated, or why it requires hundreds or thousands of portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that the mass hiatus wasn't on me per se, but applicable in general. It applies to everyone. It's so that nobody mass creates portals for the time being. That includes me.    — The Transhumanist   05:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

An Example and Some Comments[edit]

English language portal error.png

One of the portals that has been proposed by User:Legacypac for deletion is Portal:English language. A look at it, with its error messages, is sadly informative. It was one of Wikipedia's earliest portals, preceding the involvement of the current portal team of TTH and a few other editors. However, the current portal team has made breaking changes to Portal:English language, apparently in order to attempt to improve the maintenance of portals. They apparently don't know how to keep our existing portals working, so what business do they have creating thousands of additional portals? We are told that the new portals are maintenance-free or nearly maintenance-free, but have the new portals been created at the cost of breaking existing portals? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, TTH says, above, that there is a hiatus that applies to everyone so that nobody mass creates portals for the time being. What is meant by mass creation, as opposed to individual creation? Are they agreeing not to create any portals for the time being? How long a time? Will they defer the creation of any new portals until (and unless) there is a consensus arrived at the criteria for the creation and maintenance of new portals? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, if any editor wishes to propose mass deletion of portals, similar to Neely redirects, that can be Proposal 3 (or 4). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Further investigation found 2 of the 8 portals linked off the top of the Mainpage had similar Red Script Errors where content should be. User:Moxy has now reverted these to pre-automation status. A lot of effort goes into keeping content linked from the Mainpage error free, yet this little Portal Project group replaced featured article quality portals with automated junk. Legacypac (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
See WP:AADD#Surmountable problems. "Something broke but could be fixed" isn't a deletion rationale. Much less a deletion rationale for different pages; that's the guilt by association fallacy. Note also the ad hominem fallacy in there too, making it about specific people and getting back at them and suggesting they're too incompetent to create a new page, etc., instead of the argument focusing on content and our systems of presenting and navigating it. Tsk tsk.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals[edit]

There is a rough consensus to formalize a moratorium on creation of new portals, as proposed. There is some prominent opposition rooted in the notion that it is not necessary to formally sanction an editor who has already self-imposed the sanction, and this is a reasonable point. Other than that, however, there is little sentiment that the behavior is not problematic and worthy of preventative measures, voluntary or otherwise. So, the worst case scenario presented by the opposition is that a user is formally barred from repeating a specific action that they would not be repeating otherwise. This worst case scenario is harmless, both to the project, and the editor, with the only difference being that the preventative measure that everyone seems to agree on is binding, as opposed to voluntary and non-binding. Evidence has also been presented that, contrary to the voluntary moratorium, TTH continues to work to expand the portal space, even as of today, and has not engaged in anything that would indicate that they're actually working to resolve the problem they created in good faith. This sort of thing seems to damage the case being made that a TBAN would be completely pointless. Additionally, there is equally prominent support that feels this sanction is an underreaction, and that much stronger sanctions, up to a full site-ban, are warranted. Will notify and log appropriately. Regards, ~Swarm~ {talk} 04:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose a topic-ban on the creation of portals by User:The Transhumanist for three months, to provide time for the development of new guidelines on portals, to provide time to dispose of some of the portals at MFD, and to provide time to consider whether it is necessary to mass-destroy portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the true number of portal creations by this user appears to be around 3500 portals since July 2018 (claims this here [3]). There were less than 1700 portals prior. On their talk they said it takes them 3 mins. 3 minutes is not enough time to properly consider content or what should be included. After we get a few automated portals deleted at MFD and the VP discussion reaches some closure I feel strongly we need to delete all the automated portals as a really bad idea. The template that automates these is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_28#Template:Basic_portal_start_page Further, even though TTH disputes semi-automated creation here he says he uses "semi-automated methods of construction" and is using a "alpha-version script in development that speeds the process further" [4] Legacypac (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I need to investigate this issue a little further, but I was quite concerned about this before I even saw the thread, because I discovered Portal:Ursula K. Le Guin a few months ago. I've written a considerable portion of the content about Le Guin on Wikipedia, and even I think it's too narrow a topic for a portal; and when I raised this on the talk page, Transhumanist didn't respond, though they've been active. Transhumanist has been around for a while, so if they're willing to voluntarily stop creating portals while guidelines are worked out, I don't see a need for a formal restriction. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Response from The Transhumanist – The proposer of the hiatus, User:UnitedStatesian, acknowledged that my efforts have been in good faith. Note also that no rules have been broken (to my knowledge) – I carefully went over the existing mass creation rule and portal scope rule before starting. I have been a participant in the hiatus of mass creation discussion, and have voluntarily ceased portal creation since Feb 21, so as not to aggravate the other participants of that discussion. (What purpose would that serve?) I wish the matter to be resolved as much as anyone else. Since scope is actively being discussed over at the portals guideline talk page, it makes little sense to create pages that might be removed shortly thereafter based on new creation criteria. I plan on participating in the discussions, perhaps continue working on (existing) portals, and I have no plans to defy the mass creation hiatus. Nor do I plan on pushing the envelope any further. The VPR community has expressed a consensus that mass creation be halted. Robert McClenon is seeking to go beyond community consensus specifically to stop me from creating any portals at all, which is not what the community decided. If editors in general are allowed to create portals, just not mass create them, as the response to UnitedStatesian's proposal has indicated, why should I be singled out here? A topic-ban would be unjustified given the circumstances, and would be punitive in nature. In such a case, I would like to know what I was being punished for. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   06:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @The Transhumanist: I do not share @UnitedStatesian's assumption of good faith. The evidence which I have seen points far too strongly in the other direction for me to sustain that assumption.
Please see for example MFD: Portal:University of Fort Hare. I find it impossible to believe that a remotely competent editor acting in good faith could have created that portal-to-nowhere. If there is some good faith explanation which i overlooked, then I will enjoy hearing it ... but for now, that page looks like just one of many of examples of TTH intentionally creating utterly useless portsalspam in flagrant disregard of any version of the much-hacked portal guidelines, let alone the clear community consensus for selectivity in portal creation as expressed at WP:ENDPORTALS.
As others have noted, this is not TTH's first rampage of disruption. If there really was good faith this time, then TTH needs to urgently some serious explaining of their actions, because they do not look like the good faith conduct of a competent editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, given Transhumanist's utter refusal to listen to the input at the Proposals thread during the last days, or anywhere else for that matter. Would go further and support a full, indefinite topic ban or even site ban. Every time I've encountered The Transhumanist over the years, it was invariably over some pattern of mindless mechanistic mass creation of contentless pages, which he then kept pushing aggressively and single-mindedly into everybody's face. Fut.Perf. 07:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

And now we need to clean this mess up. It took me far too long to find and bundle thirty pages for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Districts of India Portals compared to the 3 minutes a piece he took to create them, but better to head this off before he starts into the other 690 odd Indian districts. Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Quoted Comment on scale of this issue "Since July 1st (after WP:ENDPORTALS was over), over 4500 portals, excluding redirects, have been created (quarry:query/33793); the Transhumanist created more than 3500 (quarry:query/33795); of those, at least 561 were created with a summary along the lines of Started portal, in tab batch save, after batch was inspected: image slideshow minimum 2 pics, no empty sections. No visible formatting or Lua errors upon save, but there may be intermittent errors; report such bugs at WT:WPPORTD so that they can be fixed. Thank you. (quarry:query/33794). Just a note --DannyS712 (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)" (end quote) |This off a base of just under 1800 Portals existing in July 2018. Legacypac (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Given the history with TTH—who has been pulling this same kind of "create an unwanted megaproject, force it through without discussion, and expect the rest of us to waste our time maintaining it" stunt for well over a decade (anyone remember The Award Center? Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines? The Admin School?) and always tries the same "well, it wasn't explicitly banned so I assumed it was what you wanted" defense when called out on it, I'd strongly support a full and permanent topic ban and wouldn't be opposed to a site ban; anyone who's been here for as long as TTH and still can't see the issue with Portal:Yogurts, Portal:Rutland or Portal:A Flock of Seagulls is someone who's either being intentionally disruptive or is wilfully refusing to abide by Wikipedia's norms. ‑ Iridescent 08:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support temporary topic ban as a first step. We can look at a site ban if he ignores the topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A topic ban is necessary while the issue is discussed and mass deletion considered. Adding thousands of inadequate and unmaintainable pages is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A generally-accepted principle of Wikipedia editing is that people who add content, and especially established editors, help to maintain it. Even assuming the best about Transhumanist here, I can't see how they can possibly do this with all these obscure portals. A ban on creating more of them has to be the first step. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly Support We need time to curate and prune the low-quality portals, otherwise someone will panic and start deleting portals outright. 1:1 (topic to portal) parity is a nice goal, but it isn't readily achievable without the content to fill those portals.--Auric talk 11:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: TTH's approach seems rather cavalier at the moment. A change, as they say, is as good as a test. ——SerialNumber54129 11:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Wait Let's see if he complies with the eventual results of the discussion at VPP. If he voluntarily agrees to stop, based on community input, then sanctions are not necessary. This seems like overkill right now. First, let the community guidelines pass, THEN let him violate those before we rush to ban. --Jayron32 12:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Massive Oppose - why the rush to ban? - the idea that giving a TBAN is the only appropriate means is bonkers - there are ongoing discussions. Currently you are trying to TBAN someone who hasn't broken policy. Let's get the agreements in, see if they stop and only then make any action Nosebagbear (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Isn't this all very similar to the mass creation of "Outline of" articles by The Transhumanist that met with the same kind of opposition (and tanked an RFA) 10 years ago? If so, then I'd say a topic ban might be in order.--Atlan (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this or a complete topic ban from portals or if this continues simply a complete ban. His latest reply here shows such a complete WP:IDHT attitude, with utterly founded claims about the need to have thousands of portals to be able to find and fix issues (even though many of the now reported issues appear in portals from months ago already), and on the other hand that they have now trouble finding and fixing flaws: "With Legacypac and others actively nominating the new portals for deletion at MfD, our opportunities for improving them and discovering and fixing design flaws are diminishing quickly.", even though perhaps 2 or 3% of the new portals have been nominated, and more than enough similar problematic ones remain to work on (e.g. the inclusion of a DYK which links to red herring on the Portal:Forage fish...). Statements like "Legacypac's approach is to recommend deletion of the new type of portal due to design flaws such as this. " shows a thorough lack of understanding of why these MfDs are made and why so many people support them. The designs flaws are just a small part of the reason for deletion, the lack of interest in, maintenance of, and contents for many of these portals are much more important. Fram (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    • The MfDs are potentially a prelude to an RfC, which may accelerate the process of deletion. With that in mind, the potential shrinkage is worrisome. I'm so tired, I forgot to mention it above.    — The Transhumanist   14:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The MfDs, which impact a tiny portion of these creations but a decent sample of various types of topics, are very useful for finding out what the community finds acceptable or desirable. The MfDs are consensus building (something you forgot/ignored). Soon we will be able to craft acceptance and deletion criteria based on the MfD results. That's how notability and other guidelines get developed, precedent. Legacypac (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary Yes, they need to stop, but they have already agreed to do so (see above: [I] have voluntarily ceased portal creation since Feb 21, so as not to aggravate the other participants of that discussion), and they are unlikely to kneecap themselves by continuing under the massive scrutiny now present. Let's be civil and spare them the block log entry. Current discussion should drive the portal thing towards some practical steps that will likely include the deletion of most of the offending portals, and some agreed-on guideline that prevents mass creation from occurring again. Let's focus on that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – The unilateral creation of thousands of portals must stop. This has been driven largely by one editor, who has made the creation and preservation of portals his or her singular objective. We've seen since the portals RfC that this user will stop at nothing to continue the march of portals...regardless of community concerns, and regardless of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Removing him or her from the portal topic area is the only way to prevent further disruption. RGloucester 15:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - as a first step. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary per Elmidae. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary at this time as the editor has already agreed to stop and discussions are ongoing. Jonathunder (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Although TTH seerms to be acting in good faith they just don't know when to stop, so the community has to do it for them. Miniapolis 23:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reluctant support TT was one of the first users that was ever nice to me, many years ago, so I'd really rather not, but this is way out of line. Personally tripling the number of portals, a WP feature that almost nobody uses, and with apparenrly very little consideration to what subjects actualy merit a portal is grossly iresponsible. I get that they were upset at the proposed removal of portals, but this is a ridiculous overreaction that benefits nobody, and if they can't see that then a formal restriction is necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per User:Fram, and I assume it would also cover conversions of "old-style" Portals to the problematic one-page versions, as well as adding portal links to any article in the mainspace, and all other Portal-related editing. WP:IDHT is spot on: in all of these Portal-related discussions, TTH has again shown what is to me a shocking failure of self-examination: no "Gee, this is another case where a broad swath of the community seems to have a major issue with my behavior, and thus should cause me to step back and assess whether there is 1) anything that, in retrospect, I should I have done differently, and 2) anything I can do now to a) try to mitigate the damage and/or b) regain the communitity's good favor." TTH's factual statement that "I have not created any new Portals since Feb. 21" is meaningless as a commitment to future behavior. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary As mentioned above, moving to preemptively TBAN an editor who has already agreed to stop while discussion is underway serves no purpose here. If they choose to ignore the community consensus, then we can discuss further preventative measures, but doing so now is premature. As an aside, most of those red errors that are being reported are simple fixes, so anyone who finds one can post a note on WT:WPPORT for one of our editors to fix, or simply add |broken=yes to the {{Portal maintenance status}} template at the top of the page. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 06:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Portals have not been working for for 13 years. A pause of 3 months is more than reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Mass portal creation should be consider foul of Wikipedia:MEATBOT. Before continuing, I suggest seeking approval at an RfC, followed by the standard Bot approval process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is a long-term problem with TTH. It used to be "Outline" pages, & maybe still is. He is always polite & cheery, but completely ignores all criticism and pushes on with his agenda, as his rather scary newsletters show. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Sensible proposal. Agree with UnitedStatesian that this should also cover conversions of old-style portals. feminist (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose TTH has agreed to stop for now, he doesn't need a formal ban when he's already doing it voluntarily. SemiHypercube 17:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Elmidae, the user has agreed to stop and has not formally violated policies. We don't need more portals and this behavior needs to stop, but it seems that this has already been achieved for now while discussion is ongoing. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Uneccessary, as The Transhumanist has already ceased such activities (i.e. I have ... voluntarily ceased portal creation since Feb 21 ... I have no plans to defy the mass creation hiatus [that has already been established].). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is circular reasoning. "I don't think we should have these portals, and others disagree, so I want to punish/shame my principal opponent in hopes of winning." This is several forms of red herring fallacy all at once (including argumentum ad baculum, appeal to spite, poisoning the well, and traitorous critic). If consensus firmly decides we don't want these portals, and then if an editor were to defy that decision and create a bunch more portals of exactly the sort we decided were unwanted, only then would a topic-ban of any kind be warranted.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support this and any other restraint on TTH, up to and including perma-siteban. After stumbling on some micro-portals and MFDing them, I spent a lot of time in September last year discussing these issue ubsuccessfully with the Portals project (see e.g. WT:WikiProject_Portals/Archive 7#Portal_Wish_List, WT:WikiProject_Portals/Archive 7#BrownHairedGirl's_agenda, more at WT:WikiProject Portals/Archive 8)
It was absolutely clear throughout those discussions that TTH had no regard to the balance of opinion in last years RFC, and repeatedly personalised all reasoned criticism of his conduct as "bias", "personal attack" or "bullying"
There were a few other voices in those discussions who urged restraint, such as @Bermicourt, but TTH took no notice of any of it. So all that's happening now was flagged well in advance, and TTH paid no heed until a community outcry. TTH is now pledging restraint, but made similar promises back in September which were ignored when when the heat was off. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Respectfully to supporters, this idea of a TB that targets a single editor for something that several of us have been involved with comes off as witch-hunty and scapegoaty. I know that's not what it is; however, that is how it seems – at least to me. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  09:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • That's a really weird oppose, @Paine Ellsworth. If you know it's not actually witch-hunty and scapegoaty, what's the problem? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
      • uhm, I "know" because I really do want to AGF; the problem is that I can't stand by and watch forty lashes given to someone when I helped tie him to the whipping post, so to speak. Hold us all responsible if you want, but don't single just one of us out for something several of us helped do. Hope that's a bit clearer. Thank you for asking, because I do sometimes have difficulty expressing myself adequately with the written word. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  10:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
        • @Paine Ellsworth: thanks for the reply. Can you explain more about what you mean by helped tie him to the whipping post, so to speak?
I am puzzled by it, because while I was aware that a few others WP:WPPORT supported auto-portals, I was not specifically aware that anyone had encouraged @The Transhumanist's mass-creation sprees of micro-portals and nano-portals.
For example, did you or others support the this creation of over 40 portals per hour?
Did you or others support or encourage the creation of Portal:University of Fort Hare (I have now nominated it at MFD: Portal:University of Fort Hare), which was literally a portal to nowhere?
I ask this, because it seems to me that there is in fact massive gap between the culpability of a) those WP:WPPORT members who supported creating far more more portals than the community supports; and b) TTH, who repeatedly rapid-created created portals which unavoidably meet WP:P2.
That's why I think it's fair to single out TTH. But if I have misunderstood the gap in responsibility, please correct me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Responsibility begins with the discussion that saved the portals. It gave the impression that not only was portalspace worth saving, it was worth improving. Then there were those of us who joined the portals project to help when we can, and we did. Perhaps the nom should be held responsible for comparing TTH's actions with the Neelix redirect fiasco? Incomparable, because Neelix created all those filthy dirty redirects all alone, with no help from any members of WikiProject Redirect. TTH had help creating all those filthy dirty portals, though, and with spreading their application. This is outrageously overkill. TTH has ceased making portals all on their own. The nom knows this and yet still had to suggest a topic ban. Why? In my own crummy way of expressing myself with words: pffft! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  12:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Elmidae, SMcCandlish and Jonathunder. The user has already voluntarily ceased creating new portals since February 21. There's no need for "the beatings to continue until morale improves". North America1000 01:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Northamerican1000 should also be banned from creating more portals. Creating automated navbox portals that overlap existing portal topics is not cool. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
You need to stop scolding everybody who has ever created a portal. I have breached no policies. North America1000 02:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Au contraire: North, you need to desist from defending this flood of portalspam. Consensus is now clear that it has gone way too far, and a year ago at WP:ENDPORTALS was very clear that a significant minority of editors supported deleting all portals, while many more supported a purge., Instead you and some others went a spree in the opposite direction. That was at best reckless; at worst, it was wilful disregard of consensus WP:CONSENSUS. And WP:CONSENSUS is core policy, so don't push your luck. The guideline WP:DE is also relevant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The handful of portals I have created is certainly not a spree. Tired of this typecasting and WP:ASPERSIONS against any and all portal content creators. Does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. My !vote is regarding the matter at hand regarding TTH; that's it. North America1000 02:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Tired of you defending the indefensible, and then claiming victimhood when challenged. Portals are not content, they are a navigational device ... and defending a spammer does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose TTH stopped created portals when asked and has not resumed since. A topic ban is not needed to stop disruption and imposing one about three weeks after they stopped would be punitive in the extreme. I am though deeply troubled by the personal attacks from some very experienced editors above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessary, two weeks after it was proposed. As I understand it, there were multiple editors involved in this effort, so I don't see why we'd TBAN just one. AFAIK the editor at issue has so far kept their promise to stop making portals for the last two weeks. There's no need for a tban right now, as evidenced by the fact that we've had two weeks of discussion on this topic without a tban in place. Nuke the content, not the editor. Of course, that's based on the voluntary self-ban continuing to be observed. If that were to change, so would my !vote. (Non-administrator comment) Levivich 17:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Lack of good faith from User:The Transhumanist[edit]

I posted above[5] to dissent from @UnitedStatesian's assertion that User:The Transhumanist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been acting in good faith.

I have just encountered a further small example, from today, of TTH's bad faith. In this case, TTH added[6] the nostubs=no parameter to Portal:University of Fort Hare, contrary to the general consensus that stubs should not be included in a portal's article lists. I see no evidence that TTH sought a consensus to do so ... and the change was was sneaky, because the edit summary add parameter did not disclose the nature of the change.

Since that portal is being discussed at Portal:University of Fort Hare|MFD: Portal:University of Fort Hare, the change should have been disclosed there.

That edit was of course only a small thing, and it has no practical effect because the sum total of non-biographical articles about University of Fort Hare is 1 (the head article). But at this stage, if TTH was acting with any good faith at all, the appropriate way to demonstrate it would have been to support prompt deletion of this portal-to-nowhere, rather than trying to expand its scope into stubs.

I have just checked the last 3 weeks of TTH's contribs, and have found precisely zero instances where TTH has supported the deletion of even the most ridiculously tiny-scope portal which they have created, let alone any instance where they assisted the cleanup by identifying and CSD/MFDing inappropriate creations.

I could understand that at this stage TTH might feel dejected by the deprecation of their portalspamming, and prefer to walk away from the topic ... but that explanation for inaction is undermined by a sneaky attempt to rescue a useless portal by adding stubs to its topic list. This breaches the spirit, if not the letter, of the self-restraint which TTH had promised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal 2 - Indefinite ban on page creation[edit]

insufficient support for this idea. Withdraw Legacypac (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Helpful comments above lead me to these numerous Drafts by User:The Transhumanist (ranging from 1 to 12 years old) => Wikipedia:WikiProject_Outlines#Outline_starts:. This is an obsession with mass creation of content no one wants. He has been creating hundreds of useless pages for years and at least 3500 useless automated Portals in the last few months. He has used up his allotment of lifetime page creations on Wikipedia and has a maintenance job to do now on his creations. He should also be working on removal of these useless pages. Therefore I propose a TBAN on page creations in all namespaces, and a TBAN on moves of pages into Mainspace or Portalspace (to prevent the moving of presetup but now empty existing drafts into mainspace), with the following exceptions: Starting an XfD (so he can assist in cleaning yup his mess) and talkpages of other users (for vandal warning etc so he can maintain quality on his creations) and talkpages in general of any existing page. TBAN may be appealed to AN which would want to approve a specific plan for the types of pages he wants to create.

  • Support as proposer Legacypac (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose in current form - a TBAN on page creations in all namespaces is too drastic, give how many other namespaces that cuts off. I can understand prohibition on mainspace, portalspace, wikipedia space, or even userspace. But TTH not being able to start talk pages? To upload files? To start community books? That's unnecessary. --DannyS712 (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    I explicitly exempted talkpages of users but modified so all talkpages could be allowed. If he wants to create 500 books he should get permission. If there is a desire to create articles, he could ask for a relaxation, going through AfC for example, but with a preapproved plan. Legacypac (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This seems overbroad, locking down the English Wikipedia over one user. --Auric talk 11:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    Umm, this user has a long history of mass page creations. When people object he says no one told him he could not do it. A restriction would not prevent him from creating pages, it would just require him to get the plan preapproved. I don't know what crazy idea he might try next, so block everything except what he gets the community to agree to first. Legacypac (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    The problem isn’t page creation, it’s MASS page creation (usually using automated tools). Essentially, TTH routinely sacrifices quality for the sake of volume. It is the focus on volume that needs addressing. Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    Yes MASS creation. We don't know what he will MASS create next, so let him propose what he wants to create BEFORE he creates it. If his idea is reasonable, great, but if not we save a ton of work and drama. Legacypac (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    So why does the original proposal not ban him from mass creation? --Izno (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    Because 3500 pages [7] is not Mass Creation according to his post near the top of the VPP thread: "Please clarify what you mean by "mass creation"; the figure provided above is less than 10 new pages per day per editor, which has never been considered mass creation by any WP standard. Also, please clarify what you mean by "semi-automated", since all software programs, including Wikipedia's internal text editor, may be considered semi-automated. Thank you. — The Transhumanist 19:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)"[8] Legacypac (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the problem is limited to the Portal: namespace; there is no evidence provided that there is a problem in any other namespace (I disagree with the foregone conclusion presented about outlines). This is overreaching by a wide margin. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal 3: Relax tagging and notification requirements for Grouped Portal MfDs[edit]

Withdrawn in favor of Proposal 4
Housekeeping withdraw in favor of Proposal 4 Legacypac (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Creating group MfDs for portals is almost as hard as creating one of these portals. If you use twinkle it creates a bunch of redundent discussion pages and floods the creator's talkpage with templates. TheTranshuminist is insisting every page in a group nomination be tagged for deletion [9]. He is technically correct, but this generates a lot of extra work for no real benefit. Notifying the creator with the first nom in the group should be sufficient. It is not like there are tons of editors with a vested interest in an a given district of India portal. I expect there will be a few more group nominations so addressing this will speed this up. Legacypac (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is no notification requirement that I'm aware of , so I think you can consider that relaxed. Tagging however, is usually considered a hard-and-fast requirement. It isn't exactly fair to discuss deleting a page while not giving any indication to users watching that page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
But in this particular case, there is no realistic expectation that there are any page watchers to begin with, other than the single individual who created them all. Fut.Perf. 18:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps any change to the requirements should wait until until it has been agreed which topics merit a portal. There is no urgent need to carry out a mass deletion before deciding what to keep. Certes (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Grouped MfDs create precedent and help us create policy based on the result. For example if 20+ District of India portals are deleted at MfD a precident against creation of 690 more such portals has been established. Similarly an effort to create portals on all the counties in the US or regional districts in Canada would be easier to shut down.
Given how we found two recently automated now broken portals linked off the Mainpage, is the creator even watching them?
The Neelix situation creates precedent for this relaxation. We went even further there and dispensed with discussion. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Grouping portals which are clearly going to stand or fall together, such as districts of India, makes sense. Certes (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Tagging is a requirement, notification is not. And I just completed tagging on all of the Districts of India that are in the bundled nom. Assuming the current crop of MfD's close as delete, the solution is to propose a temporary speedy deletion criterion X3. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Those portals aren't representative, they're fringe cases. The set of new portals include a wide range of scope, for example, and many had additional work done on them.    — The Transhumanist   01:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean by "fringe cases" and "representative"? They seem very representative to me. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose – Any readers of a page that's up for deletion has a right to know that the page may go bye bye, and that's why the deletion policy requires notice. There's no need to create a separate MfD page for each page being nominated for deletion. Posting a notice on each page that leads directly to the same discussion is easy.    — The Transhumanist   01:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - As User:UnitedStatesian says, we need X3. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The is no need to relax anything. Mass tagging and mass notification is no great issue. If the consensus is that they should all be deleted, Feds them all through mfd in one list. Ask The Transhumanist to tag and notify. I trust that he will cooperate. Stop the panic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Concerning further proposals[edit]

This is a central community noticeboard, which carries no less inherent validity than VPP. This is the relevant discussion, and as long as wide-reaching proposals are properly advertised to the community, it makes no difference whether they're listed here or at VPP. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and petty procedural objections can never override the process of consensus-building. Please focus on the discussions themselves, rather than meta-discussions regarding procedure. ~Swarm~ {talk} 05:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The proper venue for proposals is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).    — The Transhumanist   01:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

AN is a perfectly good place for many kinds of proposal. With over 300,000 edits and many years here you should know better. Legacypac (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
AN is not the proper place for a proposal on regulating content (referring to portals loosely as content). The way forward does not require administrative action, TTH will respect consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, I admire your AGF, but I think it is wildly misplaced.
This whole drama arose because after a far-from-unanimous RFC consensus not to actually delete the whole portal namespace, TTH chose to invert the meaning of that consensus to "create thousands of crappy new semi-automated microportals at a rate of up 40 per hour" ... and then go batshit raging at anyone who MFed some of the junk or pointed out that the consensus was not actually for a pressure hose of portalspam.
I don't know whether TTH has comprehension issues or just disdains the consensus, but I don't see any other explanation for the last year of TTH antics ... and either way, I see zero reason to expect that TTH will respect consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I’ve known TTH for a long time, although I have never worked with him. He always seemed perfectly reasonable, and really interested in a very worthwhile thing, navigation aids. There’s no problem there. I haven’t followed portal discussions closely, but I have never seen TTH rude or obstinate or disdainful. There must have been a misapprehension. I encouraged him to make auto-portals, and he did, and now he is trouble for it. I think the answer is at WT:Bots. AN should not be for making and implementing portal-specific proposals, the proposals should be directed at TTH. Follow the Bot process for any auto-portal creation. Do not create any new portals without an approved bot. That sort of thing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Wrong venue In the nutshell at the top in read mode, and again in bold and red in the edit window, the words scream This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.. What we have here is a big idea involving the work of everyone. At most there should be a pointer diff here at AN. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

As I see it the reason this ended up here is because the initial proposal was for a topic ban, which is AN material. The other related proposals were put here for convenience. At any rate it’s not grounds for a procedural close. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 01:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • This is absolutely the wrong venue, since this is not an "issue affecting administrators generally", it's a proposal (actually a pile of confused and confusing proposals – "I'm not getting my way in version A, so try version B. Nope? Okay, how about C? No? Then here's proposal D ...") that would affect the entire project, and is essentially a content-presentation and navigation matter, not an administrator matter of any kind. This is basically a variant of forum shopping, where instead of moving to a different venue, the idea is dressed up in a new outfit and put before the same venue over and over. The wrong venue. (And is actually regular forum-shopping, too, since we just had a big RfC about this last year.) WP:VPPOL is the place for something like this, especially since one of the various competing proposals includes making changes to WP:CSD policy, something we very, very rarely touch and only after considerable site-wide debate and a clear community consensus that it's required and will not have unintended negative consequences (ever noticed that the sequence of lettered and numbered CSD criteria has gaps in it? The community has revoked several CSD criteria as going too far). CSD is pretty much our most dangerous policy.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, if I were the one starting this, I would’ve put it on one of the village pumps. At any rate it’s on T:CD now so it will be seen by those who frequent the village pumps (though it won’t show up on watchlists). Also, only two out of the nine deprecated CSDs were repealed for “going too far”. 6/9 were removed because they were redundant and they were folded into other CSDs. This leaves CSD X1, the prototype for the CSD X3 proposal, which was repealed at the conclusion of the Neelix redirect cleanup. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal 4: Provide for CSD criterion X3[edit]

 Administrator note: This proposal is being advertised at WP:VPP and WP:CD, and it has been requested that it stay open for at least 30 days. ~Swarm~ {talk} 05:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I am entering and numbering this proposal in order to get it into the record, but am requesting that action on it be deferred until the current round of MFDs are decided.

As per User:UnitedStatesian, Create Criteria for Speedy Deletion criterion X3, for portals created by User:The Transhumanist between April 2018 and March 2019. Tagging the portals for speedy deletion will provide the notice to users of the portals, if there are any users of the portals. I recommend that instructions to administrators include a request to wait 24 hours before deleting a portal. This is a compromise between the usual 1 to 4 hours for speedy deletion and 7 days for XFD. The availability of Twinkle for one-click tagging will make it easy to tag the pages, while notifying the users (if there are any). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This proposal should be posted in a wider venue, such as WP:VPR or WP:MFD. Many of those portals have been in place for months, making WP:AN too narrow a venue for them. CSD notices wouldn't be placed until after the discussion is over, and therefore would not serve to notify the users of those portals of the discussion. A notice to the discussion of this proposal, since it is a deletion discussion, should be placed on each of the portals, to allow their readers to participate in the discussion. The current round of MfDs are not a random sampling of the portals that were created, and therefore are not necessarily representative of the set. The portals themselves vary in many ways, including scope, the amount of time they've been accessed by readers, quality, number of features, picture support, volume of content, amount of work that went into them, number of editors who worked on them, length, readership, etc.    — The Transhumanist   07:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
How would you suggest to get a representative sample? Legacypac (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. That would be difficult now, since there are already a bunch of portals nominated for MfD. If those were included, then the sample would already be skewed. I expect a truly random sample would reveal that some portals are worth keeping and others are not. A more important question would be "How would we find the portals worth keeping? Which is very similar to the question "what should the creation criteria for portals be?", the very thing they are discussing at the portal guidelines page right now. Many of these portals may qualify under the guideline that is finally arrived upon there. For example, they are discussing scope. There are portals of subjects that fall within Vital articles Level 2, 3, 4, and 5, and there are many portals of subjects of similar scope to the subjects at those levels. And many of the portals had extra work put into them, and who knows how many had contributions by other editors besides me. Another factor is, that the quality of the navigation templates the portals are powered by differs, and some of the portals are powered by other source types, such as lists. Some have hand-crafted lists, as there are multiple slideshow templates available, one of which accepts specific article names as parameters. Another way to do that is provide a manual list in the subtopics section and power the slideshow from that. Some of the portals are of a different design than the standard base template. Some are very well focused, contextually, while others are not. For example, some of the portals have multiple excerpt slideshows to provide additional context.    — The Transhumanist   07:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. Looking at the existing MFD discussions, TTH seems determined to drag and wikilawyer as much as possible to try to derail the discussions, even for blatantly and indefensibly inappropriate microportals like those discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods; it's not a good use of anyone's time to go through the same timesink 5000+ times. (The cynic in me says that a speedy criterion wouldn't work as while the creators wouldn't be able to decline the templates themselves, TTH and Dreamy Jazz would probably just follow the tagger around removing the speedy templates from each other's creations.) In practice, it would probably be more efficient to do what we did with Neelix and have a streamlined MFD nomination process, in which "created by TTH" is considered sufficient grounds for deletion at MFD and they default to delete unless someone can make a strong argument for keep. MFD is less gameable and also gives a space for people to defend them in those rare cases where they're actually worth keeping. (Every time I look, I find that the flood of inane and pointless TTH portals has spread further than I thought; shipping containers portal, anyone?) ‑ Iridescent 08:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    Dreamy Jazz seems unlikely do that, having already decided during this debate to stop donating their time to Wikipedia. Certes (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Another option would be to move these to draft space. The templates and lua modules could be modified so that the portals render right in that namespace (I wish I would have thought of this before). Being in draft space would give time to fix their various problems (keeping in mind that micro-scope is not fixable), and identify the ones worth keeping. I would agree not to move any of them personally, and would propose/request such moves after the new creation criteria guidelines for portals are settled upon. I would also be willing to tag those that did not meet those guidelines with CSD (as creator), saving Legacypac the trouble of nominating them at MfD (he mentioned somewhere that he thought I should help clean up this "mess"). Another benefit of this strategy is that if any of them sit in draft space too long without further development, they automatically become subject to deletion per the draft space guidelines, and those that reach that age without any edits can be deleted en masse without time-consuming effort-wasting MfD discussions. This course of action would of course need the participation of some lua programmers to add the necessary functionality to the modules, which would be a good upgrade for those, to allow for portal drafts to be created in the future.    — The Transhumanist   09:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
P.S. @Iridescent and Legacypac: (pinging)    — The Transhumanist   09:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. The problem is that hundreds of portals on obscure topics makes an unmaintainable mess. Passing it to another namespace does not solve the problem which is that the portals are not helpful and are not maintainable. Automated creation of outlines/portals/anything must stop. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No. I tried moving one broken portal to Draft as a test and it broke even more stuff. Not worth the effort to modify everything for draft space and then let the same little group of editors release them willy nilly back into portal space. Since this group ignored their own Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines "portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." why should anyone trust them to follow stricter guidelines? Legacypac (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Definitely not. What possible benefit would there be to cluttering up another namespace with ≈5000 pages that will never serve any useful purpose? If you want to goof around with wikicode, nobody's stopping you installing your own copy of Mediawiki; we're not your personal test site. ‑ Iridescent 15:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As a general rule, Portal pages should not be draftified. In fact, we should not usually move anything not designed to be an article to draft space. Draft portals should be in portal space, just like draft books should be in book space and draft templates in template space (pages with subpages are a pain to move, and many namespaces have special features that suggest keeping drafts in the same space if possible). If a portal is not ready for viewing by the general public, tag it with a relevant maintenance template and make sure it is not linked to from mainspace or from other portal pages.
  • In the case at hand, TT's mass created portals do not seem like they will all be soon made ready for wider consumption, so deleting them seems the better option. —Kusma (t·c) 20:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support nuking from orbit: It's the only way to be sure. ——SerialNumber54129 09:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support enough with the wikilawyering and obstruction. This proposal is a little too narrow though - TTH created 3500+ automated portals but others in his little team created around 1000 more. I just grouped some by User:Dreamy Jazz into Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#US_County_Portals Legacypac (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support These useless broken portals have to go. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, too many, too quickly, not enough thought went into their creation. Nuke these, revert other portals that were better before TTH "restarted" them. Automation should help with portal maintenance, not replace portal maintenance or move the maintenance burden to navboxes or other places. —Kusma (t·c) 14:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, sensible and fair way to deal with these. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: MFD could never handle the overwhelming amount of unnecessary and unsustainable portals, considering the magnitude of TTH's portal creation entering the thousands. –eggofreasontalk 20:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support nuking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Transcluded to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support mass creation of portals on these topics isn't appropriate without wider discussion, and the automated/semi-automated method used to create them doesn't produce high quality output. Portal:Sierra County, California, for example, is about a county with a population of 3,240, and consists of the lead of the main article, a few random contextless images grabbed from that article (mostly maps or logos) and portal boilerplate. Cleaning these up will require a temporary speedy deletion criterion, I don't think MfD could handle the load. Hut 8.5 22:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. I had already suggested deferring, but am satisfied that it is going ahead to mass-delete. I will add that, after a consensus is reached on whether and how to use portals, any that were deleted and are needed are available at Requests for Undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This mass page creation went against WP:MEATBOT and at least the spirit of WP:MASSCREATION if not the letter. An appropriate remedy for automated script and semi-automated creation is speedy deletion. Did you know they were driving for 10,000 portals at a rapid pace? It's here [10] Legacypac (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose any and all notions of creating new CSD criteria at any drama board. Discussions here are too rushed, too emotive, too reactionary. Use WT:CSD. Consider using a WT:CSD subpage RfC. Do not attempt to mandate the detail of policy from a drama board. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Transclusion is not good enough. The discussion needs to be searchable from WT:CSD, and the specifics of any and all new criteria need to address the Criteria for a new CSD criterion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Many editors at the Village Pump discussion, the Tban discussion above, and at MfDs also supported this. We do not need to fragment this discussion further. Legacypac (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Proposal 1 will make this Proposal 4 moot. This Proposal 4 is not a proper CSD implementation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: Proposal 1 is about stopping TTH from creating new portals. Proposal 4 is about deleting those he created in the last couple of months. How is P1 going to make P4 moot? —Kusma (t·c) 10:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
List them all in an MfD, if they must all be deleted. A CSD that enables self appointed decision makes for which should go and which might be ok, is inferior to MfD. MfD can handle a list of pages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
If you want them all at MfD stop objecting to the listing of specific Portals at MfD. Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
No. Some of the Portals I would support for deletion, and others definitely no. This makes the proposal for a CSD invalid. It fails the CSD new criterion criteria. The proposal is neither Objective or Uncontestable. It would pick up a lot of portals that should not be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. No care at all went into these portals, they are mindless creations with loads of errors and little actual benefit for our readers. I would also support the restoration of all pre-existing portals to the pre-transhumanist version, the new "single page" version may require less maintenance, but is way too often clearly inferior (see e.g. this, which is more like vandalism than actual improvement, and has been reversed since). Fram (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Anyone restoring old multi-subpage portals should bear in mind that they will require maintenance. If there is no-one willing to maintain them, they, too are likely to be MfDed. No old-style portal with a willing and active maintainer has been converted as far as I know, so I suggest that anyone restoring them should be willing to maintain them. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    • No. Converting an unmaintained but well-designed portal into an unmaintained semi-automated worse portal is not the way forward. Any claims that the new portals are maintained or don't need maintaining is false, as the many problematic new portals demonstrate. Fram (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Portal:Germany was converted (more than once) although it has maintainers. To make sure your portal isn't "improved", you need to put a specific template on the page, which isn't very obvious. There are old-style multi page portals that require only minimal maintenance, and where the conversion removed specific features. All those should be reverted, also to protect the subpages from overzealous deleters (the worst is deleting the /box-footer subpages; this breaks all old revisions by removing a necessary closing div). —Kusma (t·c) 17:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose A mass-deletion of the new generation portals. Listing them at MfD will be sufficient for any that do not meet the criteria laid out in the portal guidelines (which are still under discussion). It makes little sense to remove the whole batch because some of them are problematic. They would need to be properly triaged to ensure the good ones are not caught in the process. I would of course, help with said triage. We're not trying to create more work for the community, just preserve good content. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 23:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - You created more work for the community by creating thousands of portals, some of which do not work, and with no intention to maintain them. I see no evidence that this effort created good content that needs to be preserved. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no new content in the automated portals, it's all poorly repackaged bits of existing content. Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
All portals, old or new, good or bad, manual or automated, repackage existing content. That's their job. New content belongs in articles. Certes (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per wumbolo below: criterion P2 already covers a number of these, the rest should be discussed. I still stand by my original comment which follows this addition. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Original comment: Weak oppose on principle. CSD is a necessary evil, and I don't think we should be hasty to add another criterion that skips our usual consensus process. I'm fine with nuking these portals and not opposed to deleting them, any diamonds in the rough will prove their worth by being created again, but I would prefer one big MfD with the rationale "created by The Transhumanist" which allows proper determination of consensus and gives those who want to spend their time triaging a chance to do so. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 08:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Building multipage MfDs like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods is time consuming and tedious. A temporary CSD is rhe way to go. Consensus against this mess of new portals has already been established at VP, AN and in the test MfDs. Legacypac (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support due to the massive amount of time it would take to put the ~4500 portals through MfD. MfD has been swamped with portal deletion requests from some time ago, and I can't see all this stuff removed via MfD in the foreseeable future (as someone said earlier, there is still a lot of Outlines left over from one of TTH's previous projects, so who knows how long it would take for MfD to delete all of this). This CSD X3 would streamline the process, and it would probably only take a few days to a week. It would help, as also mentioned earlier, to extend the criterion to the other users involved in the mass creation of these portals. Rlin8 (··📧) 03:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    • MfD has never had an issue to nominations of list of pages. 4500 separate MfD nominations would be absurd, but a list would be OK. If each is new, and has a single author, notifications of the author will be trivial. A CSD proposal shortcuts a discussion of the merits of the new portals, and pre-supposes deletion to be necessary, contrary to deletion policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
TTH demands we place notification on every portal. We can skip notifying him, but building even 20 page MfD's is very time consuming. How do you propose to discuss 4500 or even 100 assorted portals at a time? These took 3 min to make - but far more than 3 min to list, tag, discuss and vote, then delete - when you add up all the time required from various editors and Admins. The test MfDs are sufficent and the very strong opposition to this automated portal project justifies this temporary CSD. Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
"TTH demands we place notification on every portal"? Legacypac, I have missed that post by him. If he did that, it needs to be repudiated. If these are new pages, and he is the only author, it is sufficient to notify him once. If all 4500 are essentially variations on the same thing, as long as the full set is defined, and browsable, we can discuss them all together at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe during the Portland Oregon neighborhood MFD I specifically said I was not tagging all the related portals but he insisted I tag here [11] I could not get support in the section above to relax the MfD tagging because others wanted this CSD. During the Delete Portals RFC TTH went all out insisting every portal including the community portal be tagged for deletion - then he did it himself. That brought in all kinds of casual infrequent editors who were mostly against deleting the community portal. (Even though that was Pretty much pulled out of consideration for deletion before the tagging project). That massive tagging derailed the deletion RFC. By making cleanup as hard as possible TTH is making a lot of people want to nuke everything. Legacypac (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Legacypac's analysis is erroneous and misleading. The WP:ENDPORTALS RFC was a deletion discussion, and posting a notice on each page up for deletion is required by deletion policy. Note that the Community Portal was only mentioned twice. A portal that was the basis for about 50 oppose votes was the Current Events portal. Neither the Community Portal nor the Current Events portal were exempted in the proposal at any time. If you didn't count those, that left the count at about 150 in support of eliminating portals to about 250 against.    — The Transhumanist   07:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: (edit conflict) See the top of this section for the referred to statement, which is not exactly as he quoted. A notice posted at the top of the portals slated by this proposal would be appropriate. Legacypac has been posting notice for his multi-page nominations using the {{mfd}} template, which auto-generates a link to an mfd page of the same title as the page the template is posted on. Rather than following the template's instructions for multiple pages, he's been creating an MfD page for each, and redirecting them to the combined mfd. Then a bot automatically notifies the creator of each page (me), swamping my user talk page with redundant notifications. Thus, Legacypac believes he'll have to create thousands of mfd redirect pages, and that I somehow want 3500+ notifications on my talk page.    — The Transhumanist   07:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
You want us to manually tag pages for deletion that you used an automated script to create? You flooded Wikipedia with useless pages in violation of WP:MEATBOT but you are worried about having to clean up your talkpage notices? Just create an archiving system for your talkpage like we did for User:Neelix's talkpage. If you don't want notices you could start tagging pages that fail your own guidelines with "delete by author request" instead of commenting on how we will do the cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
TTH, if you don't want so many deletion notices on your talk page, then remember in future not to create thousands of spam pages. Please help with the cleanup, rather than complaining about it.
@Legacypac: good work MFDing the spam, but it does seem that you are using a somewhat inefficient approach to tagging. Have you tried asking at WP:BOTREQ for help? In the right hands, tools such as AWB make fast work of XfD tagging. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support whatever course of action that will result in every portal created in this manner being deleted with the minimal of time and effort required. TTH has set up his automated tool, created a massive mess, and left it unattended for others to sort out. It should take less time to clean up this mess than it did to make it, not more. Nuke the lot and if there is anything of value lost then TTH can manually request pages to be restored one at a time at DRV. Fish+Karate 11:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Fish and karate. RGloucester 14:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as written. I could support something that explicitly excluded portals which are in use and/or are being developed, but the current proposal to indiscriminately delete everything, including active portals, unless the admin chooses to notify any editors and the ones notified happen to be online in a narrow time frame is significantly overly broad. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Not that portals are that bad, but I don't think we need portals on smaller subjects. (Portal:Spaghetti when we already have Portal:Pasta? Portal:Nick Jr., anyone?) Some might be worth keeping, but a lot are unneeded and unmaintainable. At least it's not a Neelix case. SemiHypercube 16:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @SemiHypercube: "Some might be worth keeping" is actually an argument against this proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @Thryduulf: Kind of, but that might be a reason not to just mass delete all at once. In the Neelix case there were some redirects that were actually useful, so a separate CSD criterion was used to keep some redirects at the admins' discretion, so this might be a similar case (before you say that contradicts my "it's not a Neelix case" statement, I meant that in terms of what the redirects were about) SemiHypercube 12:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
      • It violates points 1 and 2 of the requirements for CSD criteria: objectivity and unconestability. Unless all the portals covered should be speedily deleted then none of them should be. If you only want to delete some of them then you should be opposing this criterion (just like you should have opposed the subjective Neelix criterion). Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Only realistic way to deal with these. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Request the posting of a notice at the top of each of the pages being nominated here for mass deletion, as required by the Deletion Policy. This proposal is currently a gross violation of the deletion policy because it is a discussion to delete 3500+ pages, that have been created over the span of a year, that are presently being viewed hundreds of thousands of times per month (projected to millions of times over the coming year) by readers of Wikipedia. The proposal for mass deletion has been made without the required notice being posted at the top of the pages to be deleted. This is being decided by a handful of editors unbeknownst to the wider community, namely, the readership of the portals to be deleted. It may be that those reading such notices would decide that the portals should be deleted, but the point here is that you are denying them the opportunity to participate in the deletion discussion as required by the deletion policy.    — The Transhumanist   21:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Request you stop wasting people's fucking time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • He switched back to Outlines Special:Contributions/The_Transhumanist which are another unpopular plague for Wikipedia. The assertion that hundreds of thousands of readers a month are looking at his 3500 portals is fanciful at best and not supported by readership stats. Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Support opposing anything TTH says from now on. Per OiD. ——SerialNumber54129 13:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose taking ad hominem arguments into consideration. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose WP:BLUDGEONING. ——SerialNumber54129 15:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Legacypac, technically he's probably telling the truth. Even obvious drivel like Portal:Coconuts averages around five views per day, thanks to webcrawlers and people who have the articles watchlisted and are wondering "what's this mystery link that's just been spammed onto the article I wrote?"; multiply that by 3500 and you have 500,000 pageviews per month right there. ‑ Iridescent 22:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Neelix created about 50,000 redirects, which were reviewed by the community. The number of portals is an order of magnitude smaller. If X3 is to be introduced, it should involve a similar review process. We should certainly delete portals which have too narrow a scope or are of poor quality and cannot be improved. However, systematic deletion of all portals which qualify for consideration, purely on an ad hominem argument, would be as wrong as semi-automatic creation. Certes (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Look at the rate these were created [12] sometimes several dozen an hour, and sometimes an average of 12 seconds each. If so little thought went into creation, why make deletion so difficult? The Neelix cleanup took far too long (I was a big part of it) and we deleted the vast majority of those redirects anyway the extra hard way. As far as I could see the editors who insisted we review everything did none of the reviewing. Also, these were created in violation of WP:MEATBOT which is a blockable or at least sanctionable offense Legacypac (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Two wrongs do not make a right - it is much more important that we get the cleanup right than it happens quickly. Whether or not TTH is blocked or otherwise sanctioned is completely irrelevant. While many (maybe even most) of the created portals should be deleted not all of them should be, and this needs human review: see requirement 2 for new CSD criteria at the top of WT:CSD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf, Certes, SmokeyJoe, and Legacypac: Concerning the rate, Legacypac's observation is not accurate. What the edits he is citing do not show, is the method by which the pages were created: they were created in batches, in tabs. Before saving, all the pages/tabs were inspected. For the pages that did not pass muster, such as those that displayed errors (this did not catch all errors, because lua errors can be intermittent or turn up later due to an edit in source material being transcluded), the tabs for those were closed. In a batch of 50, 20 or 30 might survive the cull (though batch sizes varied). Some tabs got additional edits in addition to inspection, to fix errors or remove the sections the errors were in, or further development. After all the tabs in a batch were inspected and the bad ones culled, the remaining ones were saved. That's why the edits' time stamps are so close together. If you look more closely, you'll see the time gap is between the batches rather than the individual page saves. Therefore, WP:MEATBOT was not violated.    — The Transhumanist   18:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
He claims [13] he created 500 portals in 500 to 1000 minutes. and is using a script Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:The_Transhumanist/QuickPortal.js If this is not MEATBOT we should refind MEATBOT as meaningless. Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
A minute or two per portal of the new design sounds about right. Note that the script doesn't save pages. It puts them into preview mode, so that the editor can review them and work on them further before clicking on save.    — The Transhumanist   19:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Legacypac and The Transhumanist: As I said above, the method of creation is irrelevant to this proposal, as is what (if any) sanction is appropriate. Likewise discussions of WP:MEATBOT don't affect this at all. What matters is only that these pages exist but some of them should not, this proposal needs to be rejected or modified such that it deletes only those that need deleting without also deleting those that do not. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural note I have advertised this discussion at WP:VPP and would encourage others to add links where they think interested editors might see. I think this should remain open for 30 days, as it is quite a significant policy change. GoldenRing (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support now that the MfDs (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here) are closing with strong consensus around delete, it is clear this is the fastest path to improving the encyclopedia (which is what we are here for, remember?) Any argument that 3,500 more portals have to go through MfD is strictly throwing sand in the gears. It is going to be enough manual labor pulling the links to the deleted portals from all the templates and pages they have been added to. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • That shows that a speedy deletion criterion is possibly warranted for some, but several comments on those discussions - including your own at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Spaghetti - indicate that this proposed criterion is too broad. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
      • You misunderstand my comment at that MfD: I strongly support that portal's deletion and all the others that would be covered by this proposed criterion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
        • You supported the deletion of Portal:Spaghetti because the topic was covered by Portal:Pasta, even though Portal:Pasta would be deleted under this criterion? That's rather disingenuous at best and very significantly and unnecessary disruptive at worst. Portal:Pasta is an example of a portal that should not be deleted without discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Again, you misunderstand my reasoning: I was specifically pointing out to another editor that the existence of Portal:Pasta could NOT be a reason to delete Portal:Spaghetti, since in my opinion Portal:Pasta would likely also be deleted. Instead, I think the current Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines provide ample OTHER reasons for deleting both portals (and many, many others, of course). Hope that clarifies. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose and keep all. WP:P2 covers unnecessary portals, and there is no rationale presented other than WP:IDLI to delete a large proportion of all of them, which were all kept after a RfC in 2018. The next time content policies are created at AN by the cabal of admins, I am retiring from Wikipedia. wumbolo ^^^ 16:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Wumbolo: Well, if it came to that, take it to WP:RFARB first. Given the past history of WP:FAITACCOMPLI and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS extremism (i.e., WP:FALSECONSENSUS) cases, I have little doubt that ArbCom would agree to take a case about a gaggle of anti-portal people WP:GAMING the consensus-formation process by inventing sweeping policy changes out of their butts in a venue few content editors pay attention to and which is clearly out-of-scope for such a decision, even if it somehow had sufficiently broad input (e.g., via WP:CENT). I'm skeptical any alleged consensus is going to come out of this discussion, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is a repeat of the Neelix situation. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Susmuffin: The situation has similarities, but the proposed criterion is not comparable. Criterion X1 applied only to redirects created by Neelix that the reviewing administrator reasonably believed would be snow deleted if discussed at RfD (i.e. they had to evaluate each redirect), this criterion would apply to every portal created by TTH in the timeframe without any other conditions and without the need for anyone to even look at anything other than the date of creation. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Honestly, there are far too many portals to be deleted through the usual channels. However, an quick evaluation would be reasonable, provided we keep the portal system itself. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Unlike Neelix who created some reasonable redirects along the way, these autogenerated portals are of uniformly low quality. The community has looked at representive samples across a variety of subject areas at MFD and the community has already deleted 143 of the 143 portals nominated at closed MfDs. The yet to be closed MfDs are headed to increasing that number. No one has suggested any alternative deletion criteria for X3. Legacypac (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
That nobody has suggested an alternative is irrelevant - it's not up to those who oppose this proposal to fix it, and those who support it are by-and-large ignoring the objections. The MfDs have been selected as a representative sample of those that, after review, are not worth keeping and have been reviewed by MfD participants. This does not demonstrate that deletion without review is appropriate - indeed quite the opposite. Remember there is no deadline, it is significantly more important that we get it right than we do things quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unwarranted and dangerous (and circular reasoning). First, we do not modify CSD without a strong community (not admins' star chamber) consensus that an entire class of material is not just categorically unwanted but so unwanted that it should be deleted on sight without any further consideration. It's our most dangerous policy, and a change like this to it should be an RfC matter at WP:VPPOL. In theory, it could be at WT:CSD, except there is not yet any establishment of a consensus against these portals, and VPPOL is where that would get hashed out, since it's a project-wide question of content presentation and navigation (and maintenance, and whether tools can permissibly substitute for some manual maintenance, and ...). The cart is ahead of the horse here; we can't have a speedy deletion criterion without already having a deletion criterion to begin with. I strongly agree with SmokeyJoe: "Oppose any and all notions of creating new CSD criteria at any drama board. Discussions here are too rushed, too emotive, too reactionary."  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • OpposeWP:P2 covers problematic portals just fine. A concerning issue here is that some users herein appear to simply not like portals in general, and so there are several arguments above for mass deletion as per this "I don't like it" rationale. Mass deletion should be a last step, not a first step, and portals should be considered on a case-by-case basis. North America1000 22:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
You created some with the same tools. One or two of your creations are now at MfD which is why you are now engaging against this solution. We will consider each of your creations at MfD. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
My !vote here is based upon my view of the matter at hand, and as such, it stands. Period. Regarding my portal creations, so what? You come across as having a penchant for scolding content creators on Wikipedia if you don't like the medium that is used. Please consider refraining from doing so, as it is unnecessary, and patronizing. North America1000 01:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Northamerica1000: I agree - for example, I actually welcome the creation of Portal:Economics because I think econ should be established as distinct from business as in Portal:Business and economics. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 02:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this CSD seems have to no more objective criteria than "shoot unless someone defends it". For this to be justified, they'd have to explain how no-one reacting within 24 hours was sufficient reasoning. As far as the initial proposal included, it didn't contain any acceptable objective criteria for something warranting deletion on quality grounds. Far worse, it didn't contain suitable justification (whether popularity/quality) for these portals to impose such a major hindrance to Wikipedia as to warrant a process with as few eyes (per consideration) as CSD. The nominator might have had more luck with a PortalPROD mechanism. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
This CSD exactly meets each criteria for CSD's at the WP:CSD page. It is clear. It is easy to decide if the page meets the CSD. We ran 145 of these portals through MfD already and none survived. Numerous editors suggested this CSD in the Village Pump discussion. These mass created portals universally have the same flaws. Therefore this oppose rational is flawed. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: will allow to quickly manage the auto-created portals of zero utility. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support enthusiastically. Taking all these portals through MFD would be a massive drain on community resources. TTH created these portals at sustained speeds of up to 40 per hour, so even the time taken to apply a CSD tag and assess it 24 hours later will require more editorial time than TTH took to create them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - There are good quality portals that will be excluded, few maybe, but deserve to remain. For example Portal: Cities, Portal: Architecture Portal:Sculpture.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Guilherme Burn, maybe those are worth keeping. Or maybe not. But even if they are good, they are not worth the price of the community committing huge amounts of time to individually debating every one of the thousands of useless portals which members of the portal project have spewed out over the last year (often as drive by creations, and which project members have then piled into MFDs to keep.
If the Portals Project had exercised discretion so far, then we would be in a very different place. But it's utterly outraegous to ask the community to devote more time to assessing this spam than the Portal Project put into creating them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Could these portals be marked to be spared?Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Guilherme Burn: not according to the proposal as written. The only chance of saving is if an admin chooses to notify and wait 24 hours and somebody objects within those 24 hours and someone spots that CSD has been declined previously if it gets renominated. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Guilherme Burn: Portal:Cities is totally moribund and unread, and has never had a single participant. Portal:Architecture dates from 2005 and wasn't created by TTH or this tag-team, so wouldn't be deleted regardless (although I imagine the enormous wall of pointless links which TTH's bot dumped onto the page a couple of months ago would be reverted). ‑ Iridescent 14:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Iridescent and BrownHairedGirl:One portal that does not meet Mfd criteria is enough for me to keep my opinion. Portal:Cities Although poor visualized is an important and good quality portal and the Portal:Sculpture (erroneously I quoted another portal) as well.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Guilherme Burn: please can you clarify that statement that One portal that does not meet Mfd criteria is enough for me to keep.
Are you saying that you are willing to personally scrutinise a few thousand drive-by Portals at MfD in order to find the one which should be kept? Or do you want others to do that work?
TTH as made it very clear that these portals took on average between one and two minutes each to create ([14] Have you tried creating 500 portals? It is rather repetitious/tedious/time-consuming (from 500 to 1000 minutes)). So many multiples of that-one-to-two minutes per portal do you think it is fair to ask the community to spend scrutinisng them? And how much of that time are you prepared to give? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
So many multiples of that-one-to-two minutes per portal do you think it is fair to ask the community to spend scrutinisng them?Yes. The community also failed to set criteria for creating portals. What is the difference of Portal: Lady Gaga to Portal: ABBA? For me both should be excluded. If the community not had problems to create a portal for a unique singer, why now have problems with someone who has decided to create portals for lot of singers? And to be honest I do not think so much work like that, Mfd can be executed in blocks excluding several portals at the same time.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SmokeyJoe et al. Completely unnecessary to override already existing procedure. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Paine Ellsworth: the administrative work of trawling through several thousand drive-by-created micro-portals is huge. Cleaning up this flood of portalspam through MFD requires a huge amount of editorial time, vastly more than was involved in creating the spam.
If you think that existing procedure is fine, why aren't you devoting large hunks of your time to doing the cleanup by the laborious procedure you defend? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Because...? I don't know, I guess I think this whole thing is rather more of a knee-jerk reaction than a brainy, measured response. Sure I've done my share of big, teejus jobs for the project and plan to continue (on my terms). I have a lot of respect for editors like yourself and TTH who've been lifting this project out of the primal soup of its beginnings even longer than I have (I went over ten in January, or was it Feb? whatever) and I'm tired of seeing good, solid editors get reamed for their work and retire, just leave or get banned. Don't think it can't happen to you, because as good as you are, neither you nor the rest of us are immune to the gang-up-on-em mentality that turns justice into vengeance 'round here. Think you should also know if you don't already that I'm about 95 farts Wikignome and 5 parts other, and it takes a lot less for us to think we're being badgered and handled. I voted correctly for me and my perceptions, and I don't expect either of us will change this unwise world one iota if you vote you and yours! WTF ever happened to forgiveness? REspectfully, Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  13:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Paine Ellsworth: Thank you for adding the words that I dared not write in case I was next against the wall. Certes (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
But it seems to me that the unintended effect of what you are both saying is something like "I am not making any effort to assist the cleanup of this mass portalspam, but I will take the effort to oppose measures which reduce the huge burden on those who are actually doing that necessary cleanup work".
As I say, I do not believe that is what either of you intend. But all I see from either of you is opposition to any restraint on the portalspammer, and opposition to anything which would assist the cleanup. I respect the fine principles from which you two start, but I urge you to consider the effects on the community both of not easing the cleanup burden and of continuing to describe the likes of TTH in positive terms. Look for example at my post in a thread above about the #Lack_of_good_faith_from_User:The_Transhumanist, and at Iridiscent's observation above that of TTH's previous history of spamming useless pages.
As to lifting this project out of the primal soup of its beginnings ... that's an extraordinary way to describe TTH's spamming of hundreds, if not thousands, of useless, unfinished micro-portals. Face-sad.svg --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not making any effort to assist with mass deletions, beyond !voting to delete the clearer cases. We already have enough enthusiasts working in that department. Until recently, I had been adjusting individual portals and enhancing the modules behind them to improve quality, but I slowed down when it became obvious that my contributions in that area will be deleted. Certes (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
So that's as I feared, @Certes: members of that WikiProject are leaving it to others to clean up the mess created by the WikiProject and its members.
That only reinforces my impression of a collectively irresponsible project, which doesn't restrain or even actively discourage portalspam, doesn't try to identify it, and doesn't assist in its cleanup.
That's a marked contrast with well-run projects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
To BHG: not a surprising perspective, possibly a hasty generalization, however that's not your worst move. Your worst move is to consider "mass deletions" of what you deem "portalspam" as better than the "mass creations" of portals. Who's really to say? As an editor mentions below, "...these portals are doing no harm so great that they can be deleted without due process." So maybe you're wrong about those mass deletions that portray some portals as WMDs instead of the harmless windows into Wikipedia that they were meant to be? No matter, at present you are part of the strong throng. If you're right, you're right. But what if you and the strong throng are wrong? May things continue to go well with you! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  07:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and also apply it to those created by Northamerica1000, who has made such useless portals as Portal:Strawberries and Portal:Waffles. Reywas92Talk 08:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Reywas92: Northamerica1000 has created only 70 pages in the portal namespace (excluding redirects) in the relevant timeperiod. In no conceivable scenario does that justify a speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per F&K (whatever course of action that will result in every portal created in this manner being deleted with the minimal of time and effort required) and SN (nuke from orbit). I'll be honest I don't know enough to know whether it should be a X3 or a P2 or a single MfD list with 4,500 entries... but it should not need to involve manually tagging pages that were created by a bot or otherwise spending any real time figuring out which should be kept and which should not be kept. Delete them all. If editors feel like this portal or that portal should be kept, let them make the case for undeletion afterwards which can be examined on a case-by-case basis. (If that process is followed, it goes without saying that the portal creator should be banned from making any such undeletion requests.) Levivich 17:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    How are we supposed to work out what is worth undeleting, short of downloading all portals in advance lest they be deleted? Certes (talk)
    If an editor is not aware of a portal existing, then that editor shouldn't be asking for it to be kept. If there are particular portals that editors know they want saved, then they should have an opportunity to request that it be saved. But there should be no one-by-one examination of thousands and thousands of portals created by one user using semi-automatic methods. Levivich 19:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    Kill them all and let God sort them out is very much not the way Wikipedia works and is very much not the way it should work. Why should the review be restricted to administrators (as your proposal would require)? Why is it preferable to significantly harm the encyclopaedia by deleting good portals than to do the job properly and delete only those that actually need deleting (which are doing significantly less harm by existing than deleting good ones would cause)? Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    So let me create several thousand pages semi-automatically, and then I'll put it to you to go through them one by one and tell me which should be deleted and why? I don't think that's how it should work. It should work in reverse. The default should be delete them all, with some process for allowing people to request that particular portals not be deleted. BTW, when I say "all portals" I mean all portals covered by this proposal, not all portals that exist on Wikipedia. Levivich 19:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    If an editor created several thousand pages semi-automatically, the correct sequence of events is to analyse a representative sample to determine whether consensus is that they are (a) all good, (b) mostly good, (c) all bad, (d) mostly bad, or (e) a mixture. If (a) then no action is necessary, if (b) then individual deletion nominations are the correct response. If (c) then a CSD criterion to remove all of them is appropriate, if (d) or (e) then a CSD affectingly only the bad ones should be explored. In this the situation is somewhere between (d) and (e) depending on your point of view, but this proposal is treating them as (c). As I've said several times, I'm not opposed to a criterion proposed (in the right place) that caught only the bad ones and allowed for objections - that is not this proposal. This situation is frequently compared to Neelix, but the proposal is very different - this one: All pages created between Time A and Time B, unless anyone objects to the optional tagging within 24 hours. Neelix: All pages created between Time A and Time B that would be snow deleted if nominated at RfD, retargetting would not lead to a useful redirect and no other editor has materially edited the redirect. Do you now understand the fundamental difference? Also remember that pages can be tagged by bot. Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    Yes. We also need to clarify one important detail of the proposal: would an editor be required to look at the portal before applying CSD, or is there an assumption that everything created by this editor in that time period is automatically rubbish and does not deserve assessment? Certes (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    If a human being didn't spend a lot of time making a page, then human beings should not spend much time deciding whether to keep it. I put it to you again: suppose tomorrow I create 5,000 new pages and ask you to go through them and decide which to keep and which to delete. That would be insane; this is a website of volunteers; my doing such a thing would be disruptive. It would make work for others. Nobody reading this thinks it would be a good idea for me to do such a thing. Yet this is what is essentially being asked of us. Insofar as I have a !vote, I !vote no. Delete them all. They are all bad. Any that are good can be recreated as easily as they were created in the first place. Letting people flag keepers in one way or another is a perfectly reasonable way to prevent the baby from being thrown out with the bathwater. But yes, my starting point is that all of them should be deleted because none of them should have been made in the first place, and they do not have content value. Some portals are the product of careful creation and extensive work, but not 5,000 or however-many automatically created by one editor. The quantum portal idea is a much better idea, anyway. Levivich 02:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    I've alreadyanswered this immediately above, but as you apparently don't like the answer I'll respond again. If you create 5000 new pages in good faith (which TTH did), then the correct response is for others to go through and look at a representative sample, then gain a consensus about whether they are all bad, mostly bad, a mixture, mostly good or all good. This has been done with TTH's portals and while you may think they are all bad that is not the consensus view, especially as others have taken over some and either have improved them or are working on improving them. This means that it is important that only the bad ones are deleted meaning any proposal (such as this one) to delete all of them is overbroad and needs to be opposed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    This statement by Thryduulf is incorrect on many levels. Who has taken over and improved any of his creations? Where is the concensus view that they are not all bad when so far zero of his creations have been kept at MfDs. Where is the proof any of this was in good faith when he admits several sections down that no one (including him) has followed WP:POG Legacypac (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    Are you even reading the comments made by those who disagree with you because I'm not seeing evidence of it, especially when it comes to the MfDs (to reiterate, a reviewed selection of the worst pages being deleted by consensus but not unanimously in all cases does not provide evidence of the need for deletion of all of them without possibility of review). Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    Thryduulf, so I spend less than 1 minute per page creating 5,000 pages; you and others spend–what, an hour, cumulatively, at least?–per page to analyze it, discuss it, vote it, close it, and delete it. I spend 5,000 minutes; the community spends 5,000 hours. With all due respect I am flabbergasted to hear such a high-ranked Wikipedian express the view that this is OK or preferred. Even with your representative sample approach, say it's 100 portals that are looked at, that's still 100 hours of labor forced upon volunteers. In my opinion, no one should be allowed to make 5,000 pages without going through something like a BAG process to seek community approval. There was once a time, years ago, when it made sense to, for example, automatically create a stub for every known city and town in the world. I believe that time has long since passed; there are not 5,000 pages that can be created automatically that we need to have that we do not already have (IMO). And as for consensus, if they're not being kept at MfD, the consensus is clear. Those portals that people maintain manually are the same ones that can be flagged as exceptions to a mass-deletion. So I feel like we're on the same page about consensus, but I'm saying the consensus to keep a particular portal can be effectuated by allowing people to flag them as exceptions to mass deletion, whereas you seem to be suggesting: let's get together and spend an hour per portal to decide if it should be kept, even though nobody spent anywhere near that time creating it in the first place. If that's where we are, we'll have to agree to disagree, because I fundamentally don't believe these portals are worth a one-by-one analysis, and I believe the representative sample approach you advocate has been done and has led to the conclusion that these are worth mass deleting with exceptions. I guess that's for a closer to make the ultimate decision about, but for my part, from uninvolved editors, I'm seeing a lot more support than oppose for mass deletion. Levivich 14:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Levivich: If you're just going to ignore all the explanations I give in response to you (twice) and all the explanations elsewhere from me and others about why a reviewed selection of the worst being deleted (and not unanimously in all cases) is not evidence of the need for all of them to be deleted without possibility of review by others then it is clear we will never agree. Fortunately, per WP:VOLUNTEER, nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want to do - including you - and it's really disappointing that someone as experienced as you feels the need to prevent that work being done by others just because you don't want to. Perhaps between now and the time this is closed those in support of this overbroad proposal will actually choose to address the points in opposition but unless they do the only possible outcomes are no consensus or consensus against. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    Thryduulf, I heard you say: pick a representative sample and decide if they're all bad, some bad, etc. As I understand it, a representative sample has been sent to MfD with consensus to delete almost all of them, if not all of them (I'm not sure if lists I've seen are complete). Then you say that just because the sample is all-delete doesn't mean the whole category is all-delete. I infer you think the sample is not well-chosen? By TTH's admission there are like 4,500–5,000 portals, and a tiny tiny percentage of those are being manually maintained–like less than 5%. Are we on the same page about the facts so far? If so, where do you see consensus other than "delete 95% of these things"? Why can't we tag the 100 that are manually maintained and delete the remaining 4,500? I am reading what you're writing, but I am not understanding it. Levivich 16:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: these portals are easy to create semi-automatedly and contain no information not found in articles so we're not losing any information from Wikipedia, which sets this apart from most other CSD criteria. An alternative proposal I would support is to expand the remit of P2 to apply to any portals with fewer than one-hundred pages under their scope (or alternatively, fewer than one-hundred notable topics if there is evidence that the portal creators and users are planning to create such topics as articles). If a topic doesn't have 100 pages on it at the bare minimum, there's absolutely no reason to focus a portal around it. Even for portals covering tens of thousands of articles, reader interest is very, very low and the current semi-automated busywork is not serving the readers. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Biorv: a proposal for expansion of speedy deletion criterion P2 is being discussed currently at [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion}} (which is where proposals related to speedy deletion criteria should be held, not AN), so I will refrain from explaining here why I oppose your suggestion to avoid splitting the discussion. Thryduulf (talk)
  • Support with exceptions. I support the speedy deletion of all portals auto-created in recent months as it seems excessive and unnecessary. However, those few portals which are manually maintained in good faith should be kept. Down the line we need to take another look at a notability threshold to keep a lid on portalmania. Bermicourt (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    • If you believe there should be exceptions for portals maintained in good faith (and I agree there should be), then you should be opposing this proposal in favour of an alternative one that allows for that. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    X3 only covers the mass created automated portals started by TTH so already excludes the type of portal User:Bermicourt wants to exclude. Thryduulf is muddying the facts. Legacypac (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose because a) on procedural grounds this shouldn't be discussed at the AN "closed shop" and b) because these portals are doing no harm so great that they can be deleted without due process. It is not TTH's fault that the guidelines for portal creation are permissive. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have already voted here but I just wanted to provide an example of how much thought was going into the creation of these portals. Portal:Aquatic ecosystem was created by TTH on Aug 15 2018 and in classified as "Complete" despite having 4 selected images. An identical portal was created at Portal:Aquatic ecosystems by TTH on Nov 24 and is classified as "Substantial" (the portalspace equivalent of B-class). One wonders, which portal is of better quality, how was this determined, and how was this oversight not caught? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 13:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Criteria are supposed to be uncontestable - almost all pages could be deleted under this criterion, according to consensus. Looking at the most recent 50 portals created by TTH, I see a lot of frivolous ones, but I also see Portal:Pumpkins, Portal:Woodpeckers, Portal:International trade, and Portal:World economy, all of which represent subjects with well-populated categories. And I could add at least as many that are debatable. If TTH, now under a topic ban, were to create more portals, they could be speedy deleted under WP:G4. But the pages considered here were created before the ban, so they should stand or fall on their own merits. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @RockMagnetist: I think you mean WP:CSD#G5 (Creations by banned or blocked users) rather than WP:CSD#G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
      • WP:CSD#G5 cannot be used here. The locus of G5 revolves around obliterating the edits of LTA's and sockpupeters and for ban-evasion in a generalized scope. << FR (mobileUndo) 15:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
        • G5 can be used to delete pages created in violation of a topic ban, if deletion is the best course of action. I would never use G5 on a page that was a borderline violation, but that's not relevant here (I can't think of any page creation that would be anything other than clear-cut one way or the other). It's all theoretical though as TTH hasn't created any pages in violation of his ban and I think it unlikely they will. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
        • @FR30799386 and Thryduulf: My point in mentioning G4 (oops - G5!) was that it is a more appropriate standard for deleting pages based on who created them. The current proposal is too broad. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have gone over many of the portals. It seems that there are a mix of topics which are mainstream and some which should not have been created. This isn't a white or a black issue, the wheat must be carefully separated from the chaff. << FR (mobileUndo) 12:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • FR, is there some issue with deleting them without prejudice to re-creating existing ones? These were basically made by a bot in what amounts to a single spasm, so deleting them all could be seen as a BRD reversion. The next step would be to let uninvolved editors recreate any worth keeping. Yes, that might take a while. There is no deadline and if some potentially useful portals have gone uncreated up til now, it's fine if they stay absent a little longer. (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the proposal assumes that none of the portals should have been created, and that is an incorrect assumption. Certainly the are some that perhaps should not exist, but equally there are some that definitely should, and some that need a bit of discussion to determine consensus. Speedy deletion is not the way to resolve this. WaggersTALK 16:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • No, the proposal assumes (correctly) that 95% should never have been created, and that the tiny amount of time spent on those few that might be worth keeping doesn't justify the hours needed to discuss them all at MfD. The ones that get speedy deleted and would be an acceptable portal anyway can easily be recreated if someone really wants them. No effort has gone into creating these portals (usually not even the effort of checking if the result was errorfree, never mind informative or not a duplicate of existing portals), so demanding a week-long discussion for all of them because sometimes the mindless effort created an acceptable result is putting the cart before the horse. Fram (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose—CSD is for stuff where there's zero grey area. At best, this should be a specialized PROD. Gaelan 💬✏️ 14:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (CSD criterion X3)[edit]

  • Oppose Although the vast majority may not be needed: that does not mean they should just be deleted (without oversight or consensus). The arguments for this critera seem to be centered around: 'so little work was put into them, therefore we shouldn't need to put in any work to fix it'. Why not just let them sit there then? Is there a deadline? Seeing as portals themselves are an auxiliary aide to our main focus (of writing articles) this seems unnecessary. I'm surprised that this is (at least) the second time that a Private Bill has been proposed for the cSd, I guess times have changed a bit. It seems uncollegial to respond to opposers by saying: "then you better help out with all the MfD's'. I agree with the points made by SMcCandlish and RockMagnetist among others. Crazynas t 23:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • "Why not just let them sit there then"? Have you actually looked at the pure drivel many of these portals are? Most of these portals are not an "auxiliary aid", they are random shit, bot generated without bot permission but without actual human oversight. Sending any reader to such total shit is a disgrace. The below image is how one of these portals looks right now, after it has existed for 7 months and after this discussion highlighting many problems has run for a month. Time spent discussing these (time spent looking at these) is time wasted. Any portal which people think is necessary after all can be recreated (in a much better fashion) afterwards, the speedy deletion of these doesn't restrict this. But keeping the shit an editor mass produced because their may be some less shitty pages included is doing a disservice to the people who actually wander to these portals and can only stare in dsbelief at what we show them. "'Calamba, officially the ', (Tagalog: Lungsod ng Calamba), or known simply as Calamba City is a class of the Philippines in the province of , . According to the ?, it has a population of people. " Fram (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
have you looked at all the shit that sits in the mainspace (some of it for years)? There are like 182,000 unreferenced articles live right now, but this is the hill we're choosing to die on? Crazynas t 21:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Large in-line image
Typical example of the kind of portals spammed across enwiki. Not just the five errors, but also the actual "text" of the lead article...
Thank you for identifying a problem with a small number of Philippines portals where the lead contains {{PH wikidata}}, a technique designed for use in infoboxes. I'll pass your helpful comments on to the relevant WikiProject. Certes (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
No, please pass my comment on to all people supporting these portals, but not bothering to actually look at what they propose or defend. Creating and supporting pages with such blatant problems is basically the same as vandalism. There are e.g. also quite a few portals which confront their readers with the below "selected article" (as the default selected article, not even when scrolling deeper). Or with the same image two or three times. Or... The list of problems with these portals is near endless (selected categories only consisting of one redlink? Sure...). The fact that adding a category can cause a page to look completely different and generate different errors (like in the example above) should be a major indicator that this system, used on thousands of pages, is not as foolproof and low in maintenance as is being claimed. Fram (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Large in-line image
Read more... and weep
Thank you for your continued help in identifying portal issues. I have found and fixed three pages which had repeated "Read more" links. If you could be kind enough to reveal which portal you have depicted as "PortalShit2.png", we may also be able to fix that case and any similar ones. Certes (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There are two very simple solutions: either support X3, and all these portals are instantly fixed. Or actually take a look at all these low maintenance, automatic portals of the future, find the many issues, and fix them. Which still won't solve the problem that many of them are utterly pointless, mindless creations of course. I've noted more than enough problems with these portals to wholeheartedly support speedy deletion, since spending any time "corecting" a portal like the Calamba one is a waste of time (as it should be deleted anyway, speedy or not). Fram (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Fram: You are clearly not understanding the opposition to this proposal. It is not about supporting the inclusion of poor content, it is about opposing a speedy deletion criterion that fails the criteria for new and expanded criteria and would delete content that should not be deleted in addition to content that should. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
No, I often have trouyble understanding burocratic opposition which creates tons of extra work for very little actual benefit. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that this actually fails the four criteria: it is objective and nonredundant (I guess we all agree on these two?), it is frequent (in the sense that having 3K portals at MfD is quite a heavy load, it's not just one or two pages), so we are left with "Uncontestable", which doesn't mean that as soon ass someone opposes it, it becomes contested, but that "almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus.". Looking at this discussion and the MfDs, I believe this to be true. Opposing this new CSD rule "because it is contested" is circular reasoning, as you are then basically saying "it is contested because it is contested", which is obviously not a valid argument. Having a significant number of portals which fall under the X3 but should not be deleted (which doesn't equal "should never exist", only "should not exist in the current form or any older form in the page history") would be a good argument, but I haven't seen any indication of such. Fram (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Frequent is not an issue (it wouldn't be as a permanent criteria, but as a temporary one it's fine), non-redundant is not an issue for most (although a few might be caught by P2 that's not a significant proportion so not a probelm). This proposal (unlike the ones being discussed at WT:CSD) is objective as written (created by a single user within a defined time period). Uncontestable however very much is, the requirement is "It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. CSD criteria should cover only situations where there is a strong precedent for deletion. Remember that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect, unless you word it carefully." It is very clear from this discussion and others around these portals that not all of them should be deleted - several have received strong objections to deletion at MfD, some are argued to be kept and others merged. "it is contested because it is contested" is exactly the point of this requirement - nobody argues in good faith against deleting copyright violations, patent nonsense, recreations, or specific types of articles that don't assert importance. There is consensus that were these to be discussed they would be unanimously deleted every time. There is no such consensus about these portals. Some, perhaps most, should be deleted but not all of them. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I am pleased to report that a recent module change should eliminate the problem where articles too short to be worth featuring occasionally appear as "Read more... Read more...". This should fix the mystery portal depicted above next time it is purged. Certes (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Thryduulf your opposition to X3 is baffling. You oppose it basically because some topics where Portals were mass created using automated tools against policy may warrant portals. But none of these pages have any original content to preserve. They are mindless spam poorly repackaging existing content. Kind of a poor Wikipedia mirror effort. MFDing these has proven they are unwelcome - yet you want to force us to spend a week debating pages that the creator spent seconds to create without even checking for compliance against their own criteria or for major errors? If these deletions were actually controversial (the only one of the 4 CSD criteria you say is not followed) we would expect a significant number of the MfDs to close Keep. We might expect the creator to defend and explain, but instead the creator freely admits he ignored WP:POG. Seriously makes me doubt your competence and judgement. Admins should show better judgement then this. Legacypac (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Legacypac: Assuming you mean X3, then I have explained every single one of my reasons several times and you have either not listened or not understood on every single one of those occasions so I Will not waste even more of my time explaining them again. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Second that. Additionally, part of what I meant by "some might be worth keeping" is that they can be deleted, but if any were actually worthy they could be recreated, perhaps with more care and effort than this. SemiHypercube 17:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems like a lot of what is objected to can be covered by a judicious use of P2, G1, and A3 (via P1) but there's probably something I'm missing. @Fram:, I'm not here to support bad content, but bad policy (and precedent) can be far more harmful to the project than 'repackaged nonsense' existing for a bit longer than some people want it to. This would have the side effect of saving the portals worth saving. Crazynas t 22:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose let's discuss deletion based on content and merit of individual portals. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water, this is not how we do things here. You're proposing deletion of many very good portals here. ɱ (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Please identify 35 out of the 3500 (1%) that are "very good portals" so we can run them through MFD to test your statement. Also there is no baby - there is no original content at all. No work done by humans is lost with X3 deletions because they were created using an automated script that was used without BAG approval to repackage existing content. Therefore WP:PRESERVE is not an issue. If someone started creating thousands of articles called "Foo lite" that just copied Foo mindlessly we would CSD them without debate. These are just in another mainspace but they are really Foo lite. Legacypac (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Except that's not comparable at all. The point of portals (which the community has repeatedly endorsed) is to duplicate article content and provide links to related content - which is exactly what these portals are doing. They might be doing it poorly in many cases, but that's qualitatively different to one article duplicating another. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be faster to delete them all and then recreate the ones that need recreating, rather than go through them one by one to see which to keep? Because the number of "keeps" is like 5% or 10% and not 50%? (It would have to be 50% to be equal time between the two approaches.) If you're not convinced that it's 5-10% keep and not 50% keep, what sort of representative sampling process can we engage in to test the theory? Levivich 19:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes it would be faster, but there is no deadline so it is very significantly more important to get it right than it is to do it quickly. Deleting something that doesn't need deleting is one of the most harmful things that an administrator can do - and speedily deleting it is an order of magnitude more so. As only administrators can see pages once they have been deleted, and doing so is much harder, deleting it first makes the job of finding the good portals very significantly harder. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Timing matters because this issue is being discussed in several forums at once. If the first debate to close decides to delete, the portals may be gone by the time another discussion reaches a consensus to keep them. Certes (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • CommentI listed The Transhumanist's portal creations, latest first, and examined the top entry on each page, i.e. every 100th portal.
Assessment of a sample of TTH's recent creations
  1. Portal:Polar exploration – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 50 excerpts with more links at the bottom. Four other images, plus plenty more in the 50 leads. Manual input: refining the search criteria for Did You Know and In the News (DYK+ITN).
  2. Portal:Nick Jr. – Lua error: No images found. (To be fair, there may have been images before a recently requested module change to suppress images without captions.) 13 excerpts. No manual input: the wikitext matches that generated by {{bpsp6}}.
  3. Portal:Alternative metal – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 11 excerpts; one other image. Manual input: refining DYK+ITN.
  4. Portal:Modulation – decent but minimal portal with no obvious errors. 30 excerpts; four other images. Several manual improvements.
  5. Portal:Spanish Civil War – potentially good portal but with a couple of display errors which look fixable. 30 excerpts; 20 other images. Manual input: routine maintenance, probably of a routine technical nature rather than creative.
  6. Portal:Carl Jung – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 40+ excerpts; six other images. Routine maintenance.
  7. Portal:Reba McEntire – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ other excerpts; six images. Routine maintenance.
  8. Portal:Romantic music – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 40+ excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance.
  9. Portal:Anton Chekhov – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 36 excerpts; 17 other images. Routine maintenance.
  10. Portal:Media manipulation – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; no image section. Routine maintenance.
  11. Portal:Desalination – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 15 excerpts; six other images. Manual input: refining DYK+ITN.
  12. Portal:Abuse – This portal has display errors which make it hard to evaluate properly. It's had plenty of manual input, possibly in attempts to fix it.
  13. Portal:Emmy Awards – decent appearance; one minor display error which looks fixable.(fixed) 50 excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance.
  14. Portal:Shanghai cuisine – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 19 excerpts; four other images. Routine maintenance.
  15. Portal:Saab Automobile – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; 14 other images. Routine maintenance.
  16. Portal:High-speed rail – decent appearance; one minor display error which looks fixable.(fixed) 40+ excerpts; 30+ other images. Routine maintenance.
  17. Portal:Tetris – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 30+ excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance.
  18. Portal:Azores – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 20 excerpts; 18 other images. Some manual improvements.
  19. Portal:Musical instruments – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 40+ excerpts; 13 other images. Routine maintenance.
  20. Portal:Hidalgo (state) – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 11 excerpts; 16 other images. Routine maintenance.
  21. Portal:Sporting Kansas City – decent appearance; one minor display error which looks fixable;(fixed) narrow scope. 11 excerpts; 7 other images. Routine maintenance.
  22. Portal:Piciformes – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 9 excerpts; one other image. Routine maintenance.
  23. Portal:Birds-of-paradise – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 50 excerpts; five other images. Some manual improvements. Currently at MfD with the rationale that woodpeckers are not a family.
  24. Portal:Coffee production – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; 11 other images. Routine maintenance.
  25. Portal:Albanian diaspora – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 30+ excerpts; three other images. Routine maintenance.
  26. Portal:University of Nebraska–Lincoln – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 18 excerpts; eight other images. Routine maintenance. Currently at MfD with the rationale that Portal:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff contains only two articles.
  27. Portal:University of Gothenburg – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 10 excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance.
  28. Portal:Transformers – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; two other images (everything else is non-free). Some manual improvements.
  29. Portal:Boston Celtics – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; 16 other images. Routine maintenance.
  30. Portal:Newbury Park, California – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 16 excerpts; 34 other images. Routine maintenance.
  31. Portal:Vanessa Williams – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 30+ excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance.
  32. Portal:Bette Midler – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40 excerpts; seven other images. Routine maintenance.
  33. Portal:Ozzy Osbourne – generally decent appearance but several minor display errors;(fixed) narrow scope. 50 excerpts; 17 other images. Routine maintenance.
  34. Portal:Carnegie Mellon University – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 15 excerpts; 28 other images. Routine maintenance.
  35. Portal:Milwaukee – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 15 excerpts; 47 other images. Some manual improvements. Too few excerpts but potentially good.
  36. Portal:Billings, Montana – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. Four excerpts; 27 other images. Some manual improvements.
  37. Portal:Empire of Japan – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; 20 other images but with a couple of repeats. Routine maintenance.
  38. Portal:Cheese – decent appearance; no obvious errors. Nine excerpts; 50+ other images. Extensive manual improvements. Too few excerpts but potentially good.
It appears that most of the portals have a narrow scope and should go but a significant minority are either already of a good enough standard to keep or show sufficient potential to merit further attention. This impression is based not on cherry-picking but on a random sample. Certes (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for this, this is a very good illustration of why this proposal is too broad - it will delete portals that clearly should not be deleted, and others that may or may not need to be deleted (e.g. I've !voted to merge several of the portals about universities). Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Query Why don't we have a CSD for pages created by unauthorized scripts or bots? WP:BAG exists for a reason right? (And this seems to be a good example of it). Crazynas t 21:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Crazynas: because not all of them should be deleted, as [[user:|Certes]] analysis immediately above demonstrates perfectly. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: You're missing my point. Just like we have a policy that banned users are to be reverted in all cases not because they might not make good edits (to game the system or not) but because they are a disruption to the community; so we should have a policy that pages created (or edited I suppose) by unauthorized bots are inherently not welcome, because of the potential for disruption regardless of their merit (by disruption I'm talking about this AN thread as much as the pages themselves). This is the whole reason we have a group dedicated to overseeing and helping with bots right? Crazynas t 22:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
No bots were involved. The pages were created using a template. One of your last page creations was a user talk page, where you welcomed a new editor using Twinkle. You did a very professional job, by applying a template which introduces the new editor with the sort of carefully considered and neatly arranged prose that we don't have time to write every time a new contributor appears. Using a template is not a valid rationale for mass deletions. Certes (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Curious, what template did you use? I guess the difference I see is the twinkle is highly curated and subject to extensive review (as are the templates it calls). If all these pages were manually created, then what happened in the example of (what to me looks pretty much like G1) that Fram posted above? Why didn't the human that pressed the button take responsibility for that (so to speak) pile of rubbish? To clarify, Bot here covers scripts, AWB (which is 'manual'), java implementations etc. In short: "Bot policy covers the operation of all bots and automated scripts used to provide automation of Wikipedia edits, whether completely automated, higher speed, or simply assisting human editors in their own work." The policy explicitly references mass page creation as being under the purview of BAG here. Crazynas t 22:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I haven't used any of these templates myself but recent portals have been created by variants on {{Basic portal start page}}. The numbered versions such as {{bpsp6}} cater for portal-specific conditions such as there being no DYKs to feature. Certes (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Crazynas: I was simply answering your question about why we do not speedy delete every page created by an unauthorised bot, etc - simply because not every page created by such means should be deleted. You are also mistaken about banned users - they may be reverted but they are not required to be. Certes analysis shows that some of the portals created by the script have been improved since, sometimes significantly. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Sure, and this is tangential to the proposal here (which I'm still opposing, if you noticed). In any case the thought I'm having wouldn't be applied ex post facto but it would make it explicitly clear that mass creation of pages by automated or semi-automated means without prior approval is disruptive. Crazynas t 23:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The problem with many of these recently created template-based portals is that it is difficult or impossible to improve them. I've edited portals for over a decade but cannot work out how to change the portal code to include or exclude a particular article or image. (For articles I believe one has to change the template or mark the article as stub to exclude it; for images I believe it just harvests those from the main topic article.) Thus they are not drafts that could be further improved, they are static uneditable entities for which the only solution is to start from scratch. There is no thought to be preserved that is not equally present in the list of articles in the template/images in the root article. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5: Shut down or reform WikiProject Portals[edit]

I know, me proposing shutting down a WikiProject I'm in? What am I thinking?

Well, I mainly joined to make sure things would go smoothly after that RfC to delete all portals - clearly it has not. As thus, I think a solution (among the others) would be to shut down the WikiProject responsible for many of the bad portal creations. Right now it appears all its doing is creating new portals, not maintaining or improving them - which is what a WikiProject is supposed to do.

However, a less extreme solution would be to reform the project to actually maintain and improve the portals it creates, and creates portals sparingly. I'm fairly certain a task force making sure portals meet standards would be beneficial to the issue, and also making it clear that not everything needs a portal.

I'm going for the latter option to reform - however, I'm going to leave the shutdown option up in the air in case people find good reason for it to be considered.

Addendum 13:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC) - Since I forgot to clarify (trout Self-trout) here's two examples of reforms I could see being useful:

  • A quality scale for portals, like we use for articles - this could help with knowing which portals are good and which ones need improvement
  • Dividing the Project into task forces to make sure necessary tasks for the maintenance of portals are completed, as right now they clearly are not
  • Sub-reform for this would be to make a task force that deletes bad portals that don't meet quality standards and are not needed

Hopefully this can help clarify this proposal somewhat - if none of these can be done reasonably (which I doubt they can't) the shutdown option should be considered.

Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 23:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Survey on sub-proposal to shut down WikiProject Portals[edit]

There is a strong WP:SNOW consensus against shutting down WikiProject Portals. (involved close) — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 15:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Neutral as per above. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 23:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose firstly this is the wrong forum, secondly there is nothing in the nomination that explains why this is needed, or how it will result in an improvement to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Abyssal (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: might as well. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is consensus to keep the portal system but it has many faults, so a focus for improving it seems sensible. Certes (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Not necessary and not the best way to fix Wikipedia’s portals. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Would amount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. North America1000 01:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the same reasons. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 19:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the same reasons. Bermicourt (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Incompetent project that doesn't want to deal with the crud their members create. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as ad hominem vindictiveness. The only rationale for deleting such a project would be a proper community-wide decision to eliminate all portals. This is not the venue for that; WP:VPPOL is. And this is not the venue for deletion of a wikiproject; WP:MFD is. WP:Process is important, most especially in deletion discussions and related matters, because damned near zero people are going to look for such discussions in an admins' "house organ" page like this. Hardly any non-admins watchlist this page or pay any attention at all to what is said here. It is not intended to be a venue for community-wide concerns in the first place, and even with belated addition to WP:CENT, discussing such matters here is a special kind of forum shopping, namely an attempt to appeal to a small cadre of specialist editors whose concerns about maintenance (and cop-like role of "going after" people for alleged behavioral flaws, often with little oversight, especially compared to WP:ANI process) will colour everything they do and say about the matter.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Widely misleading arguments. This is a widely advertised and widely participated discussion. It came from a VPR discussion, linked from the very beginning. There are far more non-Admins than Admins involved here. Try to stick to facts. Legacypac (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support [non-admin comment :] opposed to portals, they harvest legitimate contributions yet the creators expect them to be automatically protected as legitimate contributions and outside of normal guidance on creation. There are cadres of users who think this is what wikipedia is about, or at least it is a way of making a big splash without knowing anything but how to tweak code (and then wikilawyer when challenged). cygnis insignis 06:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Punishing a whole community for the actions of one person is not reasonable. WaggersTALK 16:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. It's getting cold out... SemiHypercube 16:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose In the grand scheme of things I'd like to see portals deprecated, but doing so is not where the community is at right now. If there is consensus to keep portals, having a wikiproject to maintain them seems like a good idea. I also feel cold... Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 06:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Survey on sub-proposal to reform WikiProject Portals[edit]

  • Support as proposer and per above. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 23:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the proposal is in the wrong forum and contains no details of what reform is being suggested, let alone how these reforms would solve the issues identified. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This is related to the discussion as the WikiProject is headed by the user being discussed here. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 13:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Wikprojects are a collection of editors, not just one person. There is no evidence presented that there is any admin action required regarding the WikiProject as a whole collectively (not that I can immediately think of what that action could look like if it were), and there isn't even consensus that admin action regarding the single editor is required. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair point, but considering the discussion below it should still be considered. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 14:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I’ve been doing some reform work of this type by creating a page to clean up some of the damage done to the older portals. WikiProject Portals has an assessment page but I’m not sure how much it gets used. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • It took quite a lot of discussion to form a consensus for those assessment criteria. Any portals would need to be evaluated against them to ensure they meet at least minimal quality standards (not including the other criteria in the portal guidelines). It will take a while to go through all of the portals and rate them on the quality scale, and that is one of our backlog tasks. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 19:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in theory. It makes more sense than the above "I disagree with you so I will try to just erase you" bullshit. However, it's not at all clear that the wikiproject, as such, needs any "reform"; rather, some specific decisions and actions taken by its participants have turned out to be controversial, and the community will discuss that (hopefully in a more sensible venue like WP:VPPOL), and the wikiprojects should abide by the result of that process. We don't have any indication this would not happen, so there isn't actually a "reform" to perform, nor is there yet any consensus of what form that should take anyway. Some people here seem to be under the impression that WP is going to come out against portals; others that it'll be against automated portals; others that it'll be against portals on minor topics (and sub-sub-sub-topics) that people aren't likely to seek a portal for; others that nothing is actual broken; others that .... There isn't a single direction of "reform" being proposed.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  21:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The way to reform a project is to get involved with it. We've already had multiple discussions about how the project should be structured and how it should operate on the project pages themselves, and further suggestions there are always welcome. But proposing "reform" without specifying what particular changes are being suggested isn't exactly helpful. WaggersTALK 16:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Exactly right, Waggers, exactly right. You've hit the nail on the head. ~Swarm~ {talk} 18:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
But is you see little need for portals why get involved? Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on proposal to reform WikiProject Portals[edit]

  • Query @Kirbanzo: - do you have any early thoughts about what some good reforms would be to shift the primary focus of the project towards maintenance/improvement over creation? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No, do not transclude important discussions from AN to the relevant talkpage. Hold the discussion on the relevant talk page. Transclude to here is there is good reason, which there is not. Holding hte discussion here means watchlisting it doesn't work, and it wont be archived in the right place. Shutting down a WikiProject is not in scope for WP:AN. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The Portals Wikiproject members can't even come up with a proper new guideline for what topics get a portal even when faced with a village pump imposed moratorium. The discussion is all over the place with no focus. Heck they did not even follow their old guideline about picking subjects broud enough to gain reader and editor interest. The only thing they appear to agree on is MORE MORE MORE and using WP:VITAL as a to do list. Their newsletter said they are pushing to 10,000 portals (off a base of 1500 old line portals). Now the number of portals will shrink until and unless they get new guidelines passed by an RFC. Legacypac (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • That old guideline wasn't generally followed, ever. That's because portals (except those on the main page) get about 1 to 3 percent of the amount of traffic that their corresponding root articles get. In other words, "not a lot". That's because almost all their traffic comes via WP internal links. Almost nobody googles "Portal". So, for the vast majority of topics, large numbers of readers and editors will never be forthcoming, and never were. Out of the 1500 portals, about 100 had maintainers (maintained by around 60 editors), and maybe 20% of them regularly edited the portals they maintained.
The WikiProject, and the community, need feedback in the form of hard numbers, in order to get a sense of what will even get used. How hard would it be to make a chart listing all the portals in one column, and their page views for the past month in the second column, and then sort the chart by the second column? That might provide some insight.    — The Transhumanist   11:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Sigh. :TTH, you had this data already. You know that portal pageviews are miniscule. At the RFC on deleting the portal namespace, stats were posted on pageviews, and not even all the portals linked from the front page had decent viewing rates.
Yet despite knowing all that, you personally created thousands of new portals, despite having all the evidence in front of you that they are useless.
And when I presented the evidence to you again, and asked you to desist, you were furious. Instead of assessing the issues, you posted multi-screenfull unfocused ramblings replete with shouts of "bias", "personal attack" etc.
The problem is not any shortage of information. The problem is that as @Legacypac notes above, the discussions in the WikiProject have no focus, no regard for available evidence, and no respect for community consensus.
Legacypac and usually disagree, but in this case we see exactly the same problem: a WikiProject which has a long and sustained track record of being utterly incapable of acting responsibly wrt the page within its purview.
This is not solely TTH's doing. TTH bears by far the highest responsibility because TTH has been both the most prolific creator and the most angry objector to calls for restraint, but several other regulars at WikiProject Portals have been equally unfocused and equally bonkers. For example:
So the community simply cannot rely on this group to set and uphold resposnsible guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: I make the proposal 5. And it was a proposal. I Support a reform in WikiProject Portals. My idea is the existence of approximately 1000(level 3) single page portals layout, directly linked in tree model with the main page. The role of the wikiproject should be to organize this tree and develop tools to transform all portals into single-page layout portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Guilherme Burn, no technical diversions. My point is not about how the portals operate; it's about their scope. And 20 pages is insanely narrow. A 20-page portal is just an bloated navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: I'm trying to figure out how you've come to the conclusion that WPPORT completely ignores evidence and consensus. The project discussions I've participated in have been rational and reasonable, and far from unfocused. Also, please try not to conflate individual editors' behavior with the project as a whole. I've seen no evidence that the WikiProject has acted irresponsibly regarding the Portal system. If you're referring to the several thousand new portals created by TTH, you should keep in mind that WikiProjects don't have any actual authority to dictate who can and can't create something (even if we were opposed to creating new portals). That's what guidelines are for.
We've been working to develop updated criteria for the Portal guidelines since November (rebooted from even earlier discussions in April) - which you already know, since you've participated as well. We're still working on the guidelines so that we have better, more concrete criteria to judge new and existing portals against (and which would make MfD easier for those that fail). Once we've developed consensus on these, they can be applied to the namespace to fix the portals that can be fixed, and remove the ones that can't (new or old). (Side note: Anyone with input or ideas is welcome to participate at WT:PORTG.)
Actions in the Portal namespace itself (for most of us, it seems) has mostly been technical fixes and tweaks to our tools. Also, your not agreeing with particular proposals does not make those proposing them irresponsible or incompetent. Talk pages are a place to discuss new ideas so that we can find the benefits and drawbacks of each. If we constantly had to worry about being labeled as irresponsible or incompetent for suggesting something, we'd never have any new ideas or get anything done. I've made plenty of suggestions that didn't pan out later, as I'm sure you have, and everyone else here. That's how we learn what works and what doesn't and build a better encyclopedia. In the end, that's what we're all here for right? — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 19:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@AfroThundr3007730: that's not at all how it looks from outside.
  1. Last year, the project began developing automated portals, whose advocates claimed need little or no curation. No attempt was made to hold an RFC to determine whether the community found these automated portals to be a worthwhile addition. (I think I see an emerging consensus that they are not useful, or maybe useful only in some curcumstances)
  2. Following the WP:ENDPORTALS RFC which decided not to actually delete the whole portal namespace, the project decided to massively expand the number of portals, despite the clear evidence at RFC that many editors wanted fewer portals. At no point did the project initiate an RFC to establish whether there was a community consensus for the project's enthusiasm to bizarrely interpret "don't TNT the lot" as "create thousands more".
  3. You are right that a WikiProject has no powers of restraint on an individual editor. However, the project does have an ability to watch what is done, and to act a venue to monitor inappropriate creations, and to initiate cleanup as needed. I see no sign at all that the project has done any of that ... and on the contrary, when outsiders have challenged TTH's sprees of portalspam, other project members have rallied to TTH's defence.
  4. Even now, as a cleanup is underway, I see next to no assistance from project members. V few even comment in the MFDs. For example, take the most extreme case so far: MFD Portal:University of Fort Hare, an utterly absurd creation for which there exists precisely zero relevant selected articles ... yet none of the project regulars is visible.
    In my view, a WikiProject which shows zero interest in removing inappropriate pages within its scope is dysfunctionally irresponsible.
  5. The project's efforts to develop guidelines have been exceptionally poor. The discussions have been rambling and unfocused, with a persistent failure to distinguish between factors such as technical ability to create, availability of editors to maintain and monitor, actual usage data, etc.
  6. Above all, none of the proposals has been put to an RFC to gauge community consensus, so the guideline discussion have effectively been the work of a small group of editors who are united by a common desire to massively increase the number of automated portals.
  7. The result of this failure has been a walled garden of thousands of micro-portals, sustained only by the enthusiasm of the portal project ... and the absolutely inevitable massive shitstorm at the village pump.
What this needs now is a structured RFC, which brings together some or all of the proposals made at the project, adds proposals from outside the project, and seeks a community consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6: Proposed Deletion for portals[edit]

Proposal: Create a proposed deletion criterion for portals created on April 8, 2018 or later by any user. Per normal PROD rules, the page would be deleted after 7 days, but a user who objects to the deletion may remove the prod template. However, unlike regular PROD, the creator would not be allowed to remove the template (though they would of course be allowed to contest it on the talk page). — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. I proposed this to resolve issues raised by various opposers. This would provide a longer waiting period before deletion, reduce the chances that the recently created portals that comply with the portal guidelines, and not restrict it to a single user, because there were other users who created problematic portals. Possible reasons for removing a prod template include the portal meeting the portal guidelines or being under active development. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm leaning support, having been mulling over proposing something like this myself but, I'm not certain this proposal is quite right yet. I don't think there should be a list of acceptable reasons to deprod, rather a non-exhaustive list of examples to reduce the chance of wikilawyering about it (and there will be situations we don't think of and probably some we do that we shouldn't list per WP:BEANS). Any restriction on creators deprodding needs to come with exceptions for reverting obvious vandalism and where prod is not permitted (e.g. doesn't meet the criteria, previously kept in a discussion, etc) - it may be better to say creators should not rather than must not. I also think it important that prodded portals show up in article alerts before this goes live (I no idea if this would require any changes to bot code or not, and if it does how significant it might be). Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I've now asked the article alert bot maintainer those questions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    The deprod "criteria" are suggestions and not part of the proposal. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 01:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    I wasn't certain either way, so thanks for clarifying. I do think though that jumping straight in to an RfC without workshopping the proposal first was a poor choice though - there is a good idea but it needs refining before I am comfortable supporting it. Thryduulf (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Prod isn't going to do anything except delay MFD for a week so long as there's multiple users who think all portals, however narrow, should be kept. And there are. —Cryptic 23:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Do multiple users think that? I certainly don't; I just oppose the view that all should be deleted. Certes (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Cryptic: How does a link to a deletion log support the assertion that there are multiple users who think all portals should be kept? I'm one of the most (perhaps even the most) vocal advocates against the proposed speedy deletion criterion, yet I do not hold that view. I've repeatedly explained that I simply think that only some of the portals should be deleted, and that it is more important to get it right than to do it quickly - there is no deadline. Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This would be a pseudo-CSD failing WP:NEWCSD. Better to list or reference all new templated portals in a big MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment some users think all portals, no matter how narrow or inappropriate the topic, need to be debated at MfD. SmokeyJoe wants a 3500 portal MfD yet NorthAmerica1000 is complaining about a 6 fruit portals being bundled. A lot of unreasonable positions here. Legacypac (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment What's to stop the group behind the auto-portals removing every PROD? CoolSkittle (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I would imagine exactly the same thing that stops (groups of) editors systematically removing prods from any given set of articles - doing so is disruptive editing - just as systematically tagging any large set of articles without considering them is (see also WP:FAITACCOMPLI and WP:SK points 2 and 3). Thryduulf (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment check out some of the comments here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alhambra, California where all portals prior to the reboot survived a deletion discussion as acceptable and any similar ones are therefore acceptable. No one followed the guidelines because they don't matter anymore. Amazing stuff. Legacypac (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Transcluded to Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal MfD Results[edit]

All Portals closed at WP:MfD during 2019

Grouped Nominations total 127 Portals:

  1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/US County Portals Deleted 64 portals
  2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Districts of India Portals Deleted 30 Portals
  3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods Deleted 23 Portals
  4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Allen Park, Michigan Deleted 6 Portals
  5. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cryptocurrency Deleted 2 Portals
  6. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:North Pole Deleted 2 Portals

Individual Nominations:

  1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Circles Deleted
  2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Fruits Deleted
  3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:E (mathematical constant) Deleted
  4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burger King Deleted
  5. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cotingas Deleted
  6. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada Deleted
  7. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Agoura Hills, California Deleted
  8. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Urinary system Deleted
  9. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:You Am I Deleted
  10. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cannabis (2nd nomination) Reverted to non-Automated version
  11. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Intermodal containers Deleted
  12. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adventure travel Deleted
  13. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adam Ant Deleted
  14. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Benito Juárez, Mexico City Deleted
  15. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Spaghetti Deleted
  16. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wikiatlas Deleted
  17. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Greek alphabet Deleted
  18. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Deleted
  19. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Accounting Deleted G7
  20. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lents, Portland, Oregon Deleted P2
  21. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ankaran Deleted
  22. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jiu-jitsu Deleted G8
  23. Portal:University of Nebraska Speedy Deleted P1/A10 exactly the same as Portal:University of Nebraska–Lincoln also created by the TTH

Related WikiProject:

  1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals Demoted

Discussion on MfD results[edit]

We get the message. 3% of portals, selected from the worst examples, have successfully been removed. I !voted to delete most of them myself. You are also working hard to get portal-related tools deleted while discussions on the project's future continue. However, AN is not the place to list every tiny victory in the War on Portals. This trophy cabinet is now full. Certes (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that not all of these were deleted uncontroversially, so do not demonstrate a need for a speedy deletion criterion. This list, if you wish to maintain it, belongs in userspace. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
This list is very relevant to a discussion about creating a CSD for similar pages. It provides an easy way for users to assess discussions unfiltered by opinions which go against community consensus. Legacypac (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Thryduulf; the trophy case belongs in userspace. Furthermore, most of the pages deleted were from bundled nominations. However, at WP:MULTIAFD, it states, "For the avoidance of doubt, bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as "should Wikipedia include this type of article". Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy." (Bold emphasis mine.) While WP:MULTIAFD technically applies only to articles, it comes across as an inappropriate list for this venue, where policy decisions are being discussed. North America1000 19:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Yet this list was broadcast via the Portals Update #30 Newsletter. It can't be all that bad. No one wants to debate each neighborhood of Portland or each of the 723 Indian districts one by one. If someone listed a dozen very similar pages for debate there would be a lot of pushback to bundle them. Can we assume from these comments you insist on debating 4500 automated portals one by one? Legacypac (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Exactly that. This isn't one of our most frequently cited policies – mainly because attempts to do things that like that haven't been common since the early 2000s – but anyone deeply steeped in policy should already know it by heart, especially if they're big into deletion. Proposing major changes to deletion policy without actually understanding deletion policy is a competence failure.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  21:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Legacypac: Bundling closely related discussions together is a Good Thing but completely different to using a bundled nomination of portals about 723 Indian districts to claim that there is consensus to speedily delete all single-page portals. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
As an Admin you really should be required not to post such misleading characterizations of what I said and the list of MfDs. The community deserves better than this. Legacypac (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
While that is slightly more extreme than your position, I did not claim it was your position and it is far from being grossly misleading - certainly far less so than your mischaracterisations about what I am advocating for. This is particularly true as looking through the bundles, many are nowhere near as clear-cut as "Indian districts" - e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crabapples is quite likely to end as a trainwreck, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals is a clearly inappropriate bundling of unrelated pages. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thousands of Autogenerated "Quantum Portals" with no human curation?[edit]

Wikiproject will be demoted into the Portals project at MfD Legacypac (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discovered Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals which I'm not sure I fully understand but looks like another big disruption brewing. Sent to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals Legacypac (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Please note that in the case of quantum portals there would be no actual pages stored in Wikipedia, There would be a link which would create a temporary page which would exist only while it was open, and would disappear when closed, like a search result. Since they would only exist when someone actively invoked them, their existence would depend on them being seen as useful to the reader at the time. Some processing time would be necessary, currently this appears to be limited by technical constraints, and is the same as would be used for rendering an uncached article or saving an edit, so it is hard to see where massive disruption would come from. No maintenance would be required, other than occasional improvements to the script.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Legacypac (or anyone else confused by this), see Reasonator to get an idea of what they're talking about here. They don't serve exactly the same purpose—Reasonator assembles a pseudo-article in your browser on-the-fly based on data (which has no useful purpose on en-wiki, but it has an obvious potential use in more obscure languages, since it's less prone to errors than translation software)—but the principle is the same as that being discussed here.

I personally find the idea of a "quantum portal" beyond pointless, given that barely anyone uses even the real portals (something like Portal:Fish and Portal:Trains—both major topics with a high degree of world-wide interest and well over 100,000(!) incoming direct links—average around 20 and 80 views per day respectively), but I can see that the theory behind it might make sense, especially for smaller Wikipedias where the category structure isn't as well organized and "show me a list of all the articles we currently have about trains, and all the train-related topics which other Wikipedias consider important but where we don't currently have an article" might actually be useful.

However, English Wikipedia is certainly not the appropriate testing ground for TTH to be conducting his experiments, especially given that we still haven't finished cleaning out the detritus from the previous time TTH tried to pull this "it's too late for you to stop me as I've already done it" stunt, let alone the most recent attempt with the portals. ‑ Iridescent 11:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Non-open drafting of an RfC about portals, and BHG behavior in relation to it[edit]

Irrespective of the previous misunderstandings or transgressions, it should be clear by now that
  1. BHG does not wish to communicate with SMc on her own talkpage
  2. She also does not welcome SMc's participation in the drafting (in her userspace) of a potential RFC.
SMc may disagree with (2) being the best way forward but neither he nor any admin on this board can compel BHG to take SMc's input at this point. SMc, of course, will have the opportunity to comment if/when the RfC does goes live; or, can draft an alternate RfC if he so wishes (not my recommendation, fwiw).
I don't believe it is a productive use of the community resources, or helpful to the editors involved, to dissect the minutiae of this recent dispute to judge who was more-in-the-wrong and apportion trouts (which, really, is the max "punishment" that any of this can merit). So I'll just ask SmC to respect BHG's wishes on the two points listed above and urge the two experienced editors to avoid addressing each other as far as possible over the next few days. Abecedare (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BrownHairedGirl and a few others she's hand-selected are drafting a proposed RfC about all of this. I have concerns about the non-open drafting of it. Its present wording is a train-wreck, and seems almost engineered to inflame dispute rather than resolve it (details here). I also have behavioral concerns about BHG's over-control of this page and admin-unbecoming incivility and other behavior in regard to it.

  • I was directed to the draft and its talk page by BHG herself: "See User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria and its talkpage" [15].
    • Not so. You were told about its existence. You were not invited to participate. (The distinction is not complicated. If I told you where me house is, that would not be an invitation to push your way in and make yourself at home).
      Your edits to that page were all made to a page which clearly warned you not to edit it. See e.g. the page when you made your first edit[16]: a hatnote which said This page is for discussion by invitation of the User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria. If other editors who wish to express views on the draft, please comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl., and below that a list of the editors who had been invited, and why.
      All open, transparent, striving for balance, and clear that you were not invited. I can only speculate whether you a) did not read it, or b) did not comprehend that plain English, or c) just chose for some reason to ignore it.
      The rest of SMcC's post below is similar nonsense: misrepresentations, half-truths, and flat-out malicious lies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • After spending the time to do some policy analysis of this and to suggest revisions to most sections, it was all mass reverted by BHG [17][18][19][20][21][22][23], on the grounds that I didn't have "permission" to comment there, despite being sent there by her, and despite others already replying to what I wrote [24]. This kind of selective censorship does senseless violence to talk pages, not to mention the actual process of drafting this RfC.
    • No, you were notsent there. You were told about the page's existence. As above, there was a hatnote saying not to edit the page.[25].
      Holding a discussion among a defined small group is not "censorship". It is a form of collaboration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • She'd earlier said (though I did not notice it at the time) at her own talk page "I was quite happy to engage with you on the substance". She then censored all this substance anyway, with a demand that I put it on her regular talk page not the draft's talk page.
    • Yes, I did indeed write I was quite happy to engage with you on the substance. But note that word "was"; it's past tense, to indicate that I am no longer happy to discuss with you.And note that SMcCandlish has dishonestly taken that phrase out of it context. My entire from which that is excerpted reads: SMcCandlish a thoroughly bad faith comment like that bogus allegation that I get angry because my close is criticised marks the end of our discussion.
      I was quite happy to engage with you on the substance, but if you want to engage in that sort of smeary, twisted ad hominem, the discussion is over.
      Given that you agree that we need a consensus of criteria for portals, I really wonder what on earth was the point of this whole discussion.
      The RFC is not a public drafting process. I chose a small groups of people with differing views to facilitate quick progress. So the talk page is for that group only

      My edit summary was "enough".
      SMcCandlish's attempt to portray that as an invite to post on my pages is either WP:CIR-level reading comprehension problems, or a wilful attempt to mislead AN by dishonest trimming of a quote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Such a "you can't discuss it here" demand in itself is highly irregular. I can't think of any draft RfC in WP history with a talk page WP:OWNed in this manner by someone. It'a also inconsistent with WP:TALKPAGE and WP:EDITING.
  • Whatever; I did as requested, and relocated all of this feedback [26] to BHG's talk page. I think it's important feedback, since since 5 of the 6 sections of the RfC draft are very problematic (several of the proposals are in direct conflict with policy and with ArbCom rulings, for example).
    • I did not request you to relocate anything to my talk page. I had already banned you from it.
      The edit summary which you quote below was a verbatim quote of the draft talk's hatnote, not a request or invitation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Whether or not there is any merit to your claim that your post contained important feedback, that does not entitle you to impose it on another editor's talk page. You also seem to assume that you have some special insight into policy which is so critically important that you could not wait to present it either at the later public discussion of the draft, or at the RFC itself. If you genuinely believed that bizarre proposition to be true, then you should have taken care to behave with civility so that your comments would not be deleted unread. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Despite having demanded it ("which part of "If other editors who wish to express views on the draft, please comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl" was unclear to you???" [27]), BHG then censored this version [28], too. Note in particular the uncivil edit summary: "you know perfectly well why you have been banned from my talk page. Now get lost". No admin should behave this way.
    • I did not censor your post. I unread removed from my usertalkpage (see WP:REMOVED) a post from an uncivil editor who I had banned from my talk page for making a malicious and false allegation of bad faith.
      You know perfectly that you had been banned from my talk page because I honestly and fulsomely answered your questions about the close, you accused me of saying in effect[29] "I get angry when when my closes are faintly criticized, and will spin implausible interpretations of what someone wrote just so I can vent".
      You chose to personalise a disagreement, and you chose to accuse me of "spin" and "vent". Those are accusation of bad faith, and they are conversation-stoppers in any context. I had given you my time to explain what I had done and why, and I am entitled to the very basic courtesy of not being accused of "spin" when I write a good faith explanation.
      It is risible of you to kill a conversation with your rudeness and your ABF, and then whine that you were told to "get lost". There is clear warning in my editnotice to assume good faith, not that it should be needed ... and when you have been asked no to post any more a
  • This is not actually a true claim; I had no idea BHG had "banned" me from her talk page until long after the fact, as I received no talk page notice about it. This apparently happened here; note the WP:ASPERSIONS: "maliciously false accusations of bad faith", which is pure projection, and accusing someone of malicious intent is a blatant assumption of bad faith. (Last I checked, BHG doesn't have psychic powers and has no basis for assuming "malice" on my part; nor did I make any kind of accusation of bad faith toward her to begin with.)
    • The accusation of bad faith was made in your post of 00:22[30], in whch described my honest description of my close as "I get angry when when my closes are faintly criticized, and will spin implausible interpretations of what someone wrote just so I can vent".
      You do not have to agree with my actions, or believe that my rationale is correct; but an an accusation of spinning "implausible interpretations" and of"venting" is an accusation of bad faith. It is demonstrably untrue, and can only have been made for malicious purposes.
      I made it very clear that I closed the RFC with a recommendation for a folowup portal-criteria RFC because the criteria were clearly unresolved and highly controversial. SMcC said in the same post I agree that "editors need to build a community consensus on criteria for whether a portal should exist ... so all this querying of the close was all nonsense anyway: SMcC actually agreed with point he was contesting. Bizarre conduct. Was it baiting? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Importantly, the "ban" message has a timestamp of 00:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC), while every single demand BHG made, diffed in series above, to move my RfC-draft commentary to her main talk page came after that, and no such "ban" was mentioned in any of those demands. This is blatant WP:GAMING#Gaming the consensus-building process (it qualifies under at least 3 of the 4 points there), is WP:WIN behavior, and also an WP:ADMINCOND failure greater than the civility lapses and bogus aspersions.
    • Yet more hyerbolic nonsense. Writing a draft in userpsace is not a consensus-building process. It is a private discussion in userpsace. Nothing discussed on my draft page is any way binding on anyone or on any policy or guideline, unless several steps down the road it it is presented at an actual consensus-forming process and is adopted by consensus.
      Nothing in WP:ADMINCOND requires me to facilitate the repeated intrusions on my talk pages by an editor who has responded to my good faith WP:ADMINACCT explanations by making a malicious accusation of bad faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What I actually did – what predicated all this weird behavior – was suggest that her strange reaction to my comments in user talk about one of her related closing decisions at this AN page seemed to me like a knee-jerk over-reaction to criticism. BHG's "ban" editsummary and wave of targeted censoriousness all being in response to that criticism (which I couched in terms of my own perception, not any allegations of intent) clearly proves the original point. It's the furthest thing from "maliciously false accusations of bad faith", but an accurate description of what's been happening.
  • It's not actually possible to "ban" people from your talk page, per WP:USERPAGE policy (at most, ignoring a request to stay away and instead using someone's talk page for unconstructive purposes will be used against you at ANI; nothing I've done here is unconstructive). Further, with BHG being an admin, WP:ADMINACCT applies. I'm entirely within my editorial rights to raise concerns about BHG's over-control, as an admin, of this RfC drafting, at her talk page.
  • As for the original close I constructively criticized: BHG clearly shouldn't be closing any of these discussions, being highly partisan and invested in the outcome.
  • I've attempted to make it clear that I'm actually in agreement with BHG that many of our portals do not need to exist, that there are maintenance costs associated with them, that an RfC is necessary, and that the community clearly does need to establish guidelines about them. I also reached out in e-mail, suggesting this was all just some mutual misunderstanding and "one of those days". This all seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

I don't think this RfC should be drafted inside a tiny echo chamber, especially when the output so far flies in the face of policy and ArbCom decisions. Either move the draft to "Wikipedia:" namespace and let everyone help shape it, or someone needs to draft a competing RfC that makes more sense. I think we all know from past experience that the former is a more productive process, though competing RfCs often nevertheless come to a clear consensus result.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake. This a pile of timewasting utter nonsense from SMcCandlish, who appeared on my talkpage this evening spoiling for a fight, and got banned from my talk after a malicious and false accusation of bad faith ... and the disregarded the ban.

Here's the facts.

  1. I drafted an RFC offline and pondered what to do with it
  2. I decided as a first step to try to form a small group of editors with divergent view to improve it, and then decide as group where to put the draft out for public reworking or launch it directly.
  3. Every step of this was done on-wiki.
  4. I chose two editors who thought broadly agreed with, and two who broadly disagreed with me. See it all at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria
  5. I did not invite SMcCandlish to comment on the draft. What I did write was I am now working with a few other editors of varying viewpoints to draft an RFC which would try to set guidelines on which portals should exist. See User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria and its talkpage. [31]. That is not an invitation
  6. SMcCandlish's comments were posted to User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria, which at the time of SMcCanslish's postings ahad aclear header saying This page is for discussion by invitation of the User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria. If other editors who wish to express views on the draft, please comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl. See that header present in the first post made there by SmcC[32]. Itw a sthere for all his other posts too, but I laer made it much promienent[33]
  7. I did not invite SmcC to join the group, because a) it was already formed; b) i had promised the group nom or invite without everyone's approval; c) SmCC had already on my talk been actively misrepresenting me, and I saw no benefit in bring a problem-maker into a problem-solving discussion
  8. I ended the discusion on my talk with SmcC because of his conduct. SMcC had made malicious and false accusation that I was acting in bad faith[34]: specifically that I spin implausible interpretations of what someone wrote just so I can vent".
    In invited anyone interested to read the discussion above and see for themselves that there was no venting and no spinning.
  9. I then hated the discussion, and banned SmC from my talk page[35].
    There was no point in further engagement with SMcC, because if he genuinely believed that I was spinning and venting, that the discussion was clearly going nowhere; and if he was just hurling abuse, it was also going nowhere.
  10. Only after closing that discussion did I see that SMcC had posted heavily on the talk page of my draft RFC. I then removed all his comments unread
  11. I then saw a post on that draft page from another eidtor.@Legacypac, who had written[36] If the User:SMcCandlish is going to be part of this working group I'm out of here. I have no interest in arging with their inability to be factual or analytical. Their comments should be removed so we can have a focused discussion.. I replied in agreement
  12. I then found that SMcC had reposted his comments on my talk page, despite being asked not to do so.
  13. I opened a discussion about his conduct at ANI, and then found I had just received an email from SmcC falsley claiming that I had been "Gaming the consensus-building process": You invited my commentary, then nuked it.
    Both blatant lies; I did not invite his commentary, and there was no gaming.
  14. Then I found this pile of nonsense.

He raised on my talk a legit question about my close, and I replied at length per WP:ADMINACCT. SMcC's response was to repeatedly misrepresent me, put words in my mouth, and then maliciously accuse me of bad faith ... and then falsely claim that I rescinded and invite which was never made, and ignore a very clear notice about a page he was asked not to post on.

I have done nothing underhand here. I have created in my userapce a page User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft_RFC_on_Portal_criteria which cleraly sets out what I am trying to do; to collate all options, with a clear statement note that my aim is to ensure that all options which may command support are presented here, and not to promote my preferences. If I have omitted any options, or given undue prominence to some, or included too many options, please treat that as unintended error by BHG, and propose a fix.

If that is underhand or gaming the system, I am a banana.

I have set out to draft this RFC in collaboration with 4 people, two of whom who I selected precisely because they disagree with me: see User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft_RFC_on_Portal_criteria#Can_we_draft_a_joint_proposal.

I explicitly say in hat section My thinking is that if we can each consensus between us on the design of an RFC, then we could either * Launch the RFC as what we have designed, or * Take it to broader design discussion. I currently have have no preference on which of those paths to follow.

I don't know why SmcC is behaving like this but their conduct this evening resembles that of an angry drunk looking for a fight. It is disagraceful disruption, timewasting, and a stream of malicious misepresentation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

PS If there a strong feeling from others here that any draft produced by the we group we have assembled should be first taken to a public venue for further revision, then I for one would be very happy to do so. As I wrote long before SMcc appeared Note that my aim is to ensure that all options which may command support are presented here, and not to promote my preferences. If I have omitted any options, or given undue prominence to some, or included too many options, please treat that as unintended error by BHG. The very last thing I wnat is an RFC which anyone feels in any way unfair, incomplete or otherise flawed.
However, I absolutely stand my decision that I do not want any further engagement with SmcC on my talk. As Legacypac wrote, I have no interest in arging with their inability to be factual or analytical. Their comments should be removed so we can have a focused discussion.
The pile of malicious nonsense which SMcC has posted above merely confirms my judgement that SMcC would be a toxic and probably fatal wrecking factor in any attempt to collaborate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Update: I didn't know it at the time, but BHG was drafting an ANI about me simultaneously: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:SMcCandlish disregarding ban from my talk. I would think these should be merged, probably to this one since it's better diffed and raises more issues, including admin-specific ones and ones about community process. I'm going to bed now. I'll say three things before I do so:
  • It's possible BHG may have believed I saw her "ban" note, saw her reverts and read their edit summaries, and kept posting to the same RfC talk page page just to spite her. It's not the case. I did my policy analysis of the RfC draft all in one go (though multiple saves), with single-minded focus. My monitor is something like 38 inches diagonal. The "you have a notice" icon is a very tiny blip at the far top right for me, and something I do not notice until I'm done editing and am looking around for what to do next; usually it's just the WP:FRS bot leaving "RfC spam" on my talk page, so I don't always look at the notices immediately even when I see that there is one. This quite possible to have escalated out of a one-sided misunderstanding, a misperception of someone else's editing and notice-checking habits.
  • However, I can't see any kind of excuse for having "banned" me from her talk page then making repeated demands I take something from the draft RfC talk page to her talk page. It's flat-out GAMING. You can't bait editors into "you can't use my talk page but you must use my talk page" traps and then try to ANI them over it. That unclean hands ANI report is a third ADMINCOND failure in the same "incident" (and such baiting actually resulted in a desysop before, though I won't name names, since the editor who did it took a break, returned, copped to it, and eventually got their admin bit back). And ever time BHG repeat the "malicious" accusation without any evidence of malice, and considerable evidence to the contrary, she's just digging her own hole deeper.
  • All I really care about is a neutral, policy-compliant, sensibly worded RfC to arrive at a solid community consensus about when we should and should not have a portal. I don't think an RfC-drafting process controlled by one person can do that (especially given the WP:Writing policy is hard problems evidenced in the current draft, and double-especially when said owner shuts out constructive input because of an unrelated criticism they didn't like on another page). If you're going to draft an RfC and refuse others' input, don't advertise the RfC and it's talk page, FFS. It's another form of trap. While I've raised admin-behavior issues in the above, I don't expect or seek them to result in anything but an admonition, and am entirely willing to ignore the hypocritical "maliciously false accusations of bad faith" nonsense as long as it doesn't recur. I did finally hear back from BHG in e-mail (after both the ANI an this AN were open), and it just repeated the exact same assumption of malice. I objected to it again on AGF grounds, and will trust (AGF!) that this will be the end of it. Sorry this is long, but I'm done for the day and may not participate tomorrow due to off-site duties, so I need to make my case now all in one go. I'm not going to pore over all of BHG's even longer post above. My diffs show what they show. Timestamps don't lie. In skimming it, it looks like a bunch of "It was okay to do what I did because I was angry and thought I was being ignored" handwaving; it's not okay, and that's not an excuse.
     — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish:, more bad faith nonsense.
  1. It is entirely reasonable of me to assume that an editor who is active posting on the pages of someone with whom they have had a disagreement reads their notifications. If you did not follow the notfication to stay off my talk page, that was your choice to ignore something pertinent.
  2. I have engaged in no gaming and no baiting. That is yet more of your malicious nonsense. At no point did I invite your comments on the draft, and you posted the on a page which contained a very clear notice to post unless invited, with a list of who was invited which did not include your name
  3. At no point did I "banned" me from her talk page then making repeated demands I take something from the draft RfC talk page to her talk page. I quoted to you repeatedly the notice at the top of the age on which you had been posting uninvited. It did rescind the ban.
  4. SMcC claims If you're going to draft an RfC and refuse others' input, don't advertise the RfC and it's talk page. I did NOT advertise it; I mentioned its existence in one-to-one conversation, in the interests of transparency.
    If I told you where you my house is, would you interpret that as a license to push your way in past the notice saying "not unless uninvited" and then throw a tantrum if you were asked to leave? That is exactly what you did there.
If you actually care about a neutral, policy-compliant, sensibly worded RfC ... then please find within yourself the integrity to acknowledge that:
  • that is precisely the aim I set out at the top of the draft
  • That I have not acted unilaterally, and specifically asked editors to work me on the precise basis that they disagree with me. That is all set out publicly
I do not actually believe your belated claim that your concern is about the RFC. What I see is a rude editor who repeatedly misrepresented what I had written, maliciously accused me of acting in bad faith ... and has now thrown the absolute mother of all bogus accusation FUD temper-tantrums because (surprise! surprise!) the editor who he maliciously accused of bad faith doesn't want to work with him.
We are all volunteers here, SMcC. If you come to any editor or admin's talk, make outrageous and malicious allegations of bad faith, then do you really really expect to be asked to join a collaboration which had already been chosen to keep numbers low and views balanced? Really? Staggering sense of entitlement.
Sleep it off, SMcC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting/Archive 2[edit]

I requested that the archive at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting/Archive 2 be deleted as the RFC is still active at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting. My request was reverted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Not being an admin or particularly familiar with deletion policy which deals with this, I have no idea if the page qualifies for deletion. But regardless of what is allowed, I see zero point for wasting time on this. If the RFC has been reopened and speedy was declined, just blank the archive page like I did [37]. Eventually something is going to be added back to it, probably the RFC when it is closed again. Sorry but is there some reason we should care whether or not the history is there? I mean if the archive page already existed, I'm fairly sure that revdeleting the addition of the RFC would be considered an epic waste of time regardless of what arguments could be made under our policies and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Remember for the automatic archiving, the existence of the page is irrelevant. All that matters for the bot is what the code tells it to do and it looks like someone already changed it, maybe you. Are you worried that people are going to manually archive to archive 2 because it exists before there is a reason to open it (probably when the RFC is archived) or something? Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reply - @Nil Einne:, as long as things archive properly when the RFC is over, and the current RFC is not in the archives until it is closed, I really do not care. The current RFC was put back in the archive while it was in progress. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

HuffPost article on WP COI editing[edit]

Thanks to JamesG5 I bumped into this HuffPost article of yesterday (or today depending on your timezone). It is dedicated to a particular COI editor on WP:

  • Ashley Feinberg (14 March 2019). "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages. And it almost always works". Huffington Post.

Does it offer ideas for anything actionable? — kashmīrī TALK 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • So long as he has disclosed and not directly edited pages, there's nothing we can do. If someone wants to change the policy to be stricter and prohibit it completely, I'll be the first to support, but I don't think we have that consensus yet (though I believe we eventually will. Also, note I'm talking about PR nonsense, not Wikipedians-in-residence, which is always a sticking point.)
    I'll add that articles like this make us look ridiculous and that our official begrudging acceptance of disclosed paid editing is even more of a threat than undisclosed paid editing because it ruins our reputation when major media outlets runs stories like this.
    Finally, I'll put my 2¢ in that admins and others should not let declated paid editors do what I refer to as TOU bludgeon: declaration is the minimum required to edit. It is not a free pass to spam. WP:NOTSPAM is still local policy and if someone openly declares themselves a spammer and the content matches, they should be indefinitely blocked without warning. Native advertising is very much a thing, and just because spam doesn't look like it did in 2005 when out policies were written, doesn't mean that our policies don't apply. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
TonyBallioni I completely and passionately agree with your last paragraph. However, If a media organization wants to take issue with the calls we make on controversial topics they can and they will and we might not come out the otherside so great - they're tough areas for a reason. The fact that we have transparency means we can, if we want, revisit any of these editorial decisions. If there was no declaration those changes would be made and we wouldn't know or be any wiser and the community would have no option to re-evaluate the thinking. There are no good decisions for us to make here only least awful ones. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Which headline makes us look more like fools:
  1. Wikipedia blocks hundreds of 'scam' sock puppet accounts
  2. Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages And it almost always works
The first headline is about Orangemoody. The second one is about someone following our TOU and policies. Anyone who has ever worked a day in a marketing department can tell you which headline they'd prefer.
This is significant because we've fought for years to have our credibility accepted. I'm not saying that this is worse ethically than Orangemoody. Of course it isn't. I am saying that to the general public, this looks significantly worse. In Orangemoody, we were the heroes: fighting a bad guy scamming people out of their money. Here we are the bureaucrats that allow Big Tech to whitewash their own articles.
Regardless of what the actual impact is on individual articles, the perceived impact is worse from declared PR editing, and that in turn makes all of the featured articles on notable topics that are extremely well researched worth less to the reader.
I'm well aware that these are tough calls, but I'm saying that the community does need to consider perception here, and the perception from "white hat" editing on the outside is worse than some of our biggest sockfarms. I don't want an RfC on this now, but I do think it is something that is missing from community discussion on the topic, which is why I'm raising it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Not to detract from TonyBallioni's points, but just to answer one of the original questions of whether there is anything actionable, I didn't see such a thing. Problematic, sure. Actionable? Well, since the editor in question responds reasonably to comments, I don't see anything in particular right now. HuffPo also I feel is being a bit misleading. Regarding the Oppenheimer/Farrow thing, for instance, looking back, the section we had in his article was completely inappropriate for a BLP given what the sources actually stated. If what was previously written were verifiable, then those sources should have been added if the content was to stay like that. The wall-o-texts that HuffPo complains about don't seem big to me. And whether an article on a website needs to mention a criminal complaint against the founder is a completely ordinary coat rack discussion. Well, I guess CORPORATE PR PHONY WIKIPEDIA EDITOR WHITEWASHES ARTICLES is more compelling clickbait than Several companies pay Wikipedia editor to file routine boring complaints about content that arguably violates Wikipedia's own policies. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think today's headline is worse for us than Wikipedia’s Top-Secret ‘Hired Guns’ Will Make You Matter (For a Price) and at least today we can decide if the changes really were policy compliant or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Damn, what's next? Soon they'll discover that I've been taking millions to edit Intel articles. THE JIG IS UP Drmies (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Millions?! I only get a few rubles! You need to hook me up.Face-wink.svg PackMecEng talk) 02:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Bedoel je niet wij, goede dokter ;-). TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Nice try, Tony, but that you are me (I?) is only a rumor on Reddit, and at any rate I AM NOT SHARING THE MILLIONS I GOT FROM INTEL FOR EDITING THAT ARTICLE WITH YOU. Damn I hope that that person who exposed me AS A PAID EDITOR FOR INTEL doesn't read this. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Back on point, while I agree the headline isn't great for Wikipedia, making policy in response to headlines is a slippery slope that I, for one, don't want to embark upon. Of course HuffPo is going to write the most sensational headline they can coin out of a relatively scant set of facts. I'm not really convinced that there is a lot in the story we should be worried about, which just leaves the headline. If you're looking for headlines critical of Wikipedia handling of material, there are plenty out there and they really do affect our credibility with a big section of the population; we shouldn't make policy in response to those headlines, either. GoldenRing (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The headline itself is useless, but the rest of the text could possibly be of use for those who want to take a look at the mentioned articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, we are talking about BC1278--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
And I think the question the HP asks in our language would be whether their actions are compatible with WP:CANVASSING.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. BC1278 here. Overwhelmingly, my Request Edits are made through a Request Edit flag. The format is usually very concise, as suggested by User: Spintendo, a frequent reviewer to the Request Edit queue: e.g. Talk:Pace_University#Request_Edit, Talk:Jonathan_Swan#Request_Edits. The "wall of text" complaint the author of the HuffPo column picked up on happened in an article about Noah Oppenheim during extended discussions about controversial issues with multiple RfCs. The consensus decisions ultimately reached by independent editors were not remotely like my original proposed edits, as the HuffPost author falsely implies. Instead, independent editors did their job and came to their own conclusions. One outcome of participating in a couple of these very contentious discussions was a chat last year with DGG, who advised me that he had learned over the years there's very little advantage in getting involved in debates after you've made your point once - you're not going to convince people to change their minds anyway. I have tried to adopt his style since. The HuffPost column is focused on a few high-profile media-related Wikipedia articles which involved public controversies (the author's beat), rather than how I conduct myself on Wikipedia in general. It's click bait. It is also rife with mistakes and misleading statements too numerous to explain here. I am going to ask for HuffPo for multiple corrections. For example, she ignores that I was the editor who suggested expanding into a robust paragraph, the few words mentioning the Matt Laeur firing on NBC News, despite the subject being very unflattering to them. But I wanted the NBC News article to be up to date anyway. The HuffPo author cherry picked one sentence she didn't like in my proposed edit, even though, as per a normal independent review, another editor chose to use entirely different language than anything I submitted (and I added words of encouragement, saying it was well done.) Talk:NBC_News#Expanded_info_on_Matt_Lauer Her example of alleged canvasing are notifications to editors who had already participated in extended discussions on Talk:Noah Oppenheim that more discussions were continuing in a new RfC. If she looked carefully, she would have seen that I notified (or tried to) all the recent editors, including those who opposed my proposals previously, such as User: Peter K Burian. This was my first RfC and to me, there appeared to already be consensus, when JytDog re-opened the question as a new RfC. I thought the previous editors discussing the same matter should be notified again. Today, having been through a few, I would have added all the notifications right on the RfC page, to be transparent, and let others double check I didn't mistakenly leave anyone out. Or, to be honest, I just wouldn't bother to notify anyone - at the time, I didn't know how RfC editors were even called upon.BC1278 (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)BC1278
FYI, if you'd like to know what its like to field inquiries from prominent organizations, PR firms or individuals who think articles about them have problems, or want a new article, many balk when I tell them how I work - with full disclosure of COI as a paid editor and submitting all suggested edits for independent review. They don't want to take the risk of appearing in articles like the one by HuffPo. So I turn down their business, as my entire premise is that I do "white hat" work, only for those who want to follow the rules. Sometimes, a few months or a year down the road, I check to see if the articles of those who chose not to work with me nonetheless were edited or published as they wanted -- and it's usually the case they have been, but never with a public disclosure of COI or prior review. As the editing is anonymous, I can't be sure what happened, of course. I do know it will be more difficult to get subjects to publicly disclose because of this article, but it won't slow down the organizations/individuals from violating Wikipedia policy and making direct edits. Not in my experience. Only a much more radical change will solve the problem -- for example, the elimination of anonymous editing, with all user accounts requiring a LinkedIn profile. Then, COI and agenda editing will be more obvious. It would also go a long way toward solving the civility issues. But given the sanctity of anonymous editing on Wikipedia, I guess it isn't viable.BC1278 (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)BC1278
Hi guy here who thinks you're right that UPE is worse. But do you understand why as a volunteer how your 700+ words are troubling and could be seen as WP:BLUDGEONing this conversation in contradiction of WP:PAYTALK. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Sorry/ I re-read it a bunch of times to try to cut it. But I'm responding to a major press article that made a slew of misleading and inaccurate statements about me, personally, and that now seems to be swaying discussion on Wikipedia policy itself. For four years, I've worked to convince organizations and PR firms to abide by COI disclosure rules because that's what Wikipedia has decreed is kosher Someone from the Wikimedia Foundation needs to publicly stand up to this young media reporter who thinks UPE is more ethical than declared PE or declared COI editing. That's what this author is explicitly saying! I received calls and emails from major PR agencies all day -- if this is the new normal, they're going to direct business away from the "white hats." There are board meetings taking place next week to formalize this, affecting some of the largest corporations in the world. Unless something changes, the outcome will be a lot more business for "black hats."BC1278 (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)BC1278
  • I mean, yeah, it does. BC1278 is alleged to be a serial POV-pusher and professional whitewasher, who games the system to get his edits through with a combination of relentless bludgeoning and canvassing. That's extremely alarming and I was ready to crucify this guy. I was even pissed to see the lighthearted reactions above. But, when you actually examine the article, I'm not seeing any violations. In fact, I'm not really seeing anything of major concern. The article itself seems to quietly concede that he doesn't actually violate any policies. In fact, it comes across as extremely misleading and obviously written by someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia at all. He "spent over a year lobbying" for the creation of Caryn Marooney? Come on, he created it as a draft and got it approved through the AfC process, not because he's some relentless lobbyist. Relentless bludgeoning, based on this? Really? He's literally just discussing something in the discussion section, because he was refraining from !voting. Obviously the writer has never witnessed true bludgeoning. Canvassing? The supposed incidents of "canvassing" are usually explained as simply being notifications to relevant users who are involved in some way, such as WikiProject members. I have not seen any refutations of that point. I mean, one of the warnings cited was literally for notifying the only other contributor to an article about a deletion discussion.[38] There's nothing even particularly unreasonable about that. Most of the supposed "whitewashing" seems to be mundane matters that don't harm articles at all, if not actual improvements, like making articles better comply with BLP. "It almost always works"? Uh, yeah, if you're in compliance with policies and are making reasonable requests that are being vetted by established editors who decide to approve them, then good for you, you're not terrible at what you do. It certainly isn't because the community has no problem with paid COI editors, on the contrary, they're among the most stigmatized editors within the community. This article seems to be little more than an unfortunate piece of trumped-up clickbaity garbage, and I actually feel bad for the paid editor here. I hope both the editor and the Foundation will push back in some way. If COIN wants to do an in-depth investigation of this editor, that's perhaps a reasonable reaction, but based solely on the allegations and supporting evidence presented in the article, which, I assume was the worst they could find, there's nothing actionable there. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Swarm I have spent some time examining this user's editing. I think on the whole I agree with your analysis. But even in that rather long analysis above you're still about 55% as verbose as BC1278 is in his response here. I think given PAYTALK, which I value as a volunteer editor, he could learn how to be more concise. The problem with him at Oppenheim, as I see it, isn't with the RfC, it's with what came before. Similar verbose behavior can be seen at other of his pages. I compare that to this paid editor who accomplishes their work in a far more concise manner. But to emphasize I think that the HuffPo article, like much of the media commenting on Wikipedia practices, gets things wrong, and in this case does so with a clear agenda in mind. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that there is a "money is bad" mentality that induces people into writing articles of debatable accuracy about paid editing on Wikipedia. In a way it's similar to the POV-pushing process. I agree that the "bludgeoning" there isn't, plenty of people write mildly detailed arguments. And if memory serves this would be far from the first time where a news article about Wikipedia has turned out to be partially or mostly wrong. Some caution is due before citing newspaper articles about Wikipedia as arguments for a policy change or on-wiki action. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Swarm for taking time to go through the edit history and this way answering my original question.
As to COI editing, Jo-Jo Eumerus has put it right. We often distrust those who have vested financial interest in what most of us are doing for free, ergo, in our view, selflessly.
Hopefully, in the longer run, common sense will prevail. Maybe a day will come when for example we will allow company infoboxes to be edited by company staff, or person infoboxes by article subjects. Until we find an open and transparent way of managing COI, we will see articles like the HuffPost piece. — kashmīrī TALK 00:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Swarm, Barkeep49, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Kashmiri, Ymblanter, GoldenRing, TonyBallioni, PackMecEng, Drmies, Gråbergs Gråa Sång and anyone I missed here: Given the subject of the Request Edit here Talk:Caryn_Marooney#section=1 and the already removed language from from NBC News (editors using this HuffPo article to include accusations of Wikipedia impropriety in the WP articles about the organizations mentioned), would it be possible for an official consensus as to whether this article is or is not a reliable source for alleging paid editing impropriety such that it can be included in the Wikipedia mainspace articles about or related to the organizations highlighted in HuffPo? Or, whether the article is reliable in general? This is going to repeat over and over.BC1278 (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd say it's reasonably reliable for alleging (by which I mean "according to HuffPost" or whatever) paid editing impropriety, but will currently probably fail on WP:UNDUE/WP:NOTNEWS (and maybe WP:BLP, depending on use) aspects. I was thinking of Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#Miscellaneous, but it seems a little weak on it's own. HuffPost is not Daily Mail, but it's not Washington Post either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If you're implying that's an example of "bludgeoning", then no. In fact, based on the above, the user presents a perfectly reasonable case. If anyone is unclear on what "bludgeoning" looks like, check out the discussions I collapsed at Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 18. If you're really a glutton for punishment, keep scrolling past that. Eventually, you may reach the bottom of the page. ~Swarm~ {talk} 20:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you missed the part of those 572 words where he asserted AN consensus that HuffPo is not a reliable source? That's a misrepresentation at best, and the whole thing is a classic example of throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. 2600:6C44:E7F:F8D6:8694:953B:9EC1:FBC (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • We should at least say "paid editors are not to directly edit articles"... Even info boxes maybe problematic as they try to exaggerate the number of employees ect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Lori Loughlin[edit]

I just blocked an editor for edit warring, but please see this edit. The editor was wrong to edit war, and they didn't claim a BLP exemption (though both sides seemed to be arguing that they were experts on Wikipedia's policies on reverting), but I do think their edit was the correct one: it removed material that for now is only tangentially connected to the main article/topic, the suggestion being there's even more foul play. It's sourced to TMZ, and while I'm sure there are more, and more reliable, sources, this is not where we should be going. I'm hoping some of you will keep an eye on it. BTW this entire scandal is all over the place. See, for instance, this recent revert (I won't revert the IP because their edit summary now makes some sense). So y'all keep your eyes open: if you're not familiar with 2019 college admissions bribery scandal, it's a happening thing. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that a block there is appropriate. The other user was edit warring also - it should have been both or neither. Additionally, Fradio71's edit was the correct one - the material wasn't appropriate for the Loughlin page, and the source was TMZ. I see Fradio started a talk page discussion in an attempt to resolve the issue (albeit after the edit war). This comment is exceptionally ironic, for a couple reasons. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree both parties should have been blocked, it takes two to tango and both Fradio and Dogru144 were equally guilty, the only difference is a different user account showed up out of nowhere to make one of the reverts Dogru144 was otherwise making. Fish+Karate 10:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This is old news, Fish and karate and Mr Ernie, but I wasn't asking for a block review; the editor I blocked reverted five times, and while it may be true that the other was bailed out, they didn't break the bright line. I agree, BTW, Mr Ernie, on the irony of that comment, and you can see some discussion on it at User_talk:Drmies#Self-reverts. Y'all may find it worth noting that Fradio is now blocked indefinitely: they couldn't stop digging. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Fradio got indeffed? Well, I guess it was inevitable, but I thought maybe we could rehabilitate him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────While we're here, there has been an attempt to add this name and one other to List of fraudsters, which I think we can all agree should only be a list of people convicted or otherwise known to have committed some type of fraud, not people accused of it. More eyes couldn't hurt, it's fairly new as a stand-alone list. (it could also use expanding it is very far from being comprehensive but that's another matter) Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Please page-protect my talk page.[edit]

Hi. I'm being harassed by a vandal who has made off-wiki threats. Please page-protect my talk page, and I suppose my user page and consider block of vandal.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Spoonymonkey has been posting fake claims on my talk page. 2001:1970:5457:DF00:C5EF:FD18:F858:128E (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Spoonkymonkey: IP blocked. Watchlisted your userpage. In cage of re-occurrence, just report at WP:ANI or to any admin active at the moment. Otherwise, best to not engage and WP:DENY. Abecedare (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Spoonkymonkey: I added a short term protection just so you can avoid any immediate ip hopping issues. — xaosflux Talk 03:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I've expanded and extended the block to one week for block evasion. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Block appeal[edit]

Could someone please take a look at User talk:Sotuman#Appeal of Block? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I would expand that request to any open unblock request(CAT:RFU); we're getting a bit backed up. Some of them are repeats that I can't review again or checkusers where a checkuser is needed. I understand we are all volunteers here; this is just a request. Thanks 331dot (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll just mention that Sotuman's block is an arbitration enforcement sanction.[39] That means "no administrator may modify [it] without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA". The enforcing admin was User:JzG. So if anybody wants to unblock Sotuman, they need to either get agreement from JzG or consensus for it either here or at WP:AE or WP:ARCA. Bishonen | talk 20:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
  • @JzG: You appear to have blocked this user indefinitely as an arbitration enforcement action. This is not a valid enforcement action - AE blocks can only be up to one year in duration. I guess strictly speaking this means any admin is free to undo the block after its first year. GoldenRing (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Sotuman: ~Swarm~ {talk} 20:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The reason for the indefinite block is enforcement of an indefinite topic ban. The block is no longer necessary for the following reasons:

  1. Understands reason for ban: I am promising to not perform the same edits that resulted in the topic ban and the topic ban violation.
  2. Past Contributions: My overall edit history, including a couple of created pages, shows that I am motivated and able to contribute to the article space. It was only on February 9, 2019, that I started to delve into the talk pages and began to learn about consensus and policies, after noticing that some of my editing was being reverted for what seemed like no reason. So even though I've been a registered user since 2007, there is a learning curve for editors that I was not aware of and need to adapt to.
  3. Aspirations: I have recently renewed my library card which allows me to have full access to online scientific journals, not just the abstract. So now, I can add article content saying exactly what the source says. I also have a camera to take pictures to add to articles. Below is a list showing some of the articles unrelated to the banned topic of flood geology that I would like to work on in the 3 to 6 month period between being un-blocked and appealing the topic ban.
  4. Conclusion: There has been some lively back-and-forth between myself and other users on my talk page and on other article talk pages which is probably not necessary to slog through. Suffice it to say that it seems I have rubbed some in this community of Wikipedians the wrong way, and I am truly sorry for that. I would like to apologize to Hob, whom I compared to Gollum, and also to everyone else, to whom it may have seemed that I thought I was better or smarter than them. This is only a result of foolish human pride, from which I am certainly not immune. Basically, I do have a lot of respect, and gratitude for everyone who has chosen to interact with me, because it gives me opportunities to learn new things, which I enjoy very much.

Sotuman (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - While this seems fairly uncontentious, the blocking admin seems to be away and there's no guarantee he'll be back to approve it anytime soon. So, we might as well get started on approving it formally here. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support unblock with minimal further delay. - Per the reasonable unblock request, and the receptiveness to constructive criticism on their talk page, and the already-existing support from Guy Macon and Boing! said Zebedee. Also, jumping straight to an indef to enforce a minor AE TBAN seems to have been a bit of an overreaction to begin with (technically it's not even supposed to be an option). We're approaching a month blocked already, so they have sufficiently "served their time" for the violation at this point. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Swarm: JzG's user page gives general permission for administrators to overturn his blocks if they think the issue is resolved, though whether this meets the "explicit prior affirmative consent" requirement of WP:AC/DS not certain, in my view. I've emailed Guy to ask if he can look in briefly here to opine. GoldenRing (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I never had a problem with that Gollum thing, so: apology accepted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC) making unacceptable edits[edit]

Per nearly unanimous consensus, (talk · contribs) is banned from the topics of politics and all biographies of living persons, across all namespaces, both broadly construed. It should be noted that the topic ban from "politics" creates a ban with a very wide scope, however that is the community's intent given the seriousness of the issue.

I saw GiantSnowman's "wait and see" comment. There are a few other editors here who also want an explanation from Rms125a, but all of those comments were supporting a topic ban anyway. It's my opinion that consensus would not be swayed by any statement that the editor could provide, and as they have been editing since this discussion was open they have had enough opportunity to offer it. Therefore I am enacting the ban.

Although is presumed aware of the discretionary sanctions related to WP:ARBBLP, this sanction is a community action, not Arbitration Enforcement. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The other day, right after a white supremacist killed 50 people in a mosque in Christchurch, NZ, saw fit to make this edit, the kind of thing you hear from Rush Limbaugh, and the kind of thing you wouldn't want to hear from a Wikipedia editor in an edit summary (I think it should be revdeleted, by the way, it's that offensive). Note that the edit doesn't come early in the history of the article or in the course of events becoming known: at this time the "manifesto" was already known and commented on in the article, it was named a terrorist incident, etc. "False flag" is so patently ridiculous at that stage that...well, that's why I'm here.

I placed a note on Rms's talk page, and in the response, Rms felt the need to throw in something altogether different--though not so different if you follow right-wing and alt-right online boards: January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation, which I think he used to cast doubt on all reliable sources. That's one thing, but in the final comment, and I'm done responding there, he makes a bad thing worse, by committing a pretty egregious BLP violation against Nathan Phillips (activist) (using a slur otherwise used by racists to refer to African-Americans--and this should probably also be revdeleted). That Rms throws in some conspiracy stuff related to James Comey and Robert Mueller is, I think, par for the course, but it helps to indicate that, in my opinion, Rms should be topic-banned from...well, American politics and everything else related to terrorism and maybe race.

The BLP violation is what I really don't understand, and I'd request a BLP topic ban (I'm sure Rms is aware of the discretionary sanctions), but Rms regularly edits BLPs and BLP-related things and I've never seen them be problematic, au contraire. I think it's the politics of it that pushed them over the edge, and I do believe a few lines have been crossed here. In the last year or so I've heard some comments about RmS and right-wing POV editing, and I've never really wanted to pursue that since I've thanked them frequently for their helpful edits all over the wiki, but this is cray cray, and it is unacceptable. I am not going to peruse the dramah board archives (or Rms's edit history) and ping those who've had problems with Rms before, but I do welcome the insight of other editors. "False flag". The youngest victim was 3. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Is his account compromised? This seems way out of line for rms, and shocking for someone with such long tenure.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 01:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Here are a couple of things that stuck out at me recently:
This edit from Feb. 13 added some odd, unsourced editorializing to the lede of Fourth-wave feminism about the movement presupposing the guilt of anyone accused of sexual assault. This is a "Rush Limbaugh" talking point. This simplistic commentary isn't supported elsewhere in the article, and it's presented as a simple fact. One or several IPs tried to remove this over the next couple of weeks, but it was reverted by Rms saying the alternatives were "agitprop" (twice) or like a "blogsite". Rms later expanded on this editorializing, still with no source. None of this was included in the body.
Rms's repeated insistence at White genocide conspiracy theory that David Lane (white supremacist), a murderer who died in prison in 2007 and was an active member of the Aryan Nations, not be described as a "neo-Nazi". Likewise, what the hell was this? We need to be extra careful about getting dead neo-Nazis exactly right, but the opinions of far-left fanatics get tossed out regardless of sources?
Grayfell (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Bishonen gave him the BLP DS alert last year. User:Cullen328 and User:Galobtter commented on his BLP edits in December at User ANI discussion Doug Weller talk 08:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Definitely Support a topic ban from politics and political biographies broadly construed, at the very least. That would at-least cover the nonsense at Fourth-wave feminism (Rms seems to have a propensity for unsourced editorializing - In regards to politics at-least, what he writes is completely divorced from sourcing), at White genocide conspiracy theory and above. The problem however, with creating an adequate topic ban, is that the issues can seem to, as shown by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive998#Legal threat by User:Brees4 (and by the slur at Nathan Phillips (activist)) can extend to any BLP of a minority, so not exactly sure how one would make a workable topic ban for that.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I noticed another unacceptable edit as we speak: Without responding here, has added an unlikely, actually newbie-like, edit, as experienced as he is: changing far right to right-wing in the lead of Lauren Southern.[40] A mere glance at the talkpage would have shown him there's consensus for far right. There's lots more of the same in the archives, and see also the BLP noticeboard here. This is ridiculous. I agree with Galobtter: an indef topic ban from "politics and political biographies broadly construed" sounds right. But I also want to register my concern that when it's hard to craft a suitable topic ban, as here, nothing tends to get consensus even though everybody agrees that something's needed. Perhaps the simplicity of a time-limited block would be better? I suggest one month to three months. I'd appreciate if people would say whether they'd support this as an alternative to the t-ban suggestions which they may primarily support. Bishonen | talk 10:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
  • Clearly we need some sort of topic ban here. The edit summary in Drmies original post and the comments on their talk page show that we can't expect unbiased editing on pages related to right wing terror and right/left politics. Perhaps the topic ban proposed by Galobtter above with a warning that the breadth of the ban could increase (perhaps all the way to a site ban). --regentspark (comment) 10:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support a topic ban from politics and political biographies broadly construed. Per above; oppose block since it seems to be punitive to me. WBGconverse 11:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from politics, I'd prefer simply a BLP topic ban but will go along with the suggestion above, broadly construed. He even editwars at BLPs, see User:Muboshgu's edit summary here.[41] Doug Weller talk 15:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from politics, broadly construed (to include any biography remotely related to politics) - I'm astonished, because those are the sort of utterly unacceptable edits I'd expect to see from a throwaway troll account, not a long-established Wikipedian. I do this with no sense of joy, but it's unquestionably necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from politics and from BLPs. It seems that this editor has gone off the rails. Seriously. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I've seen around for years, and I've never seen anything like this before. Something has clearly gone wrong here - can a checkuser check for signs of a compromised account? If there's no evidence of compromise (and some of the other examples shown above suggest that there might not be), then I'll happily lend my support to any of the ban or block suggestions made so far - and I'd support anything up to a straight indef block. Also, that "False flag" edit summary was odious, and I agree it should be rev-deleted - and I've made it so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I too was confused by this edit. How could anyone confuse her with Tomislav Sunić? It made no sense, so I reverted it. Rms did not react. I cannot see this edit summary, which is supposed to be a damning piece of evidence, so I am rather uninformed about the situation. Are administrators able to see it? Surtsicna (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    It essentially suggested the attack might be an "alt-left false flag attack" - ie perpetrated by left-wing people faking it to look like a far-right attack. As I say, thoroughly odious. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic bans from BLPs and from politics. And no, I don't think the account is compromised – behaviour of this sort has shown up in his edits from time to time over the years, although never quite so egregiously as this time. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Non-admin) Support, and please include all Venezuela topics; been dealing with this for a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support at least a topic-ban from politics and BLP (not just political BLPs) broadly construed and covering all namespaces even though I am skeptical that the topic-ban can be efficiently policed or covers all the problems with the user's edits. For example, in addition to the issues pointed above, a quick perusal found OR speculation added to a BLP, unsupported by anything in the cited source; and cut-n-paste copyvio (specifically, the text "Romance blossomed... close to Perth"). Abecedare (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Support topic bans from BLPs and politics. My gast is somewhat flabbered by this, to be honest. I have come across Rms125a before and never got this kind of vibe from them, but this is utterly unacceptable, and clearly (looking at diffs presented above) it's not an isolated thing. --bonadea contributions talk 20:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support BLP/politics topic ban. This is truly disturbing conduct. GABgab 22:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support BLP/politics topic ban per above and the fact that Rms has edited without contributing here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic bans across all namespaces regarding all BLPs, all political topics, broadly construed.--Jayron32 02:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: topic bans across all namespaces from politics and BLPs (not just political BLPs) broadly construed. Enough is enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would very much like to comment here as to why he considered the edit in question acceptable. Support a topic ban. Fish+Karate 08:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If he is banned, we need to be aware that he has a record of sockpuppetry, although I don't know of anything recent. See and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Also see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ which ended up in an aborted ARB case and a community ban.[42][43](which explains his calling himself Quis separabit? I believe). He has a long history of racist edits and edit summaries. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ban from politics and BLPs. I'll add that the 4th Wave feminism edits included the addition of "When unsuccessful Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis (whose husband had paid for her tuition and cared for their children while she was attending law school)... ". EvergreenFir (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support BLP/politics ban based on the evidence and comments, above. I assume that the last link posted by Fish and karate has been rev'del for a good reason. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    I don't see the point of revdelling such batshit arm-waving, it wasn't aimed at any individual, and while it demonstrated an abhorrent lack of decency and common sense, would have been more useful to leave in situ for future reference and so all editors can see what the issue was. Basically it was stating that the Christchurch attacks could have been an alt left false flag plot. Fish+Karate 13:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks F&K. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I was about to close this with clear consensus for a topic ban, but let's wait to see what says upon their return (they've not edited for 36 hours-ish, and only made 1 or 2 after this discussion started). Perhaps they've run away, perhaps they are genuinely busy - but nothing will be lost by waiting a little bit more. GiantSnowman 13:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • block, don't fuck around with this. cygnis insignis 15:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

As a footnote to this, two days later was indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts.  — Scott talk 15:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Acephobic edit warring[edit]

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


Not sure if this is the right place, but there's a lot of it going on at List of LGBT-related slurs and Discrimination against asexual people at the moment. Just a heads up. Adam9007 (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This stuff is getting ridiculous, I don't know if this is one person or several but right now tons of edits are being mad which do nothing but removes asexual related content.★Trekker (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
For ridiculous reasons to boot, especially at Discrimination against asexual people. Adam9007 (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, if you want something done about it, you should probably post evidence in the form of diffs and tell us who is doing the edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
It's a couple of IPs - someone claiming to be a Brazilian lesbian. Galobtter semi-protected the former for a week a couple hours ago, so I've done the same with the latter. ansh666 04:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Galobtter and NinjaRobotPirate: Any relation to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Foxes-cant-nya? EvergreenFir (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I never got to use "WP:SPAPARTY" before, but it looks applicable here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • When making such serious claims of bigotry, supporting evidence in the form of diffs is absolutely essential. Such accusations without evidence are considered to be aspersions, which are a form of personal attack. We will take these claims seriously, but you need to provide substantiating diffs at your earliest convinience, otherwise your complaint will be closed, and you may be subject to sanction yourself. ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Handled via page protection on both articles. I would say this is more akin to simple vandalism. Closing. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Can't undo edit due to blacklisted link[edit]

Resolved. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I screwed up badly with this edit and saved an old version of California. Can somebody undo it for me? Thanks Brycehughes (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, it's done.Brycehughes (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Unblock appeal for User:Bodhi Peace[edit]

Bodhi Peace has requested an unblock at their TP. As their block was the result of this community discussion at ANI, unblocking requires consensus here. This is the text of their request:

This is a direct appeal for clemency for the block I received a while back. The block says that "Any unblock will be conditional on the editing restriction being respected and a topic ban from food, nutrition and health, broadly construed." I agree to honoring the editing restriction regarding REDIRECTS and also not editing the "Nutrition" and/or "Health" section of food related articles nor editing articles specifically on a topic covering Food Nutrition and Healthy Food. My interests have diversified and so I will appeal that topic ban at a later time if I feel able to constructively contribute to those articles. Then, I will only edit unrelated topics until that time.

I support an unblock with a topic ban from the topics of food, health and nutrition, broadly construed, and with their restriction on creating redirects left in place. GoldenRing (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support an unblock and agree "with a topic ban from food, health and nutrition, broadly construed", but with a caveat. Although some constructive edits in the food-health-nutrition categories were made, the user was susceptible to exaggerations, spam sites, unscientific hype, stubborn reliance on poor sources, numerous small edits difficult to re-edit, MOS violations, unreasonable talk page arguments and resistance to facts et al., indicating this behavior may repeat on non-food topics. Difficult to monitor this user's contributions among their "diversified interests". --Zefr (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Note - to clarify the redirect restriction, it was a requirement to go through AFC/R, which was obeyed for about 5 months at which point the editor unilaterally started making their own redirects - a mix of useful and non-useful ones. There were also a couple of complaints that AFC/R had been spammed, but given that that could have been raised conventionally, and wasn't, it seems of questionable worth (it certainly wasn't in the close). Nosebagbear (talk)
  • Query to Group/Admins - could we unblock Bodhi for his sole participation here - I have some questions as regards several aspects, especially sourcing and "diversified interests" that I'd like to quiz (without splitting discussion to talk page)? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Given that there's a reasonably clear consensus here that they should remain blocked, and that they haven't responded to GoldenRing's query about unblocking them to participate here, it seems likely no admins would be willing to consider this. But if they do post any messages on their talk page directed at this discussion, someone should copy them over. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Support with the unblock condition of a broadly construed topic ban on food, nutrition and health (and existing redirect restriction). However in their appeal, Bodhi doesn't doesn't seem to be promising to honor that. Instead we're offered a narrow interpretation of their own of "won't edit nutrition and health sections of food related articles" and "Food nutrition" and "healthy food" articles. That allows quite a lot of wiggle room to edit food, nutrition and health articles in other ways. I think the topic ban's scope should be reiterated to them and specifically agreed to for the unblock to move forward. Considering the past unblock and editing restriction violations, I'd want a direct acknowledgement of what the topic ban will cover from them. -- ferret (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock The user appears to have a history of wikilawyering and flouting editing restrictions. And based on their unblock request text, they've already started trying to re-interpret the limits of sanctions. Also, it's clear they view this request as a stepping stone to remove all editing restrictions and return to their previous editing patterns. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 21:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the bizarre attempt to lawyer around/renegotiate the straightforward TBAN that was offered. It was a TBAN from "food, nutrition and health, broadly construed". That was the offer. I cannot even comprehend how the user could possibly reinterpret that as a TBAN from "editing the "Nutrition" and/or "Health" section of food related articles nor editing articles specifically on a topic covering Food Nutrition and Healthy Food". Whether this is a deceptive attempt to skirt around an editing restriction, or simply a complete lack of competence, it is a direct continuation of the issues that resulted in the user being blocked. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Swarm so correctly explained. Legacypac (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support give em some WP:ROPE. But the topic ban should be broadly construed.Oppose As Swarm points out, they've already been given rope before! And they blew it. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would respectfully suggest that they were already given the ROPE you refer to on March 11, 2018, when I unilaterally lifted their indefinite block, in lieu of an editing restriction that the user proceeded to blatantly ignore. They were only re-blocked six months later, after several dozens of violations, on top of many more informal violations as well as new violations. In this context, when very straightforward conditions for subsequent unblocks are involved, and the user is blatantly trying to evade them, a simple unblock per WP:ROPE is highly dubious. ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unblocking a user when they clearly do not understand what is expected of them under the prevailing TBAN is setting them up for failure, and is not of service to either them or the project.Abecedare (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment To be clear, I share others' concerns about this editors' interpretation of the scope of the topic ban. That is partly why this needed to come here; the ban needs to be a community-imposed editing restriction, not just something the editor agrees to to get unblocked. GoldenRing (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional support only with the originally directed topic ban from food, nutrition, and health, broadly construed (serial comma added to original). With respect to Swarm's comment, if they do not respect this restriction as it was originally proposed, they'll be indeffed in short order, but it's unfair to assume they'll violate it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not preemptively saying they'll violate editing restrictions. I'm opposing based on the insufficient, if not insulting, unblock request. They're literally attempting to weasel around the straightforward unblock condition that was offered to them. They didn't offer to take the original topic ban that you're supporting. That's either malice or incompetence, both of which are previously-existing issues. By supporting the original topic ban anyways, you're choosing to ignore that. You're going out of your way to throw them rope, that's generous. I just don't particularly see any reason that such generosity would be warranted, given the problematic unblock request. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Heh, "generous" is probably the nicest way one of my comments has been misinterpreted this week, so thanks for that ;) I had a second look at the previous ban discussion thread, and I do hear what you're saying about them having already been offered this restriction and repeatedly flagrantly violating it, however, I don't see that they've been given any opportunity to edit with the food-related restriction in place (they were banned from creating redirects previously, and yes, they created redirects anyway). I suppose the "generous" part of my stance here is that I do like to believe that editors can learn: they ought to know by now that restrictions are serious business, and no admin is going to wring their hands over reblocking them if they make even one single violation of it this time. So the risk to unblocking is pretty low, IMO. For what it's worth, it would be a reasonable interpretation of a ban from "health and nutrition" to edit food articles where they don't relate to those two subtopics, but that's not what's on the table anyway.
Given my re-read, I add to my original comment that I support unblocking with that original food-based restriction, as well as a strict ban from anything remotely to do with redirects: creating them, editing them, requesting them, talking about them at all, anywhere on the project. And add a caveat that if they don't respect it this time, the next step is a community ban from the site. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to misconstrue your comment. What you're saying here is not unreasonable, but it doesn't exactly resolve my problem, which is their attempt to renegotiate the "food" TBAN that was already offered (see my reply to Ammarpad below). That's my sticking point, and I can't think of a good reason to let that slide. There's no reasonable explanation, other than bad faith or incompetence. You would you choose to let it go and unblock anyway. Why? Do you just feel it's not a big enough deal to block an otherwise-acceptable request? Not even meaning to challenge you here, I'm genuinely interested in considering your point of view. ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Not really letting it go, but saying we're under no obligation to accept their revision. It's "no, we don't accept your revised terms, you are subject to whatever restrictions the community thinks will limit your disruption, and if you don't like it then you can stay blocked." There's no negotiation here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional support only with the originally worded topic ban per Ivanvector. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support with the original wording of the topic ban. I'd assume their unblock text was not meant to deliberately mislead. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ammarpad: That's a very kind AGF assumption, but the proposed sanction was simple, straight, and to the point. How, exactly, could a logical thought process restate and reinterpret the concept of "food, nutrition and health, broadly" as '"Nutrition" and/or "Health" section of food related articles nor editing articles specifically on a topic covering Food Nutrition and Healthy Food'? I mean, for the love of god, they literally threw out the "broadly construed" and replaced it with a "specifically" that was not remotely in line with the original TBAN. I can't possibly comprehend how you can consider that to be a "good faith" accident. It's beyond any and all reason! For your AGF to work, there surely has to be some remotely-rational reasoning for the user to have completely reworded the simple TBAN in a more complex way that completely changes the meaning and intent. I can't possibly see how this could be a "legitimate misconception" when any basic measure of critical thinking is applied. I have yet to see any rational argument from the users suggesting that we simply ignore the utter misstatement of the TBAN. It appears that these arguments are pretending that the user is not attempting to ignore the original TBAN, without any logical explanation whatsoever as to why the user might have made such a bizarre statement unintentionally. ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand your frustration with how this editor behaved after you unblocked them and how this unblock request was worded but I still believe they should be given another chance; call it the last rope. To paraphrase Ivanvector, it's unfair for us to preemptively assume they'll violate the topic ban because of how they (mis)interpret it in this unblock request. Since I am not sure whether this was done with an intent to deceive or it was a genuine human mistake --something you admit you're not sure either -- I think it's safer for me to assume it's the latter, that's what informed my stance.
Regarding your issue with renegotiating topic ban, since they did not explicitly say they meant to do that we can only deduce that from the request text, and I said I am assuming it was just a mistake. But even assuming this replacing of "broadly construed" with "specifically" was done calculatedly to give room for wikilawyering in the future, I don't see how it would help their cause if they ever breaches the ban and then argue along the lines of "Hey, this is not breaching of the ban, because I surreptitiously changed 'broadly' with 'specifically' during my unblock request." I don't know what will happen to them if they ever try that nonsense, but I am pretty sure it'd be something harsh up to site-ban. So there's a reasonable doubt here, we ought to give them the benefit of that doubt. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Swarm: I'm assuming the same as Ammarpad, but even if it is a deliberate attempt at renegotiating the topic ban that's ok, we lose nothing by saying, "We have considered your offer and choose to decline it. Instead we offer these conditions." If they aren't interested in contributing with those conditions then they can withdraw the unblock request with no harm and no foul. If they accept our offer then we've lost nothing relative to if they had accepted them straight off the bat. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock, per Swarm. The user has already abused the previous TBAN and has been dishonest about it. Nsk92 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Swarm. Also, what is the proposed benefit to the project that justifies the risk of further disruption? I supported the block in the previous discussion so I may be biased but looking at the pages this editor has created, there is little there that inspires. He has edited since 2007 and presumably is an adult, yet created pages such as "Pooptart", "Fart face", "Shit dick", and "Death fuck" in 2018. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
With their track record of deleted pages, if they ever come back they need a page creation TBAN. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Just for the record:
Two points: these were not obviously vandalism (although for the most part they were inappropriate); and all of these page creations would already be covered under the redirect creation ban that was imposed shortly afterwards. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose known risk of disruption and no evidence that the potential positives of unblocking outweigh the known disruption that they are capable of. Until the potential positives outweigh the disruptive behaviour we know they are capable of, unblocking does not make sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Swarm and the fact that we've already been down this road with BP before. Grandpallama (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Conduct of Mister Wiki editors[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2.1 of the Conduct of Mister Wiki editors arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) (Salvidrim's prohibition from reviewing articles for creation drafts) is rescinded. He may apply for use of the AfC helper script as usual at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants.

For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Conduct of Mister Wiki editors

IP phone numbers vandal[edit]

I've blocked a couple of IPs that have been adding a phone number to several articles (always the same number, unrelated articles). For example, see [44] and [45]. I searched but didn't find any more instances on wiki of this number, but please be on the lookout. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector Persistent issue - added phone number to Special:AbuseFilter/793. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
This is also a recurring problem in articles about small integers, e.g. 73 (number) today. Unfortunately the added number varies, so would be hard to filter. Certes (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the person who's editing small integers is just some random vandal. For example: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Current events noticeboard[edit]

Please note that the RfC on establishing a current events noticeboard has concluded. The resulting judgment can be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Current events noticeboard. --QEDK () 05:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit to RT[edit]

I can't edit it myself. The page for RT is being incorrectly associated with an American comedy program called Redacted Tonight because of a similar logo with the same initials. Even worse it is being used as a propaganda attack on the show, directly linked by youtube on every episode. It would create some clarity if there was a note on the page mentioning that the two are separate entities and perhaps a link to whatever wiki has that show's information.

Can't stand liars using wikipedia articles to push an agenda... — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoIsrafil (talkcontribs) 09:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

RT is what we call a "disambiguation page", which seems fitting since there are several things called RT. Not sure what you mean here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Redacted Tonight is a RT show. Not sure what the problem is. spryde | talk 09:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The apparent "problem" is that Youtube videos for Redacted Tonight are providing a disclaimer linking to Wikipedia and informing viewers (correctly) that the show is funded by the Russian government. GMGtalk 15:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh. So the the RT program on the RT America Network is linking to WP about its funding coming from the Russian Government. And all of that is backed by reliable, diverse sources. @NeoIsrafil: unless you have anything more specific about what WP editors did wrong, I think this is done. spryde | talk 22:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

German, Czech, Danish, and Slovak Wikipedias down[edit]

Not an administrative issue. Please see this link for more information. —DoRD (talk)​ 15:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Only the English Wiki is up. I'm trying to go onto the German and Danish wikipedias (I'm assuming all EU language Wikipedias are down), but they have been shut down in protest of Article 11 and 13. Why hasn't the English Wiki followed suit? It'd also be nice to get onto the other wikis to work on projects I have going.

This is just open for discussion on why it's happening n such. I understand why, I'd just like to still access the other wikis. --Schwiiz (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm having no issues with either .pt or .fr Gricehead (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Schwiiz: last I checked, only 4 of the hundreds of wikipedia and other wikimedia projects have done things, and to varying degrees. German wiki is still readable if you are logged in, and it is even editable if you do it right. — xaosflux Talk 15:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: @Gricehead: I've been going around and seeing which ones are up and down. I don't deal with .fr or .pt so just didn't catch them. See, I am logged in and it still won't let me. How do you get around it? Schwiiz (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Read more about it here - as for the sites that don't want you to edit, you should just respect their wishes. — xaosflux Talk 15:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

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


Seems like WP:NOTHERE --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antolepore (talkcontribs) 22:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. Yeah, that was inevitable. FYI, this probably should have gone to WP:ANI, but it's fine. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Blue linked module page with an empty history[edit]

The page Module:JCW-selected exists, yet it has an empty history. It seems that Special:MergeHistory, which was used by Anthony Appleyard, doesn't know how to create a redirect when the source and target pages are module pages. Administrators need to find out what they can do about this. Perhaps, they could attempt to put

return require('Module:JCW')

on "Module:JCW-selected" if that even works at all. Otherwise, they should simply delete "Module:JCW-selected", which, however, will not add any rows to the archive table. Of course, Module talk:JCW-selected and Module:JCW-selected/doc should also be moved to Module talk:JCW and Module:JCW/doc respectively. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Seeking Administrators Assistance over Compliance of Wikipedia:Due[edit]

After a long debate on Talk:Jewish religious clothing, in the sub-section entitled "Edit warring over the appropriateness or inappropriateness of an image," added by User:Newmila on 2 October 2018, a consensus has been reached by the majority of that article's contributors that a certain image of a woman donning Tefillin does not adequately depict what is traditional or a Jewish religious norm worn by women. See discussions there for more details. The question here is whether or not persons not having a full-knowledge of the parameters of accepted religious clothing can push their POV, albeit a fringe-view, over the accepted norms of what is considered to be "religious clothing"? Is there room here to enforce compliance of Wikipedia:Due? Please advise.Davidbena (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a mini-edit war over the inclusion of an image. No one can rule on whether that image is appropriate (due) in that article. Apparently it's a disagreement concerning whether certain objects that a person might wear on their body while praying should be regarded as Jewish religious clothing. Sorry, but as you suggested you'll have to hold an WP:RFC. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem with a RfC is that it will attract people of the community who are largely UNFAMILIAR with Jewish law and practice. Besides, there is, already, a clear consensus against inserting the image:
  1. ) User:Sir Joseph deleted the image [here].
  2. ) User:Davidbena restored Sir Joseph's edit, with the intent of removing permanently the inappropriate image [here].
  3. ) User:StevenJ81 has disagreed with the use of the image, as you can see [here].
  4. ) Special:Contributions/ deleted the image [here].
  5. ) User:תנא קמא deleted the image [here].
  6. ) User:Debresser expressed his opposition to the image [here].
The only persons wanting to use the image are User:Jonathunder, User:Newmila, User:Malik Shabazz (who has been disruptive) and User:Ibadibam.Davidbena (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Surely you know by now that adding parenthetical and unsubstantiated insults about a particular editor is not a good idea. I'll avoid hogging this thread but the fact remains that no one has authority to decide what is right other than a community discussion through an RfC without canvassing. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
When there is a consensus, and one editor disagrees with the consensus, that is called being "disruptive." No one, to the best of my knowledge, has canvassed anybody personally. I did, however, raise the issue of a general discussion on this topic at the Judaism Portal, hoping to involve general editors who may have some insight.Davidbena (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── And you were disappointed in the input you received, so you canvassed other editors. Just stop making excuses and hold the RfC already. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 05:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No, User:Malik Shabazz. Sending out a general notice about a discussion on the Talk Page is not tantamount to canvassing, as the replies can go either way - either for or against. As I recall, the moment I posted on the Judaism Project forum (here), which is the proper venue for discussing this issue, it was only then that you responded with a staunch objection to the removal of the image (here), even though now we have a consensus to remove it.Davidbena (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
as of now, you're the only one wanting the image once it was pointed out that no mention of it should be in the page at all. It's clear there is a consensus to remove the image. Tefillin are not clothing and have nothing to do with the topic other than being pointy. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem with a RfC is that it will attract people of the community who are largely UNFAMILIAR with Jewish law and practice. This is irrelevant. Cite sources in support or opposition of a particular practice being a part of a particular group's ritual. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The issue is that it's conflating two issues. Tefillin is not clothing, and the article is about clothing, and then there is the issue of women ans teffilin and Malik wanting to have an image of women wearing Tefillin, which if you go to the Tefillin article, there is an image of a woman with Tefillin, but in this article, the focus is on clothing, not religious artifacts, so a picture with tefillin being prominant is undue and mostly pointy and Malik reverting to keep inserting is not cool, and yes having an RFC will attract people who will not necessarily know the distinction between clothing and tefillin and just assume that we should put the picture in because why not. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Let me correct something that @Davidbena implies from me. My preference to remove the image there comes solely from the fact that I do not think that tefillin are in any way "clothing". Accordingly, I do not think that tefillin should be discussed in this article at all. However, my objection absolutely does not come from whether "women wearing tefillin" violates some kind of religious norm or law. I made clear in this discussion that if that same picture of a woman wearing tefillin is removed from the page Tefillin, where it also appears, I would object strenuously. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Right, if you go to the Tefillin article, that picture is there. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

As I've noted on the talk page, the image of the woman is needed for balance and does show religious clothing, including a prayer shawl, but this content issue isn't (yet) ripe for this forum. An RfC would be the best way forward at this point. Jonathunder (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Granted. An objection to the image's use in the "Jewish religious clothing" article, notwithstanding on different grounds, is an honorable objection. I, too, would not oppose its use in a different article, such as Women of the Wall, but it is clearly unwarranted here.Davidbena (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I have recently suggested at the discussion there that I could live with the picture, as long as the caption emphasizes the tallit rather than the tefillin. At the same time, I suggested that a different picture of women (or a woman) in tallit would do that job better. In any event, I agree this content issue is not ripe for this forum. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no consensus for anything at this point. For my part, I proposed RfC language over three weeks ago, to facilitate Davidbena's original suggestion. The discussion has spun out since then and no one has advanced the process, although in that time I think we've gotten a better understanding of various contributors' biases and intentions, myself included. Although there have been accusations of POV pushing on both sides, I think we're close to a compromise. Elevating this discussion to this noticeboard is both premature and inflammatory. Ibadibam (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC[edit]

(Initiated 35 days ago on 15 February 2019) Would a panel of three experienced editors (or administrators if they so choose) please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC? The closure will be a bit of a minefield, with many simultaneous discussions taking place in the various sub-sections. The closure is already overdue since the closure date was set as 17 March and listed at the top of the page from the outset, a date which has now passed. This RfC was conducted in accordance with the following ARBCOM motion: [51], and its closure should conform to the motion as well. Closers might want to additionally take a look at discussions on the corresponding talk page for the RfC Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

clock In progress Closing RfC discussion for recording consensus. On hold Until 2 more editors are willing to close. --QEDK () 17:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@QEDK: I'd like to help - only 1 more needed --DannyS712 (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712:: sorry, nothing personal against you, but I'm not quite convinced you have the necessary experience for this task. What we need here are highly experienced editors who are deeply familiar with the relevant content policies and with the intricacies of content creation in POV-sensitive areas. Sorry, but you've been around only for six months and I can find no record of you dealing with policy issues of this complexity before. Fut.Perf. 08:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: [52] His level of contribution seems adequate to me, despite the 6 month period his account has been active. - Wiz9999 (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
He seems to me like an editor who has been racking up a high edit count by means of a lot of routine gnoming work in the areas of XfDs, responding to edit requests and the like, but no substantial content maintenance experience in politically sensitive areas, and nothing I can find that shows him deeply engaging with complex policy issues. Sorry, but no. Fut.Perf. 09:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I probably should not have an opinion as someone who is volunteering as one the closers but I do agree with FPAS' viewpoint that editors might regard Danny as inexperienced due to their relative inexperience in edits and age. I'm moving this to the main AN noticeboard for more visibility — and more opinions as to who should be part of the closing panel; and an opportunity for editors to opine on the suitability of editors. --QEDK () 12:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Since this is an area that has long been contentious where arbcom has ruled, we should have closers who are quite experienced, including in arbcom remedies, and neutral. I would prefer at least two of them be admins. Jonathunder (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)