Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:46, 1 February 2020

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

WP:AN
WP:ANB

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

Open tasks

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Total
CfD	9	48	57
TfD	0	12	12
MfD	0	3	3
FfD	0	3	3
RfD	2	29	31
AfD	0	1	1

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (23 out of 7797 total) ^(Purge) WATCH
Page	Protected	Expiry	Type	Summary	Admin
Drone warfare	2024-06-07 14:20	2025-06-07 14:20	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement	ScottishFinnishRadish
International Solidarity Movement	2024-06-07 14:16	indefinite	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement	ScottishFinnishRadish
Israeli war crimes in the Israel–Hamas war	2024-06-07 12:38	indefinite	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement	ScottishFinnishRadish
User:Aoidh/	2024-06-06 22:59	indefinite	edit,move	User request within own user space	Aoidh
Al-Sardi school attack	2024-06-06 20:53	indefinite	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement for contentious topic	Malinaccier
Dance of Flags	2024-06-06 17:57	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP	Daniel Quinlan
Indian National Congress	2024-06-06 17:51	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP	Daniel Quinlan
Telugu Desam Party	2024-06-06 17:47	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP	Daniel Quinlan
Agent Galahad	2024-06-06 02:37	indefinite	create	Repeatedly recreated	NinjaRobotPirate
Elsett	2024-06-05 22:22	2024-07-05 22:22	edit,move	Persistent sockpuppetry	Ponyo
Wikipedia talk:Contents/Lists/Reference	2024-06-05 21:16	indefinite	create	Repeatedly recreated	SuperMarioMan
List of Pakistanis by net worth	2024-06-05 16:48	2025-02-13 08:30	edit	Edit warring / content dispute: Restore to semiprotection when dispute is resolved	Anachronist
Pors	2024-06-05 13:52	2024-09-05 13:52	edit,move	Persistent sock puppetry, editing by IPs that are a clear behavioral match to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bensebgli	Rosguill
Morty Smith	2024-06-05 02:51	2024-09-05 02:51	edit	Persistent sock puppetry	NinjaRobotPirate
2024 Indian general election	2024-06-04 19:32	indefinite	edit,move	Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP	Daniel Quinlan
Template:Catalog of Fishes	2024-06-04 18:00	indefinite	edit,move	High-risk template or module: 3449 transclusions (more info)	MusikBot II
2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Group A	2024-06-04 02:18	2024-06-11 02:18	move	Move warring: per RFPP	Daniel Case
Robert Adams (spiritual teacher)	2024-06-04 01:59	2024-06-25 01:59	edit,move	Edit warring / content dispute: per RFPP	Daniel Case
Rescue of Ori Megidish	2024-06-04 00:52	indefinite	edit,move	Arbitration enforcement	ScottishFinnishRadish
Combat operations in 1964 during the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation	2024-06-03 23:20	2024-07-03 23:20	edit,move	Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP	Daniel Quinlan
User talk:Leonidlednev	2024-06-03 22:41	2024-10-08 05:50	move	Persistent vandalism	Daniel
Clancy (album)	2024-06-03 22:03	2024-07-03 22:03	move	Persistent vandalism and disruptive editing	Carlosguitar
Israel–Maldives relations	2024-06-03 21:13	2025-06-03 21:13	edit,move	Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP	Daniel Quinlan

AfD discussions that are fully protected from the get-go

Last month, there was an AfD on the Kyle Kulinski page.[1] The AfD saw insane amounts of canvassed votes, as the subject of the article and some fringe-left forums directed people to the AfD discussion. The closer concluded that there was "no consensus" and suggested that we might re-do the AfD and have it protected from the get-go to avoid interference from outside actors. Would it be possible for an admin to start such an AfD or to immediately protect it after I myself start one? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with a new AfD being fully protected. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You want an AFD only admins can participate in? Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected from IPs. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's semi protection not full protection. (Well close to it. There's no such thing as only protecting from IPs.) It may be helpful to check out Wikipedia:Protection policy#Types of protection especially if you are going to comment at AN. Nil Einne (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that's correct. Concerning registered editors, how do we determine who's been canvassed off Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm not using the correct language here: the amount of protection needed to prevent IP numbers and very recent accounts with few edits from participating?. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is fine as you didn't ask for full protection. It was not possible to clearly indicate I was replying to GoodDay since they failed to follow normal WP:Indenting rules. Nil Einne (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know when this happens. KidAd (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for being grumpy above, it mostly came about because I made a significant mistake myself. I conflated Kyle Kulinski with the similarly named Kyle Kashuv. Given what I've read before, I felt an AfD on Kashuv would either be keep or at most no consensus. Therefore it seemed a waste of time to open yet another AfD. Still if the previous one was tainted by canvassing and an editor genuinely felt there was chance of reaching a consensus to delete, I also couldn't object to the suggestion. I see now my error and can understand the desire to open another AfD. Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the situation, I agree that a fresh AfD is appropriate and it should be semi-protected from the beginning, because of the history of canvassing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting older, waiting for AFD-in-question to be opened. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new AfD.[2] Can an admin please semi-protect it? Or protect it in whatever way is necessary to make sure that IP numbers and new accounts can't participate. Pinging Cullen328 and Nil Einne. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ECP in place. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfD: Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

Would it be possible to also give protection to this[3] AfD for Media coverage of Bernie Sanders? The last AfD was complete chaos due to canvassng and ended by "no consensus".[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans, so far I don't see any disruption that would warrant protection. If there is disruption, you can ask for protection at WP:RFPP. Sandstein 21:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, will admins still be able to access these four policy violations once the page is deleted? #1 violates WP:LINKLOVE & WP:OUTING, #2 violates WP:FOC,#3 violates WP:FOC and WP:EW, #4 violates WP:FOC and WP:EW. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle and speedies

Looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth, it seems to me that perhaps we should ask the Twinkle devs to change the default for TW/CSD to "tag only" unless there's an existing CSD template. We should probably not summarily delete by default - there's no reason not to invite a second admin to review before an article is nuked, especially since we could simply uncheck the delete box for egregious cases such as attack pages. Guy (help!) 01:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We just had a discussion about this topic at WT:CSD, for which there was no consensus for such a thing (if not consensus against the idea). --Izno (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Izno, consensus there is that an admin is allowed to delete without tagging. That doesn't answer the question: is it a good idea, and certainly not the question: should it be the default. Best practice should be that no article is nuked without two sets of eyes, unless it's blindingly obvious, abuse cleanup or whatever. Guy (help!) 11:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the Twinkle default on this is an excellent idea. While tagging should not be required (as I also said at WT:CSD), our standard tool should encourage it. —Kusma (t·c) 22:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes an admin does need to delete immediately, but for most of what almost all admins do, two people should deal with a deletion. So this change is a very good idea.-- DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I often tag untagged CSD candidates rather than deleting myself. (depends) This is not a bad idea.-- Deep fried okra 01:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It's not like an extra click to insta-delete is that much of a hardship. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a firm believer in the 4 eyes principle in most cases, but as both DDG and Guy have noted, there can be exceptions, notably attack pages which should be removed as quickly as possible. I actually adopt a standard a little stronger than "blindingly obvious". I do a lot of copyright work, and I think I could argue that a brand-new article which is a 100% match to the "about us" section of a corporation's page constitutes blindingly obvious, but I still tag that, rather than delete that. (If somebody else has already tagged it, I will delete.) I think it's worth that to have another admin take a look. However, attack pages ought to be removed as soon as possible, and I vaguely recall I deleted something that was millions of bytes on the assumption that it would clog up the works to have it sitting around very long. The problem with removing the delete button may make it difficult to deal with those exceptions. I'll offer an alternative — if the article doesn't already have a CSD template, clicking on delete pops up a message saying something like "it is generally considered a best practice to allow two admins to take a look at an article before deleting. Does this constitute an acceptable exception?". I trust admins to make that assessment, and the purpose of the pop-up is to make sure someone working quickly doesn't accidentally delete something when they intended to tag it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one (that I've seen) is suggesting we remove the ability for a sysop to delete in Twinkle. Only that the default behavior would be for tag when a sysop goes into Twinkle (except if there is an existing tag). Which I would definitely support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take this with a grain of salt, but speaking not as the dev but as a user, I'd be against it. If sysops are abusing/misusing CSD policy, that should be dealt with swiftly, but in general part of being a sysop is being trusted not to do that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to chime in here and say this is quite doable, but I'd prefer to see a little more consensus or discussion here before I write it up and make the change. There's a Twinkle preference option to default to tagging, but only 40-50 sysops have turned it on, so this would affect a lot of people. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the default should be tagging. I'm not sure when the default is delete, if the page creator is notified about the deletion. One problematic admin behavior is deleting pages without notifications to the page creator which happens more than it should and often results in complaints or confusion. But this might be happening outside of Twinkle, when pages are deleted through the Page pull down menu. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy either way provided the option remains. It's useful to choose to default to deletion rather than tagging when working through G13 candidates. --kingboyk (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request from User:Ear-phone

Hi all,

We have received this unblock request from user Ear-phone via UTRS. I'm going to copy and paste the unblock request from UTRS below so those without access can see it.

"Why do you believe you should be unblocked?

I was blocked for being a socket puppet, more than a year ago. I was asked to apply for an unblock after six months. I did this and I was unsuccessful. I tried again after one year and I was again unsuccessful because I could not re-word substantially (English is not my first language). As I have said before, I reflected on my actions and understood it was wrong to be a socket puppet. I pledged and pledge to use only one account to edit and contribute positively.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?

Articles related to my interests, mainly science-related including biographies of scientists.

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how.

In my view, the block was warranted but unfairly long. I have openly admitted to using socks in the past. I have mentioned that I will not use them again and will contribute constructively as I have now read the guidelines. The block has the effect of denying me voluntary participation in a worthwhile global movement.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?

Justice and fairness. English not being a primary language - therefore a limited ability to convey and re-word sentences."

I emailed Bbb23 regarding this as they're the blocking administrator. A CU check was ran and Bbb23 found some obvious logged out edits by the user and some less obvious ones. Bbb23 has said as far as they're concerned that would preclude an unblock. However, if we overlook the logged out edits they would permit an unblock after a community discussion. Bbb23 found another possible sock of User:Lucas-O'D but was reluctant to confirm the account as there's only 2 edits, the medical stuff Ear-phone is more interested in is African related and they don't think it's the same style.

Would the community be willing to accept an unblock?

I'm going to give them TPA again to allow them to respond to any questions here if someone would like to add that to their watchlist so any answers can be copied and pasted.-- 5 albert square (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblocking I'm glad to see that they want to turn over a new leaf and edit constructively, but part of being a constructive editor is in respecting the policies and practices of the editing community, including the sockpuppetry policy and blocking policy, which prohibit IP editing while blocked. If this user can stay away from Wikipedia without socking or IP editing for 6 months, I think that they would be a perfect candidate for the standard offer. (Non-administrator comment) OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblocking I am usually well disposed towards unblock requests for editors blocked long ago who promise not to do again what led to their being blocked. Over the years I have far more often found myself to be in a minority (not infrequently a minority of one) in supporting an unblock in this kind of situation, while others oppose, than the other way round. However, this time there are several things which give me pause. In connection with previous unblock requests, the editor lied about what sockpuppet accounts they had used. (That was clear from reading the editing history, and also confirmed by a CheckUser.) The editor is now denying any further block-evasion, but Bbb23 has "found some obvious logged out edits by the user". Why should we unblock an editor who is known to have been lying about their block-evasion for over a year, and is known to be still lying? At the very least I would want the editor to come clean now about their dishonesty in the past and recently before considering an unblock. Unless they can produce a pretty convincing explanation I am inclined to agree with OhKayeSierra, who suggests a standard offer if the editor can keep off block-evasion for 6 months. I also agree with Bbb23, who has said that as far as they're concerned the IP block-evasion would preclude an unblock. (I can see no reason why a community discussion might "overlook the logged out edits".) As for Lucas-O'D, I'm not sure. Bbb23 rightly points out that there are differences, but there are similarities too. With only two edits there is not much to go on to judge either way, so probably we should not attach much weight to that account, in view of the doubt. JBW (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Incidentally, the comments above about an unblock request being unsuccessful "because I could not re-word substantially (English is not my first language)" and "English not being a primary language - therefore a limited ability to convey and re-word sentences" are missing the point. The rquested change of the unblock request was about substantially rewriting it because it did not address the reasons for the block, not, as Ear-phone apparently thinks, about rewording sentences so as to improve the English. JBW (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]
If these logged out edits were made in the last 90 days (from the tracked IP logs) then I'd be an oppose. If they were determined by the current IP against IP-edits made more than six months ago, then I might be a weak support. Are CUs only run off the last 90 days, or can account/IP checking be done on a longer timescale? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser data is kept for only 3 months. I suppose it would be possible for a CheckUser to check an account's current IP address for edits from longer ago, but even if a CheckUser did so, it would provide no technical evidence of its being the same editor beyond being the same IP address, and I wouldn't have expected Bbb23's reference to "obvious logged out edits by the user" to be based on no more than just the IP address. However, Bbb23 may like to clarify that issue in response to Nosebagbear's query. JBW (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you're right, @JBW:, not least because the CU tool is apparently particularly clunky, even by wiki standards, and I've not heard a mention of its ability to compare current IP data in the logs and IP data that's only associated with non-account edits (but has left the stored logs as too old). Nosebagbear (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying the following message from User talk:Ear-phone. Bbb23, would you care to comment on it? JBW (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you say obvious logged out edits. I give my consent for the IP addresses to be released in public so that the community can see for themselves and verify. I categorically did not edit Wikipedia. I did not lie and I addressed that previously. Ear-phone (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ear-phone: - I, and pretty much the entire community, are happy to accept a CU's statement on these matters - I can't see any benefit in you releasing private information onto the site, it was just a request for clarification. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser policy permits me to disclose IPs "With the permission of the affected user". I have never done so and find myself strongly rebelling against doing it now. I believe the community should exclude the obvious logged out edits. The only thing that gives me pause is Ear-phone's categorical denial, but it's possible Ear-phone has forgotten or thinks I'm referring to something else. As for the non-obvious edits, the IP edited a non-medical, science article. Finally, another thing that makes this tough from a technical perspective is Ear-phone's very common user agent.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ear-phone has qualified their denial of editing logged out on their Talk page: "I did not edit Wikipedia when logged out or logged in (besides my talk page)." I tend to be very skeptical about what socks say, but in this instance, without endorsing an unblock, I urge the community to treat Ear-phone's unblock request based only on their reasons and history, and assume that they have not socked in the 90 days before my check.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding since the orientation is that we're not allowed to disclose an account's IP address, even with permission from the accountholder, because the local policy differs from the global policy and overrides it in this aspect. I was told that by someone (don't recall who) but I don't see that wording in the policy as of right now. Personally I also would not reveal it from the user's private data even by their request, but also it's very obvious to anyone who looks at Ear-phone's talk page history (I did not run a check). I wouldn't consider those edits to be a violation of the policy. I don't have an opinion on what else you might have seen, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblocking - I feel that we should take the user's word for it. CheckUser has been proven to be inaccurate before, and this could easily be one of those instances. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. The results require interpretation, but they're not wrong. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblocking the editor said that they are not going to use sockpuppets again and has appealed twice but got denied. I think the time this editor has spinned blocked is enough "punishment" for the sockpuppetery they did. Indefinite block is really too much.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any decision on this yet?-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 has given their permission for us to make a decision-- 5 albert square (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:BOZ

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

There are some problems with many of the edits and actions by User:BOZ. They mainly belong to three categories:

Creation of articles on non notable subjects. This has been going on for more than 10 years now, and the number of AfDs and Prods that already ended in a delete or redirect is quite impressive (with many, many more articles to be checked yet). I don't know of a tool to check how many creations by an editor have been redirected afterwards, they are not included here[5]: at the moment, of his 3600 creations (about 750 in 2019 alone), 180 have been deleted, and many others redirected. Many more are at AfD now, and new ones are started almost daily. This includes not only his oldest creations, but also a lot from late in 2019, things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dankendismal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis: A Twisted Laugh at Life, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossroads (role-playing game)...
AfD votes stating "Keep or merge to X" without any reason for the "keep" given, or without addressing the arguments from the nominator or other delete votes. See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanny (comics) (where they then created a redirect which was discussed and deleted immediately afterwards as well, see here), but also all his other recent AfD comments: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]
Restoring articles which were deleted after AfD, and where they were involved either as part of the editing history, or by having voted "keep or merge" in the AfD. E.g. they voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fathom Five (comics) as the lone "keep or merge" vote, so when that article and its redirects get deleted, BOZ restores the deleted redirects[20][21]. BOZ has extensively edited Lathander, which gets deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lathander (2nd nomination). BOZ restores it. Karsus was deleted in 2008 a a copyvio, then recreated, and deleted in 2019 after AfD. BOZ restores the page, with inclusion of the pre-2008 copyvio parts[22]. The same happens with Angharradh, repeatedly deleted including for copyvio, restored completely with the copyvio. This was a page (re)-created by BOZ in 2008, so not only restoring copyvio but also a clearly involved action to restore the history of a page, deleted at AfD, which they had created in the past.

All the above is from his very recent history (last month or thereabouts), but the pattern continues through the years. I first contacted BOZ about this last year, in User talk:BOZ/Archive 2019#Notability of your creations, which had only some temporary result, as can be seen from the AfDs for recent creations. So I started User_talk:BOZ#Notability of your article creations two weeks ago. This improved for now the creation of the articles, but seeing the problematic behaviour at AfD, the problematic use of his admin tools as described above, and the thinly veiled canvassing by listing all the AfDs for his articles at the user talk pages of others[23][24][25][26], ... I would like some uninvolved admins to step in and make it clear what is acceptable and what isn't for all these areas. Fram (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One can sort this list by the size of the page at creation and thus distinguish a redirect that was a redirect from the get-go from a redirect that started out as an article. It doesn't seem like many of the articles were redirected, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Unless I'm misreading something, content was merged out of Bloodtide into something else. That would make restoring the history appropriate for attribution purposes. I completely agree that reversing the other AfD results by fiat was completely inappropriate since there's no attribution history to preserve for those. The Ctrl-C Ctrl-V "keep or merge" nonsense is annoying but benign since nobody pays attention anymore and AfD is not a vote. As for the canvassing, yeah, I agree that it is. Reyk _YO! 12:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for help to find sources and edit an article that is at AfD is not the same as asking for votes. While canvasing is always a concern, getting help to improve an article that is at AfD isn;t a problem in itself. - Bilby (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I have restored content inappropriately as outlined above, then I apologize for my error; let me know what needs to be done and I will fix that and try to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. I do not believe I have violated WP:CANVASS after reviewing the policy, as I have never, and will never, ask or expect another user to participate in such AFDs, and I have only ever asked people for assistance in finding sources who have proven skilled and interested in doing so on similar topics. Note that under "Appropriate notification" it mentions that a user can place a message on the user talk page of "concerned editors" and gives examples such as editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article, who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), and editors known for expertise in the field, and I believe that both User:Guinness323 and User:Sariel Xilo qualify for some or all of that. If I am incorrect in my reading of the policy, then I will cease asking for help in finding sources.

As for the rest, well I am and always have been a prolific content creator. I am not as attached to articles I created as seems to be suggested by Fram, in fact I do not always !vote in AFDs on them (see the second two of the three mentioned in the first paragraph). I also edit many other articles that I did not create, and I do not personally consider those any more or less "mine" as the ones I started. I have had a feeling in the last few weeks of a growing hostility towards me from Fram, and I have mostly tried to ignore his comments, but it seems hard to avoid him escalating what could be a non-situation resolved simply through discussion or by avoiding unnecessary conflict. I have had a growing dread that I was being set up to be the next victim of a WP:FRAMming (that's not a verb, is it? Maybe it should be?) and I hope that I am wrong about that. I would like to think that my contributions have been a net positive to the encyclopedia, but if you listen to Fram that would seem not to be the case. For the past two weeks or so he seems to have been aggressively focusing on me, possibly to the point of WP:HOUNDing, but again I am hoping that is not the case. BOZ (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And then you went and voted the same "keep or merge" here, here and here. Your actions are not a "non-situation", you have created hundreds of articles on non-notable topics over the course of a dozen years, and don't seem to know or care about major aspects of the notability guidelines, admin policy, AfD expectations, ... I am not hounding you as in involving me with everything you do, I have only started AfDs (or redirected similar articles), made a few comments on your talk page, and now started this (I have !voted in 1 other AfD about an article you created IIRC). But when I notice a persistent problem, spread over many articles, then I will usually not ignore it and leave it to others to clean it up. WP:SOFIXIT and all that. That you have made many good contributions is not disputed: but this doesn't mean that a blind eye should be turned to the many problematic edits. Fram (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I create articles based on the sources I have on hand. I go back and add more sources later after I find them. Maybe someone else will add sources to the articles I created. I add sources to articles that other people created. Sometimes those articles I find have only 1 source, sometimes 0, so I improve them to the best of my ability. If articles created by me or someone else do not get improved, they may deleted. I understand that well, and that is how notability works on Wikipedia. I am not upset by you wanting to delete articles that I created, but if I have another suggestion such as merging then I will make a recommendation. If you feel that going through all of my contributions by yourself is a monumental task that makes you upset or angry at me, then that is a matter of your perspective. I do not do anything on Wikipedia with the intention of upsetting Fram (or anyone else). Badgering me will not change my perspective, nor will trying to publicly shame me. I work on what I like, and what makes me happy, and I would like to think that everyone does the same thing, but I see negative attitudes from time to time that leads me to think otherwise. BOZ (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - "That is how notability works on Wikipedia". Uh, no. You, as the article creator, are responsible for the articles you create wrt notability. Creating articles about subjects where you don't know if they are notable or not is irresponsible (at least for experienced editors, we all have a learning curve). Your pages are autopatrolled, since you are an admin, which means that they get less scrutiny than most other new pages. But creating pages which are not suitable for enwiki gives a bad example and creates additional work (AfDs, DRVs, deletion, ...) and sends the wrong signal to other editors as well. Continuing to add material which you know (or should know) not to be suited for enwiki is disruptive editing. Restoring thousands of pages without caring whether you are "involved" and/or going against consensus, and without taking care to only restore appropriate revisions, is disruptive as well. Fram (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here we have rather bold generalizations based not on policy, but on an IDONTLIKEIT rationale. There is no evidence of a pattern of BOZ consistently "creating articles about subjects where you don't know whether they are notable or not". Of the hundreds of recent creations, all have at least one RS attached - often print era sources such as Dragon reviews - which suggest at least a reasonable probability that there are other RS reviews in print and therefore notability. These are not BLPs and so, per NODEADLINE, there is absolutely nothing wrong, per policy, in creating such articles - stubs even. That Fram refers to policy-compliant content creation strategies with which they happen to disagree as "disruptive" is a deep violation of AGF and civil, and while restoration of COPYVIO or PA versions of pages is potentially a serious matter, neither "creation of articles on non-notable subjects" nor poorly explained votes at AfD would ever be considered "disruptive" or policy-compliant grounds for censure.
    - On the other hand, CIVIL violations and poisonous conduct are potentially quite a bit more serious. And Fram has engaged in a consistent pattern of bullying towards BOZ (as in previous instsnces), such as the condescending dismissal of Space Gamer as a source here and the scathing dismissal (while failing basic reading comprehension) here of the notability of articles that were subsequently Kept at AfD. This at a time when User:TTN is sending five articles to AfD from BOZ's area of contribution each and every day. The overall affect of Fram's attitude will undoubtedly be felt, adding to the "body count" of contributors previously driven away by Fram's expressions of attitude. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not sure if I was tagged because you wanted a comment or just out of courtesy, but I'd say this is ultimately the culmination of what I'd describe as a "hoarder house" style situation. I believe BOZ in good faith just wants to document D&D on Wikipedia, but many of his actions are in line with keeping the standards of 2006 Wikipedia. The space has mostly refused to evolve outside of some standout articles. He does seem to do plenty of good work in the supplement book articles that are actually improved to current standards. The D&D space has been plagued by years of back and forth swings of article removal and restoration by both himself and anonymous users. The only actions I'd note that seem less than honest are that he either logs out to restore a lot of these articles to avoid attention, actively works with the person who restores a lot of these articles anonomlously, or tacitly approves of the person restoring the articles without taking any editorial action to follow WP:N. The editing style of the logged out IPs are fairly consistent with how he edits. He clearly wants to retain the status quo. TTN (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that was a courtesy tag.
        
        And now, another admin, with a documented history of deliberate antagonism, and who has launched a new mode of BATTLEGROUND, has decided to pile on while engaging in some premature ~~grave dancing~~ celebration. Has any admin at WP (besides BOZ) heard of not bullying, or are the tools poisoned somehow? Newimpartial (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fram You mentioned above that BOZ left me a list of AfD articles. I'm a relatively new editor but if you go back to June/July 2019 on my talk page you'll see that BOZ doesn't just leave me AfD article suggestions. Since Summer 2019, they've been suggesting all sorts of RPG/game articles that need help (mostly with sources) that they thought I might be interested in. I'm fairly decent with research if a topic has an internet presence or at the very least finding the names of obscure out of print titles that I can direct an editor towards if they want to take the time to find them offline. You'l also notice that I don't follow up on everything they suggest. I pick and choose based on interest, time and what I find when I do a basic research sweep. If I think I can contribute to an AfD or another article, then I do. I'm not a short order cook for BOZ blindly voting in AfDs nor do I think BOZ is canvassing my vote. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to say that I think this is my first AN or AN/I thread, thank you, thank you very much, happy to be here. ;) If I have erred in my judgement in any areas it could be that I have not been called out on it enough yet? I am open to addressing legitimate concerns, so thank you to anyone willing to discuss. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) If nothing else. WP:INVOLVED is a pretty bright line, occasionally even ArbCom material. And although much of the other stuff (canvassing, ATADD, etc) is merely behavioral, it all adds up to being BIZARRE. ——SN 54129 13:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened with Lathander, and some of the others. The List of Forgotten Realms deities was deleted after AFD, and many articles has been previously merged into that list, so their edit histories were deleted along with the list. I restored the edit histories of those deleted articles and merged them into Forgotten Realms, and I will admit that I probably did not check to see if any of them had been deleted for legitimate reasons, and therefore I created an appearance of impropriety through carelessness. I went ahead and deleted the edit histories of the ones mentioned in the initial post, and I again apologize for that.

As for the two articles that were previously merged into Fathom Five, that was a similar situation when I restored those histories, and I do not see a problem with those unless I am missing something. BOZ (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you seem to do this all the time. Zann: it was created in 2005, and deleted (correctly) as patent nonsense then (full text: "No lo conosco... "). You created it again in 2013 as a redirect (no problem there). The redirect target was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Forgotten Realms deities though, in which you voted "Keep or selectively merge" (of course), and the redirect was deleted at the same time (as is usual). So you restored the page (which violates WP:INVOLVED since you created it in the first place), including the three revisions speedy deleted as nonsense. You restored dozens of pages which you had created or expanded. You restored Akadi, including the copyvio first edits. Fram (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zann and Akadi would have been part of the same set of articles I mentioned above, so I deleted the edit histories of them as well. Again, I am sorry about that. If there are others, I will do the same with them. BOZ (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then please go through your contributions and correct them. It shouldn't be up to others to fix (or even find) your mistakes once you are made aware that they happened repeatedly. Fram (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I am making my way through all the articles I restored, and deleting the edit histories of any articles that were previously legitimately deleted prior to that AFD; so far, I have found that most had never been deleted prior to that point. BOZ (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had to delete the edit histories of several more. I am pretty embarrassed there were that many. BOZ (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope you continue this effort, as there are still more of the same, like here where you restored an article where all revisions were deleted as copyvio. Or this one, right before that, where you restored seven revisions which were an A1 deletion, a G11 deletion, and again a G12 copyvio deletion. Other ones are less problematic but still completely pointless, like this one, restoring an A3 deleted page (full text: "lol"). These three are consecutive entries in your restoration log, so it seems like there is still a lot to be rectified and that this carelessness has been a constant factor for months or years. Fram (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I redeleted the bad edits from those. BOZ (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will find time today to continue in my log and see if there are more problematic restorations like those, and eliminate the bad diffs. BOZ (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW just talking about the particular content created (the first point) - I think BOZ makes lots of good content - BOZ has created 11,588 pages, with 520 since deleted. 3,597 of which are articles, with a 5.1% deletion record of 185. From my experience working with BOZ, they look through a particular entry of an old magazine, and then see which games or other items don't yet exist on wikipedia, and create a stub. Would this be better if it was a fully fledged article? Yes. Would it be just better with a couple more sources? Absolutely. There are definitely some very notable items on the list, so I don't think this is cut-and-dry. I certainly wouldn't want to deminish an editor because they have a poor hit percentage.

The second point is a little bit less serious in my eyes. AfD isn't a vote, and if they don't provide any rationale, then it can be simply be overlooked. Is it great from an administrator to not supply reasons for voting in a AfD? Not at all. But, realistically, the issues would hopefully be overlooked by a competent closer.

The third point is the most serious. I suspect BOZ just doesn't really check the status of an articles history when creating, but it's very unlikely that these subjects will suddenly become more notable. INVOLVED is clear here, but I would suggest to BOZ to be a bit more careful when creating new content in the future that they aren't involved, and that the act of creating the article doesn't overstate a previous AfD. (non-admin comment) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly, Lee. I appreciate your comments here greatly, and will take all of that into consideration. I will definitely do my best in the future to avoid using my tools on articles where I have been involved in anything more than a cursory way. BOZ (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked on some of these RPG articles, I think there is a problem with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The community's views on this kind of cruft are clear and patience wore thin a long time ago, but the "locals" keep going anyway, either because they don't know, or don't care.

As one example, look at Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Boz mentions that this level of mind-boggling detail (a 300k list article for a specific aspect of a commercial product-line) lacks widespread support, referring to "the PROD treatment" and dismissively saying "and you will never satisfy those who only want deletion".

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters cites this obscure book over thirty times, mainly because it's the only secondary source anyone could find for most of the hundreds of entries in the list. I think most people on that talk page, including Boz, are sincere in trying to share useful information, but it's also hard not to see this as gaming the system.

These are commercial products which are being promoted by Wikipedia. This is not good scholarship, it's native advertising, and that's a serious problem. We have hundreds or thousands of examples of crufty articles for RPG books, or just RPG... concepts, like fictional places, fictional gods, fictional species of monsters... These keep getting created, and recreated, and AFD'd, and so on, and many never see a single usable source. Anyone who is sincerely paying attention will realize what the pattern is. It's not that "we only want deletion", we want reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ehhhhh I'd hardly call it advertising. 2nd Ed became obsolete in 2000 with the release of 3rd, and we're up to 5E now. Nobody's making money off of obscure monsters and out-of-print splatbooks. This kind of content is more of a holdover from WP's early days, when we were largely populated by enthusiastic nerds who wanted to write about everything they loved (dragging myself here too) and didn't have anything like the sourcing-based notability standards that we have today. Not saying we should keep these, mind - just pointing out that calling it native advertising is not quite fair. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "native advertising" is an exaggeration, but it's still functionally a form of promotion. It's not the individual products that are being marketed, it's lifestyle branding. Hasbro bought this property for a reason, and that reason includes decades of cruft like this. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a frequent AfD closer, I can confirm at least the problem with BOZ's argument-less AfD "Keep or merge to X" votes. I now routinely disregard them when closing, but they are disruptive. (There are, to be fair, also some editors I recognize as regular "delete" advocates, but they normally give reasons, if only a reference to WP:GNG.) Maybe we should think about whether BOZ should continue to contribute to AfDs. Sandstein 14:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, if it helps, I will try to always include at least one policy in my response to AFD going forward. I don't mean to be disruptive, and honestly did not think I was being disruptive, but I certainly do not want to leave that impression if I can help it. BOZ (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to second Sandstein's comments. Perhaps you may also want to explain why that policy/guideline justifies the course of action you propose. I used to routinely ignore AFDs with the "Keep or merge to X" !votes as they are unhelpfully vague. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know, at this point I am going to give up on trying to make excuses for myself as I feel like I am only making myself look worse every time I say something, and so I will surrender to whatever decision the community wants to make regarding me. I have come to realize that I have a pretty sub-par record as an editor, stuck mentally in the better days of Wikipedia where people were not so concerned with deleting so-called "non-notable" content. There is nothing I can do to turn the tide on how the community has changed, and it only gets worse every day, and probably one day almost everything I ever created or helped create will be deleted. I will try to limit my editing until this thread is closed, so as not to dig my own hole any deeper than I already have. I doubt I will respond further to this thread, so whatever needs to happen to me is probably whatever needs to happen to me. This is stressing me out to no end, so further participation is not going to be good for my mental well-being. I do have some things I promised to clean up, so I better get to that while I am still allowed to do so. I will accept whatever decision the community makes regarding me here. BOZ (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think changing "keep or merge" to "keep or merge per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD" shows that BOZ has really gotten the message, as this still doesn't address the AfD nominations or gives any actual reasons to keep the articles at all. Doing this simply every time[27][28][29][30] shows, well, I don't know if it is a lack of understanding of the problem, or simply disdain for the concerns raised here, but it sure doesn't look good. Fram (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note that a "Merge per PRESERVE" !vote is just about as valid a policy consideration as there is on WP, and the fact that Fram doesn't recognize it as such (with a condescending I don't know if it is a lack of understanding of the problem, or simply disdain for the concerns raised here), when it conflicts with his priors, says a good deal more about Fram's competence and good will on this topic than that of BOZ. Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram, Sariel Xilo, Serial Number 54129, Lee Vilenski, Grayfell, Premeditated Chaos, Sandstein, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Shall we start discussion on whether or not to topic ban BOZ (who is an admin) for the greater good of the world, and whether or not BOZ should be desysopped? ミラ P 17:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above, I'd support a topic ban of BOZ from AfDs. Just adding "per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD" to a pure vote at AfD does not make it any less of a vote, because all it says is "don't delete because we shouldn't delete content". AfDs are not votes, but discussions based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. To contribute to such a discussion it is necessary to address why the specific article at issue fails or meets any of our accepted standards for inclusion such as WP:N or WP:NOT. BOZ is an administrator, and as such is expected to understand how AfDs work. Mechanically copy-pasting the same statement in all AfDs they participate in reflects either a serious lack of compentence or disruptive intent. Sandstein 17:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Miraclepine; I support a Tban XfDs for BOZ per Sandstein, whose reasoning is complete. ——SN54129 17:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome Serial Number 54129. Should we start now? The sooner the better. ミラ P 17:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification Miraclepine; If a ban is necessary, I would suggest a time limit. I've never been part of discussion like this so I don't know what is standard (6 months, a year, etc). I would also suggest limiting the ban to voting. If BOZ can contribute (finding/adding sources, etc) to the article under AfD, that seems fine and then they just won't be part of the AfD discussion itself for the duration of the ban. I also wouldn't want BOZ to be banned from discussing the existence of AfDs elsewhere. For example, back in November I asked for BOZ's help in running down some sources on a AfD and we kept that discussion on my talk page rather than the AfD because it was a bit off topic. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the context here is that BOZ is having an awful lot of his articles nominated for deletion, a flat tban on XfD at this time seems pretty harsh. That's not to say these !votes are up to snuff, but taken on their own they're not much different from what we see from a bunch of other users whom we've repeatedly declined to tban (and whose !votes are simply routinely ignored -- or should be). BOZ, arguing that something meets GNG is based on significant coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps if you simply commit to making a serious case for GNG when you argue as such, we can avoid this tban business. e.g. a minimum of something like "Keep - passes WP:GNG as seen by [source 1] [source 2]". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered Boz's AFD behavior (blanket "Keep or merge" without rationale for (almost?) every single AFD nomination they partake in) and high output of stubs/substubs with 1-2 sources cited (forever thinking about that Mage: The Ascension or w/e RPG supplement article that said nothing beyond that the supplement "adds options for players") to be very problematic for an admin for a while now - the AFD behavior in particular comes across as disruptive or lacking in understanding of how the process works - but did not have the energy to start a thread like this on my own. I want to reiterate that this is not about me wanting to PROD everything, or that I will only be happy when all of Boz's work is removed from WP, or that I have a vendetta against them, or whatever - it's that I care about notability and sourcing, and about our administrators' understanding of the processes they partake in, and think something needs to change.--Alexandra^IDV 01:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creating articles is not a crime. Arguing to keep those articles at AfD is not a crime either; it is to be expected. If the articles or arguments seem weak then that's not unusual either; the nominations and other votes at AfD are often weak too because WP:BEFORE is not followed and editors fail to research the topics in exhaustive detail due to constraints of time, access, understanding, &c. All these issues are the routine stuff of AfD and the inclusionist/deletionist divide. If mistakes are made, this to be expected too because our work is not perfect nor is it required to be.

Myself, I've seen BOZ in various AfDs and he's always seemed to be remarkably soft-spoken and well-behaved. Given the extent to which his work has been threatened with deletion, his good-natured behaviour seems quite commendable. Other editors create a lot more drama in such circumstances...

The issues in question seem mainly to be a matter of notability but WP:N is a guideline not a policy and its vagaries and inconsistencies are well-known. Resolving these is a work-in-progress, far from complete and is never likely to be an exact science. Punishing editors for work written 10 years ago seems outrageous in such circumstances – see ex post facto, nulla poena sine lege, &c.

So, while BOZ doesn't seem to be doing anything especially unusual or wrong, Fram's behaviour seems more serious. They were lately sanctioned and desysopped by Arbcom. Findings included issues of "harassment" and "following another editor's contributions". Fram had commented that "I obviously need to dial things back a few notches and rethink some of my approaches" but here we see them going back up to eleven again by intensely focussing on the work of another good-faith editor, tracking their contributions for years and attacking them. How is this behaviour any different from what has gone before? Perhaps Fram still has something to learn too.

Andrew🐉(talk) 23:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion is unnecessary. User:BOZ has created articles on details relating to topic areas that are, at their higher levels, clearly notable and of substantial interest to many people. Role-playing games and the entire fantasy genre, while easily dismissable by those whose interests are more focused on other topics, are important topics for coverage in an encyclopedia. How much influence has Dungeons & Dragons had specifically on popular conceptions of the mythical hero's journey, and on the idea of what various kinds of "monsters" look like and act like? I don't know if that can be quantified, but it remains the case that these are not purely frivolous topics, and some really are sufficiently notable and well-referenced. Many others really are suitable for merging into articles giving broader general coverage of the topic area. In my view, BOZ has done nothing actionable. BD2412 T 23:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with Andrew and BD2412. Attempting to punish an editor for good faith actions, some of which are a decade old, in a total gang-up is exactly why this project bleeds editors. The totally needless hostility and hounding deserves to be ignored completely At the least, even possibly result in a WP:BOOMERANG as this is along the lines of uncivil behavior we've seen before that has lead to so much drama. All because BOZ doesn't toe the line of some individuals' vision of the project. No action should be taken. None. oknazevad (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add onto what I said in m y previous post and make it clear that 1) I do not have a vendetta against RPGs - I am personally interested in the topic, and play Vampire: The Masquerade on the regular, and am currently preparing for a Dusk City Outlaws campaign. I often hold back on creating articles on topics I would have liked to cover just because there is not enough RS coverage to justify it or to even support the content. 2) D&D being obviously notable does not mean that every RPG topic is. No one has any problems with the D&D article existing, and it is irrelevant to the minor RPG classes, creatures and supplements that are discussed 3) the AfD issue I have has nothing to do with whether Boz is well-mannered and soft-spoken, and all with how an admin copy-pastes the same non-argument to every AfD - which is not the same as making a weak argument) 5) This is not something that just happened 10 years ago, it still happens in every AfD Boz partakes in 6) I have absolutely no interest in "punishment", I just care about solutions to continuous problems. If "Boz, an admin, should explain why something is notable and not just copy-and-paste 'Keep' in every AfD" is the outcome of this, that's not a punishment by any means.--Alexandra^IDV 23:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra IDV seems to have participated in few AfD – just six, acccording to this tool. The only one in the last year was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis Mundi: The Book of Spirits. BOZ's !vote in that case doesn't seem to be a cut/paste as it addressed the state of sourcing for the bundle of articles in question. Nobody agreed with Alexandra's proposal to delete them all and so BOZ's position was the consensus. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra is very knowledgeable in policy, and very active in the content area, so please do not attempt to gloss over her points due to low AFD numbers. I 100% support her stances in her last two comments. I too have been long troubled by BOZ’s sloppy article creation and !votes at AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see Boz as a good faith editor. And I do not see their actions as disruptive. I would not support any TBANS or blocks etc. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Despite what Bilby (talk · contribs) said above, posting AFD notifcations on the talk pages of these two is very clearly vote-stacking, and is highly unbecoming behaviour on the part of any experienced editor, let alone an admin. As can be seen to some extent in my !votes here, here and here, I am somewhat sympathetic to a number of the keep !voters in a lot of these types of AFDs, largely because of my own DnD and/or Forgotten Realms nostalgia, but I can see quite clearly that old-school gamers who understand and like these topics are divided on how Wikipedia should cover them, while a significant portion (most?) of the keep !voters seem to be career "keepists" with no interest in or knowledge of this topic area, who are using it to "one up" the deletionists they see on every corner. Wikipedia has changed over the last decade or so: heck, I was the original creator of the article BOZ !voted to keep here, but in 2020 I couldn't possibly support the argument BOZ made there and seems to still be making. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remember when D&D was new – many years before Hijiri88 was even born. In those days, the Internet and PCs did not exist and so the sources are now stacks of dusty magazines which take time and effort to go through. Young gamers may not appreciate the difficulty of documenting the early years of this field. Cue the four Yorkshiremen ... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt you remember when DND was new: the phenomenon was extremely niche in the 1970s (only 4,000 copies of the original game were printed in its first two years) and became more popular (and controversial in some circles) in the 1980s, which is why virtually all of the third-party pop culture references date to more than half a decade after the game was first published. Do you mean that you "were alive in 1974"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I started playing in the (very late) 70s and went to GenCon in 1981, so yeah, that's not "the start" but pretty close. Hobit (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Well, it probably wasn't worth responding to Andrew in the first place; he has a tendency to pretend to be intimately familiar with the subject-matter of whatever article is at AFD; I have fairly eclectic scholarly and entertainment tastes, but I can't imagine anyone being an expert in all the things Andrew has claimed to be an expert in. This, plus the fact that he's proven himself time and again to be completely ignorant of the area I'm most familiar with (Japanese religious and literary history) while those who devote most of their editing efforts to Indian topics have told me that he is doing pretty much the same thing there, makes me extremely skeptical whenever he claims to have been into something since before I was born. But I figured it would be best to attempt to dispute him on the facts rather than his own thoroughly demonstrated editing patterns, and the fact that you consider yourself to be an OG with regard to DnD (and I wouldn't disputing that) while not having been there when it was "new" supports my initial assertion. (Also, Andrew did say when D&D was new – many years before Hijiri88 was even born -- emphasis added -- everyone knows I was even born in 1988, and while "many" is a bit vague I think most readers would be reluctant to interpret it as meaning "7 or 8" -- he clearly looked up the initial release date of the original set, over a decade before I was born, and claimed he "remembered" it, presumably because he remembers things like the 1974 FIFA World Cup, the Nixon resignation, and various events of the Troubles.)

There's also the fact that age and ability to remember pre-3E DnD isn't really relevant, nor is the fact that the original game predates the general availability of the worldwide web and so would likely be covered in early issues of Dragon and various fanzines better than in online sources, when most of the nominated articles actually relate exclusively to much more modern aspects of the games; of the eight articles listed here, only two relate to topics that date to 1993 or earlier, and of the eleven red links the only three relating to properties I recognize definitely could not have been produced earlier than 1993. (The fact that I only recognize 3/11 speaks less to my lack of familiarity with gaming culture in general than the relative obscurity of the properties, mind you.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I bought and played the first edition of D&D quite soon after it first appeared. Having been introduced to it at a UK convention, I picked up a copy for myself at the Games Centre, iirc – a specialist store in central London which opened around the same time. I'm very familiar with the history and personalities of those days and suppose I should do more to help BOZ document them, as I still have an extensive archive and library of offline material. Andrew🐉(talk) 02:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but I have no way of verifying that. All I have to go on is the relative unlikelihood that someone who doesn't seem to ever edit Wikipedia articles on these topics except when they're at AFD would have been one of the 4,000 or so people worldwide who owned a copy in its first two years of publication, and the fact that I know you have in the past falsely claimed to be familiar with things like the origins of Yayoi culture in Japan and the relationship between western prosimetry and the Japanese uta monogatari in order to "win" AFD debates. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To verify this, all Hijiri88 would have to do is visit a London Wikimeet where I could show some vintage sources from those early days. At the last Wikimeet, which is something of a book exchange, someone was passing on a book about haiku. I had a flip though it but went for Essex Schooldays instead, as it seemed to have nostalgic charm. Having first-hand knowledge of topics isn't much use on Wikipedia because that tends to be OR and POV. Last night, at the games club, I was comparing notes with other old-timers about where they picked up their first edition copies of D&D, back in the day. They had some good anecdotes but then we got on with our more recent game. It has an article on Wikipedia because it's easy to find reviews and commentary about it using the Internet. That topic doesn't need my help. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to respond to the details except to say that "all Hijiri88 would have to do" is pay hundreds if not thousands of USD equivalent in airfare and accommodation, and disclose his real world identity including personal appearance and perhaps even name and contact details (home address?) to someone who has previously (on or around 10 March 2019) indicated an intention to pursue a vindictive agenda against me is an extremely onerous ask. (Also worth noting that on the same date Andrew actually, privately, indicated an unwillingness to disclose any form of evidence that he understood "Asian stuff" as much as he claimed in various AFDs, so his claiming now on-wiki that this is not the case is clearly disingenuous. I will forward the email, which admittedly came from FeydHuxtable (talk · contribs) rather than straight from the horse's mouth, to anyone who requests it.)

Also, haiku have nothing to do with waka, at least not any way that would be meaningful in the context in question.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do that, Hijiri. It's not OK to pass around private communications willy-nilly. Save it for an ArbCom case, since the committee can usually be relied upon to respect private correspondence. That said, Colonel Davison absolutely is the kind of person to threaten someone IRL over WP disagreements. Reyk _YO! 03:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk: I meant to say that I would pass on the email only if I was requested to provide evidence of what I was saying. The reason for that is that I am accusing another editor of foul play on AN and technically we are not supposed to do that without evidence, but I can't very well publish the full text of the email. It's not exactly a secret that the email exists and that the reason for it was something Andrew said. Given this context, I don't think it's appropriate for Andrew to be publicly calling me out and saying what effectively amounts to "Come on, Hijiri ... come and tell me your real name and contact details, and take a picture with me ...", and my pointing out in the same public forum why I find that inappropriate can hardly be considered a problem in itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hijiri 88 I firmly disagree that BOZ discussing AfD on my talk page is “vote-stacking” for several reasons:

a) Even removing the AfD for an article I created from the 8 AfDs I participated in, you’ll see in the majority of AfD discussions I contribute additional sources & article improvements if I’m voting keep.

b) I subscribe on my watchlist to the following alerts so I do independently find & participate in AfDs: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Article alerts‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Article alerts‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Article alerts‎

c) BOZ and I discuss all sorts of articles that need improvement on my talk page from drafts & AfC to AfD & PROD. Discussing whether or not I’ve been successful in finding sources for an article under AfD isn’t soliciting my !vote. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit to not reading all the words above but:
- Number 1, I have a COI here. I've worked with BOZ off and on for years and met him once in person.
- I know of no other editor who is more dedicated to Wikipedia.
- Yes, the !votes at AfD he gives do get old and I too largely ignore them (sorry BOZ). BOZ could stand to work on forming arguments for each AfD.
- Restoring a redirect from a deleted article, without restoring the history, is not an admin action and is frankly almost always a good idea if the article has been around for a while. Our policies say that pretty clearly. Redirects are cheap.
- Asking other editors for help with sourcing arcane (hah!) topics is fine. Doing so to vote stack is not. Given that folks he pings often do dig up hard to find sources and that I trust BOZ to do the right thing, I'm on the side that there is no issue here.

So yes, I agree there is some substance to the complaints and BOZ could learn from a lot of this. But he's a heck of a contributor and I'm thrilled to call him a wiki-friend. Hobit (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your points all seem reasonable, and I have to say that I personally find BOZ a lot more tolerable than many of his defenders, and would probably get along well if I too met him in real life, but I must question whether Asking other editors for help with sourcing arcane (hah!) topics is fine. is the best reading of what happened here. Are the editors more likely to go to the nominated articles and improve them so they meet WP:HEY, or go to the AFDs and !vote, perhaps linking GBooks results without a careful analysis of whether they could be used to improve the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I guess you'd have to look at how often those pings result in new sources being found. I know that I've pinged WebWarlock, S Marshal, and BOZ on occasion for sources on gaming articles when I was fairly sure they'd have access to sources I lack. If BOZ regularly pings people who then proceed to !vote without providing sources, that would sound like a problem. If they are providing sources a fair bit, I'd say it's reasonable. And again, I've got a bias, but I find it really unlikely that BOZ would try to game the system. It's just not really something I think he'd do (perhaps AGF taken to an extreme), though if you had evidence that pings were resulting in !votes often and sources very rarely, I'd be willing to agree there was a problem. In general, I don't think we should be trying to prevent people from asking others to help with sourcing unless it's clear they are just trying to game the system. But I'm fairly far on the inclusion side and think that improving articles is much better than deleting them and so honest attempts to do so should be met with strong support. Hobit (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 24 hours, Boz has received 12 prods or AfDs on articles, and the number in the last week is much higher. To be honest, I don't see how Boz could hope to address those concerns, at that rate of nominations, without asking for at least some help on sourcing - even if you assume that Boz isn't going to contest a decent portion of those. I'm not sure I've seen someone get as many AfDs for old articles in such a short time before. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit:: "**Restoring a redirect from a deleted article, without restoring the history, is not an admin action and is frankly almost always a good idea if the article has been around for a while. Our policies say that pretty clearly. Redirects are cheap." This is not what the complaints above were about. BOZ did restore the history, often for articles they had created and/or voted keep at an AfD (i.e. violating involved), and in many cases also restoring history deleted for other, serious reasons like copyvios. As for the many nominations on his page, last year he created 60+ pages per month, many of them about non notable subjects. Cleaning out this mess has been avoided for way too long, and as far as I can tell he hasn't addressed any nomination by finding and adding a source. He is not obliged to do this, and in many cases there are no other sources in the first place, but the rate of nominations is frankly caused by the rate of poor creations. Fram (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a rather basic point, but AFAIK most of the deletions of Boz articles concern rather old content creations, and most of his new ones carry RS citationsand meet NBOOK and/or the GNG. The simple equation above, the rate of nominations is frankly caused by the rate of poor creations this appears to be fallacious, at least if the term "rate" implies some unit of time as a denominator. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: From what I can tell, this discussion is focused on his conduct relating to the deletion of said old content, not how good his new content is. No one who was actively editing before, say, 2009 can today be held accountable for the poor sourcing and notability standards throughout the project back in the bad old days, unless they are actively defending their old edits from those who are trying to bring them inline with what English Wikipedia has become. (See my "Evermeet" remark further up.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But Fram, you were talking about rates. How many articles did you say BOZ had created in "2019 or 2020"? Was it a three-digit or a four-digit number? You need a denominator to calculate a rate.

And there are some frankly crappy AfD contributions (and results) in the links you just gave, with lots of "Delete per nom" and no evidence of BEFORE. As has been noted by others, the reliable, secondary sources in this field through the 1990s were in dead tree magazines, which are not easy sources to find but are entirely valid RS when found.

In his recent contributions, BOZ has been assuming presumptive notability based on a single review. That isn't policy, but it also isn't so far off reality given that if you can find the Dragon review there is probably another RS review that you can't find and which - if the topic in question is a book - establishes NBOOK notability quite nicely. The fact that you have AfD !voters basing their !votes (against policy) on the sourcing in the articles isn't something to take out on BOZ.

BOZ creates non-book articles based on the same criterion as for books - with which I don't generally agree - and he isn't as prompt as I would be to merge articles about the books that made up a "game line" back in the day. However, these are nits to pick and don't undermine the fact that, whatever else he has dome, BOZ is engaged in creating sourced articles in the RPG space and is a clear net positive for the project. Newimpartial (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In every one of these AfDs, an online search for sources was done (general, and additionally specifically in books). This is explicitly included in the nominations. WP:BEFORE only applies to nominations, not to subsequent comments, and all noms followed WP:BEFORE. "The fact that you have AfD !voters basing their !votes (against policy) on the sourcing in the articles" doesn't match the reality of these AfDs. Furthermore, Boz asked two other editors to look for sources (which, including Boz themselves, would mean that three editors with knowledge of the field and an interest in keeping the article were looking for sources). The result in most cases was nothing, since these subjects have received very little attention when new, and none (from reliable sources) since then, unlike truly notable subjects. The reasoning that "if there is one review, there probably are others" is rather iffy of course. As for the rates, I didn't bring this up, Bilby did, I just responded. In any case, the 12 deletions + 3 redirects were from his last 100 creations. If more than 10% of recent creations get deleted, then there is a problem. Fram (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So where in policy is this "10%" rule established, anyway? In the present climate, I think a content creator who retained over 80% if their creations in userspace after a year would be doing pretty well, frankly.

And in terms of the !votes, the most frequent case seems to me that you make the nomination, one other user checks your findings, Sirfurboy gives a "per nom" and bob's your uncle.

So in terms of the quality of your BEFORE, let's take the Dark Ages Storyteller's Screen (an AfD I didn't see at the time because nobody bothered to tag it to the relevant categories). I also note that of the delete results you linked, this one of only two to receive a (supposedly disruptive) BOZ !vote. Neither you nor your single supporter seem to have given any serious effort to finding the inevitable reviews that any such product generated at the time. Instead you describe it as having "sunk to oblivion since", which is a clear violation of NOTTEMPORARY.

Now I'm not saying the Screen needed its own article. The policy-compliant choice would have been to Merge it to the article on the game line, if only to preserve the reference. But instead we had a non-policy-conpliant SUPERVOTE and you are now smugly citing the delete result as evidence of another contributor's alleged incapacity. I can't see your actions in this case as making a positive contribution to the project; from here it looks like boundary maintenance for it's own sake, which by itself would be grounds for a BOOMERANG IMO. But I recognize that other factors are at play. Newimpartial (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please drop the personal comments or start the WP:BOOMERANG section? That AfD was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Article alerts. I searched for additional sources, just like I did for all of these, and found none. You claim, without any actual evidence, that my "before" search was clearly insufficient. So perhaps you can do the checks as explained in WP:BEFORE point D, and show us the results I should have gotten which clearly show notability for this subject? If not, then perhaps you should stop accusing people without evidence. Oh, and no, I doubt there are many experienced content creators who get 10% of their recent creations deleted. I have 1.3% deleted (but these turn out to be new pages created by someone else, which I moved to a correct title, thus creating a redirect, not an article: of my last 1000 actual articles, not a single one was deleted), Ipigott has one or two of the last 1000 deleted, GiantSnowman has 0% deleted (in his last 1000 articles, there are 5 deletions, but they all are G7 deletions without an AfD or Prod as far as I can see), Rosiestep (last 1000 articles: 0 deletions, only a few redirects got deleted)... But feel free to list those other experienced content creators with deletion rates over 10%, I presume you didn't make that statement without any evidence to back it up surely? Fram (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend, by goading me to create a BOOMERANG section, to make some kind of pivot from my analysis of these AfD's in terms of policy? If so, that seems like a novel approach. And you still haven't retracted your assertion of 10% deletion as a bright line for competence which you so boldly asserted above: If more than 10% of recent creations get deleted, then there is a problem. According to whom? Also, creators who purposely create articles on more obscure subjects (or those to whom the AfD community is hostile) will have higher deletion rates, inevitably, so there isn't even a correlation between deletion rate and content competence without controlling for subject area. And someone with thousands of creations on rarefied topics is going to encounter some borderline cases, if they are doing it right.

As to your other comments, inclusion of a page in a project listing is no substitute for thematic deletion listing, as you should be well aware. And the sources listed in BEFORE, point D - while I'm glad they are no longer being ignored at AfD - have never been sufficient for finding dead-tree RPG reviews, as I thought you were also aware. They don't even include the index of dead-tree (or paywalled) Pyramid reviews, FFS. Newimpartial (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"And you still haven't retracted your assertion of 10% deletion as a bright line for competence which you so boldly asserted above: If more than 10% of recent creations get deleted, then there is a problem. According to whom? " Coupled with the remainder of your comments (you are the one who started about a wp:boomerang, and apparently people shouldn't just follow wp:before, but what you believe to be minimum requirements) I'm done replying to you. Fram (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Fram: you said above Boz asked two other editors to look for sources (which, including Boz themselves, would mean that three editors with knowledge of the field and an interest in keeping the article were looking for sources). The result in most cases was nothing which is a pretty big assumption. As one of those editors, I can honestly say that I'm busy IRL and didn't look into most of what BOZ asked for help with. I tackled 2 articles (not under AfD) because I'm familiar with that specific game system & knew exactly where to go to find sources. I don't have time right now to familiarize myself with new game systems & where their typical sources live. That doesn't mean those sources don't exist. If I look into something and I don't find sources, I say something (either on my talk page or if relevant in the AfD discussion ). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletions

I think it is time to take a different approach, because BOZ has now said things like I give up and has not been seen for days at this thread. BOZ, the first steps we need you to take are fairly simple. Some legitimate concerns have been raised about your undeletions. I provide you below with a table of those undeletions. Could you review each undeletion in light of the feedback received here and, for each one, report back whether you wish to rethink it or not?

Long table

Undeletions by BOZ in the last 36 months
No.	Article	Undeleted (ago)		Reason
1	Thermal Man (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-24	4 days	[not provided]
2	Spoilsport (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-24	4 days	[not provided]
3	Steel Reign (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-24	4 days	[not provided]
4	Dark Horse Miniatures (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-24	4 days	[not provided]
5	Istishia (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-23	5 days	[not provided]
6	Savras (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-23	5 days	[not provided]
7	Tyr (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-23	5 days	[not provided]
8	Tymora (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-23	5 days	[not provided]
9	Selvetarm (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-23	5 days	[not provided]
10	Ilmater (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-23	5 days	[not provided]
11	Akadi (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-23	5 days	[not provided]
12	Zann (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-23	5 days	[not provided]
13	Angharradh (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-23	5 days	[not provided]
14	Karsus (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-23	5 days	[not provided]
15	Lathander (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-23	5 days	[not provided]
16	Iron cobra (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-21	7 days	[not provided]
17	Iron cobra (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-21	7 days	[not provided]
18	Adventurers of the North - Kalevala Heroes (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-10	18 days	[not provided]
19	Kalmo (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-10	18 days	[not provided]
20	Ancient Hearts (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-07	21 days	[not provided]
21	Fey (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-06	22 days	per request on my talk page; AFD was closed as redirect, not delete
22	1995 Origins Award winners (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2020-01-01	27 days	[not provided]
23	Bloodtide (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-30	29 days	[not provided]
24	Dragonrider (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-30	29 days	[not provided]
25	Digital Web (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-27	32 days	moving the edit history
26	Istishia (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
27	Lathander (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
28	Leira (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
29	Karsus (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
30	Valkur (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
31	Shaundakul (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
32	Auppenser (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
33	Shiallia (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
34	Angharradh (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
35	Hoar (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
36	Siamorphe (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
37	Uthgar (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
38	Vataqatal (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
39	Zann (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
40	Najm (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
41	Jisan (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
42	Jauhar (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
43	Haku (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
44	Hakiyah (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
45	Hajama (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
46	Sharindlar (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
47	Zehir (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
48	Ragarra (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
49	Drasek Riven (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
50	Nobanion (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
51	Savras (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
52	Sharess (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
53	Lurue (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
54	Jergal (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
55	Sess'Innek (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
56	Garagos (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
57	Milil (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
58	Waukeen (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
59	Sune (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
60	Red Knight (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
61	Tempus (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
62	Eldath (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
63	Mielikki (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
64	Bala (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
65	Kor (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
66	Ubtao (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
67	Moander (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
68	Selan (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
69	Tchazzar (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
70	Gwaeron Windstrom (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
71	Talos (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
72	Malar (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
73	Loviatar (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
74	Kossuth (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
75	Lliira (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
76	Tyr (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
77	Grumbar (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
78	Akadi (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
79	Tymora (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
80	Myrkul (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
81	Ghaunadaur (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
82	Torm (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
83	Finder Wyvernspur (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
84	Talona (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
85	Selvetarm (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
86	Kelemvor Lyonsbane (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
87	Shar (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
88	Ulutiu (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
89	Bhaal (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
90	Mask (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
91	Bane (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
92	Lord Ao (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
93	Cyric (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
94	Velsharoon (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
95	Amaunator (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
96	Auril (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
97	Azuth (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
98	Beshaba (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
99	Chauntea (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
100	Deneir (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
101	Gargauth (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
102	Eshowdow (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
103	Gond (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
104	Iyachtu Xvim (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
105	Ibrandul (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
106	Ilmater (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-26	33 days	[not provided]
107	Baravar Cloakshadow (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-23	36 days	[not provided]
108	Nebelun (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-23	36 days	[not provided]
109	Callarduran Smoothhands (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-23	36 days	[not provided]
110	Urdlen (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-23	36 days	[not provided]
111	Baervan Wildwanderer (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-23	36 days	[not provided]
112	Segojan Earthcaller (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-23	36 days	[not provided]
113	Gaerdal Ironhand (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-23	36 days	[not provided]
114	Flandal Steelskin (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-23	36 days	[not provided]
115	Gelf Darkhearth (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-23	36 days	[not provided]
116	The Glutton (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-23	36 days	[not provided]
117	Garl Glittergold (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-23	36 days	[not provided]
118	Utgard-Loki (Marvel Comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-23	36 days	[not provided]
119	Paladine (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
120	Valthonis (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
121	Chaos (Dragonlance) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
122	Reorx (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
123	Chemosh (Dragonlance) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
124	Mishakal (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
125	Gilean (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
126	Nuitari (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
127	Lunitari (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
128	Chislev (Dragonlance) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
129	Zivilyn (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
130	Night Sky of Krynn (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
131	Morgion (Dragonlance) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
132	Habbakuk (Dragonlance) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
133	Sargonnas (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
134	Kiri-Jolith (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
135	Solinari (Dragonlance) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
136	Hiddukel (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
137	Sirrion (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
138	Branchala (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
139	Zeboim (Dragonlance) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
140	Fizban (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
141	Majere (god) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
142	Shinare (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-18	41 days	[not provided]
143	Corellon Larethian (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-15	44 days	[not provided]
144	Demiurge (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-14	45 days	[not provided]
145	Tazza (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-13	46 days	[not provided]
146	Xemu (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-13	46 days	[not provided]
147	Oshtur (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-10	49 days	[not provided]
148	Hoggoth (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-10	49 days	[not provided]
149	Agamotto (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-10	49 days	[not provided]
150	Old Ones (Palladium Books) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-09	50 days	[not provided]
151	Old Ones (Palladium Books) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-12-09	50 days	[not provided]
152	Pipi & Bibi's (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-11-15	74 days	restored prior version, in case there is anything in the history and you might need :)
153	Yagnoloth (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-11-05	84 days	[not provided]
154	Ultroloth (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-11-05	84 days	[not provided]
155	Nycaloth (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-11-05	84 days	[not provided]
156	Mezzoloth (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-11-05	84 days	[not provided]
157	Piscoloth (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-11-05	84 days	[not provided]
158	Dergholoth (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-11-05	84 days	[not provided]
159	Hydroloth (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-11-05	84 days	[not provided]
160	Guardian daemon (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-11-05	84 days	[not provided]
161	Marraenoloth (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-11-05	84 days	[not provided]
162	Basilisk (fantasy role play) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-11-04	85 days	splitting the edit history
163	Basilisk (fantasy role play) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-11-04	85 days	splitting the edit history
164	Berbalang (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-11-04	85 days	moving the edit history
165	Achaierai (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-31	89 days	[not provided]
166	Aranea (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-31	89 days	[not provided]
167	Alu-demon (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-31	89 days	[not provided]
168	Kopru (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-31	89 days	[not provided]
169	Thoul (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-31	89 days	[not provided]
170	Ghoul (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-31	89 days	[not provided]
171	Medusa (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-31	89 days	[not provided]
172	Genie (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-31	89 days	[not provided]
173	Sphinx (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-31	89 days	[not provided]
174	Hydra (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-31	89 days	[not provided]
175	Homunculus (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-31	89 days	[not provided]
176	Lammasu (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-31	89 days	[not provided]
177	Su-monster (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-31	89 days	[not provided]
178	Giant frog (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-31	89 days	[not provided]
179	Pegasus (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-31	89 days	[not provided]
180	Shedu (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-31	89 days	[not provided]
181	Ghast (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-31	89 days	[not provided]
182	Violet fungus (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-31	89 days	[not provided]
183	Algoid (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-23	97 days	[not provided]
184	Algoid (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-23	97 days	[not provided]
185	Atropal (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-10-09	111 days	there are a couple of sources for this one, so it could be merged somewhere
186	The Fragile Path (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-09-25	125 days	moving the edit history
187	Outcast (computer game) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-09-18	132 days	this seems like a perfectly plausible redirect, so not sure why it was deleted?
188	Knull (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-08-16	165 days	restoring per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Banned user's creations
189	Absolute Carnage (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-08-16	165 days	restoring per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Banned user's creations
190	Official Formula One Racing (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-08-05	176 days	restore - I have a source to add!
191	Sled Storm PS1 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-08-02	179 days	[not provided]
192	Talos the Untamed (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-07-11	201 days	[not provided]
193	Chris S. Sims (game designer) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-07-02	210 days	moving to draft; there was no significant opposition to draftifying in the AFD
194	Andro Dunos (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-06-24	218 days	[not provided]
195	Andy Chambers (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-06-24	218 days	[not provided]
196	Shadow Slasher (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-06-14	228 days	[not provided]
197	Shadow Slasher (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-06-14	228 days	[not provided]
198	Felony 11-79 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-06-13	229 days	[not provided]
199	Recoil (computer game) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-06-10	232 days	[not provided]
200	Machines (computer game) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-06-10	232 days	[not provided]
201	Street Sk8ter (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-06-05	237 days	[not provided]
202	Uprising X (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-05-26	247 days	restore - I have a source to add!
203	Halflife (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-05-23	250 days	[not provided]
204	Emergency (game) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-05-21	252 days	[not provided]
205	Death on the Reik (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-05-21	252 days	edit history under redirect
206	Superpower (board game) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-05-19	254 days	[not provided]
207	Team Losi RC Racer (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-05-17	256 days	restore - I have a source to add!
208	Warrior Knights (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-05-09	264 days	I have one review and will try to find more
209	Linkle Liver Story (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-05-08	265 days	edit history restored, in case you find anything there you can use
210	Ultimate Race Pro (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-05-05	268 days	[not provided]
211	Star Trek Pinball (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-05-05	268 days	[not provided]
212	Forsaken (computer game) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-05-04	269 days	[not provided]
213	Alien Earth (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-04-29	274 days	restore - I have a source to add
214	Dark Horse Miniatures (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-04-12	291 days	restore - I have a source to add!
215	William Jones (game designer) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-03-29	305 days	moving to Draft space
216	Steel Reign (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-03-21	313 days	restore - I have a source to add!
217	Rock & Roll Racing 2: Red Asphalt (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-03-21	313 days	[not provided]
218	Courier Crisis (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-03-21	313 days	restore - I have a source to add!
219	Battle-Girl (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-03-17	317 days	[not provided]
220	Battle Girl (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-03-17	317 days	I do have one source
221	Gridz (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-03-13	321 days	moving edit history
222	Charles Alexander Moffat (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-03-06	328 days	going to move this one to Drafts
223	Charles Moffat (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-03-06	328 days	[not provided]
224	Ree Soesbee (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-03-06	328 days	[not provided]
225	Don Bassingthwaite (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-03-05	329 days	moving to draft
226	Fallen Haven (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-03-05	329 days	restore - I have a source to add!
227	Talos the Untamed (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-02-26	336 days	[not provided]
228	Spoilsport (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-02-12	350 days	[not provided]
229	Dark Mother (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-02-12	350 days	going to move for disambiguation purposes
230	Spoilsport (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-02-12	350 days	[not provided]
231	Spoilsport (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-02-12	350 days	splitting and moving the edit history
232	The Iceman Returneth (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-02-09	353 days	[not provided]
233	Thermal Man (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-02-03	359 days	[not provided]
234	Jeff Morrow (disambiguation) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2019-01-10	383 days	request on User talk:Jclemens granted by TPS ;)
235	Riddle of the Sphinx (1982 video game) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-12-31	393 days	[not provided]
236	Alien Virus (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-12-24	400 days	[not provided]
237	Spider-Man's powers and equipment (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-12-14	410 days	per request on article talk page, restoring and moving to draft
238	Spider-Man's powers and equipment (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-12-14	410 days	per request on article talk page, restoring and moving to draft
239	Spider-Man's powers and equipment (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-12-14	410 days	per request on article talk page, restoring and moving to draft
240	Spider-Man's powers and equipment (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-12-14	410 days	per request on article talk page, restoring and moving to draft
241	Spider-Man's powers and equipment (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-12-14	410 days	per request on article talk page, restoring and moving to draft
242	GURPS Humanx (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-12-11	413 days	[not provided]
243	Tokyo Highway Battle (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-11-25	429 days	[not provided]
244	Alpine Surfer (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-11-21	433 days	[not provided]
245	Gunblade NY (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-11-16	438 days	I have a source to add; let's give this a shot
246	Namco Museum Volume 1 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-11-16	438 days	[not provided]
247	Jaguar Bomberman (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-11-06	448 days	[not provided]
248	Solinari (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-10-13	472 days	[not provided]
249	Solinari (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-10-13	472 days	[not provided]
250	Dinotopia Adventure Game for PC (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-09-23	492 days	[not provided]
251	Shellshock (video game) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-09-21	494 days	[not provided]
252	Black Fire (video game) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-09-15	500 days	restore edit history under redirect
253	Black Fire (game) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-09-15	500 days	[not provided]
254	Iron Soldier 3 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-09-11	504 days	[not provided]
255	Iron Soldier 2 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-09-11	504 days	[not provided]
256	Mighty Max (video game) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-09-11	504 days	[not provided]
257	Quipper (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-09-09	506 days	[not provided]
258	Quipper (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-09-09	506 days	[not provided]
259	Bres (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-28	518 days	[not provided]
260	Kileak: The Blood 2: Reason in Madness (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-25	521 days	[not provided]
261	FireTeam (computer game) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-23	523 days	[not provided]
262	Curse of Dragor (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-19	527 days	[not provided]
263	Brutal Sports Football (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-17	529 days	in case you find anything useful here
264	Toukon Retsuden (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-11	535 days	[not provided]
265	Space Griffon (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-11	535 days	restore - I have a source
266	VR Troopers (video game) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-09	537 days	I have one source to add
267	The Raft (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-07	539 days	[not provided]
268	Ryker's Island (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-07	539 days	[not provided]
269	Cube (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-07	539 days	[not provided]
270	Negative Zone Prison Alpha (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-07	539 days	[not provided]
271	Ravencroft (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-07	539 days	[not provided]
272	Seagate Prison (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-07	539 days	[not provided]
273	Vincente Cimetta (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-05	541 days	nothing about the AFD proscribed that a redirect was not allowed
274	Vincente Cimetta (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-05	541 days	nothing about the AFD proscribed that a redirect was not allowed
275	Jude the Entropic Man (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-05	541 days	nothing about the AFD proscribed that a redirect was not allowed
276	Shatterstar (Kree) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-05	541 days	nothing about the AFD proscribed that a redirect was not allowed
277	Shadow Slasher (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-05	541 days	nothing about the AFD proscribed that a redirect was not allowed
278	Zweihänder (RPG) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-04	542 days	just won a Gold ENnies award at Gen Con
279	Zweihänder (game) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-04	542 days	[not provided]
280	ZWEIHÄNDER (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-04	542 days	just won a Gold ENnies award at Gen Con
281	Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-03	543 days	[not provided]
282	Foreman for Real (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-02	544 days	[not provided]
283	Dragon Ball Z: Ultimate Battle 22 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-08-01	545 days	[not provided]
284	Shin Shinobi Den (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-26	551 days	it's just a redirect...
285	Riverworld (video game) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-21	556 days	restoring to redirect
286	Web shooters (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
287	Spider-Man's costumes (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
288	Stark Armor (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
289	Black suited spider man (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
290	Man-Spider (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
291	Spider sense (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
292	Spider-Mobile (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
293	Spidey-sense (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
294	Bombastic Bag Man (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
295	Web-shooters (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
296	Man Spider (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
297	Web shooter (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
298	Manspider (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
299	Spider tracer (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
300	Spider-Suit (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
301	Spider tracers (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
302	Spider-senses (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
303	Spider-Senses (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
304	Spider-sense (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
305	Spidey-senses (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
306	Spider-Sense (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
307	Spidey Sense (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
308	Spidey senses (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
309	Spidey sense (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
310	Spider Senses (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
311	Spidey Senses (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
312	Spidey-Senses (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
313	Spider senses (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
314	Spider Sense (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
315	Spidey-Sense (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
316	Spider-tracers (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
317	Spider-tracer (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
318	Spider-Man's powers (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
319	Powers and abilities of Spider-Man (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
320	Spider-Man's Belt-Camera (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
321	Spider-Man's black costume (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
322	Spider-man's powers, abilities, and equipment (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-13	564 days	[not provided]
323	Trek-80 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-12	565 days	[not provided]
324	Trek-80 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-07-12	565 days	splitting edit history; if the Judges Guild version is unrelated and mostly excised from the article, then let's do a split
325	Arcadia (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-28	579 days	[not provided]
326	Barbican (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-28	579 days	restore edit history under redirect
327	Anteus (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-28	579 days	restore edit history under redirect
328	Elysia (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-28	579 days	restore edit history under redirect
329	Domina (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-28	579 days	[not provided]
330	Kalamanthis (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-26	581 days	restore edit history under redirect
331	Cosmic Race (video game) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-23	584 days	restoring as redirect
332	Cosmic Race (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-23	584 days	going to start over using the old edit history
333	Jabbertalky (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-22	585 days	moving edit history
334	Static III (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-20	587 days	[not provided]
335	Neo (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-20	587 days	[not provided]
336	Skitz (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-20	587 days	[not provided]
337	Skitz (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-20	587 days	[not provided]
338	The Harpers (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-18	589 days	[not provided]
339	The Zhentarim (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-14	593 days	[not provided]
340	Red Wizards (Dungeons and Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-14	593 days	[not provided]
341	Red Wizard of Thay (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-14	593 days	[not provided]
342	Red Wizards (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-14	593 days	[not provided]
343	Red Wizards (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-14	593 days	[not provided]
344	The Red Wizards (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-14	593 days	[not provided]
345	Red Wizards of Thay (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-14	593 days	[not provided]
346	Moonstar (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-14	593 days	[not provided]
347	The Moonstars (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-14	593 days	[not provided]
348	The Kraken (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-14	593 days	[not provided]
349	The Kraken (D&D) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-14	593 days	[not provided]
350	The Kraken (Dungeons and Dragons) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-14	593 days	[not provided]
351	Harper (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-14	593 days	[not provided]
352	Cult of Dragon (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-14	593 days	[not provided]
353	Hover Strike (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-12	595 days	I've got one source; it's a good place to start, at least
354	The Watchmaker (video game) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-07	600 days	maybe some of this could be used to build an article one day, even if the original execution was poor
355	Santa Fe Mysteries: Sacred Ground (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-06-05	602 days	[not provided]
356	Alexandria Safe-Zone (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-05-26	612 days	restore edit history under redirect
357	Castle Darkhold (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-05-04	634 days	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castle Darkhold was closed as merge, so that is what I'm a-gonna do
358	The Iron Throne (Forgotten Realms) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-05-04	634 days	Articles for deletion/The Iron Throne (Forgotten Realms) was closed as redirect, so that is what I'm a-gonna do
359	Motocross Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-04-24	644 days	I've got one source; it's a good place to start, at least
360	Burning Soldier (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-04-07	661 days	wow, went to AFD after 7 minutes and died a quick death... I have one review, let me see what else I can do
361	Kung Fu 2100 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-03-27	672 days	[not provided]
362	Wilderlands of High Fantasy (old) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-03-16	683 days	[not provided]
363	SORAG (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-03-03	696 days	moving edit history
364	Clacker (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-02-16	711 days	[not provided]
365	Clacker (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-02-16	711 days	[not provided]
366	Project Omega (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-02-11	716 days	[not provided]
367	Korred (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-02-07	720 days	[not provided]
368	Korred (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-02-07	720 days	[not provided]
369	Trump (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-02-01	726 days	[not provided]
370	Trump (comics) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-02-01	726 days	[not provided]
371	Darklon (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-01-27	731 days	[not provided]
372	Darklon (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-01-27	731 days	moving all but the disambiguation edit
373	The Simpsons Trading Card Game (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-01-25	733 days	previous version of article deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Simpsons Trading Card Game
374	Mark Poole (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-01-12	746 days	[not provided]
375	Star Sisterz (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)	2018-01-07	751 days	restore old version of this article

Can you also clarify why you are undeleting so many pages without giving a logged reason? AGK ■ 22:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The unexplained restoration of copyvio history & demonstrable misunderstandings about notability guidelines (i.e. I create articles based on the sources I have on hand... Sometimes those articles I find have only 1 source, sometimes 0, so I improve them to the best of my ability. If articles created by me or someone else do not get improved, they may deleted. I understand that well, and that is how notability works on Wikipedia.) are very concerning and should be grounds for de-sysopping. You would never accept an RfA with those policy/guideline failures. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A demonstrated poor understanding of basic policies. Misuse of tools to undelete articles, overriding community consensus. Even without undeletion, this poor an understanding of notability should be reasons to worry, as admins are autopatrolled. To top it off, I see that an attempt was made to intimidate Fram bringing up the past, before others joined in to echo the concerns. This is very troubling. Short of a desysop, in addition to a tban on AfD, I think a tban on directly creating articles may be necessary. Not many people patrol autopatrolled articles from admins, a few who might, seem to be seen as harassing if they do so with any regularity on a single user's contributions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even when a reason is given, "found a source/review, let's see what i can do"(paraphrasing) doesn't sound like a responsible reason especially when an "article is nominated within minutes and dies a quick death"(paraphrasing). I am getting the sense that admin tools are being used to further the inclusionism ideology, in essence viewing it as a power weapon in a war rather than a mop. I don't understand the silence. If it were an interpersonal conflict, silence would be a constructive approach to descalation. The issue is admin actions and adherence to policies, ADMINACCT requires them to address the concerns raised by the community. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool BOZ appears to be going through the table AGK made line by line here: User:BOZ/undeletions and responded to AGK here: User_talk:BOZ#AN. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ:, can you please also indicate in your replies if you were in any way involved with the article prior to the undeletion? E.g. with Sharindlar (number 46 on the list), you had created the page initially, and had commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharindlar, and had commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Forgotten Realms deities (to which it by then was a redirect), and at its DRV. Reading your comments at User:BOZ/undeletions, you seem to think that the undeletion by you was fine here, but WP:INVOLVED is a rather bright line. Similar at Myrkul, which you extensively edited, commented at the AfD, but restored anyway, including a first version with the full text "you suck" which was correctly speedy deleted. This is #80 on the list, so one you already checked. Fram (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that I understand you, Fram, are you suggesting that underlying to recover Talk page history or to move text out of article space to find new sources coubts as "acting ... in a dispute" per INVOLVED? Because as long as the versions involved are free of COPYVIO and personal attacks, I would think that PRESERVE applies, which is itself a core policy. I don't see such cases as participating in a dispute, unless I'm missing something. Newimpartial (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes are also disputes. "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." (emphasis mine) An AfD is a prime example of a dispute on a topic, i.e. whether it should be included in enwiki or not. If someone has created or significantly edited an article, and/or if someone has participated in an AfD or DRV or the like, then that person is involved in the sense as described by WP:INVOLVED. This is one of the rather clear rules for admins: either you edit and disuss an article, or you admin it. Only for blatant stuff (vandalism) is this generally ignored, but undeleting a page you have created or argued to keep is a bright line violation, even when done with good intentions, and even if uninvolved admins would have done the same if you asked them. Even ignoring this, if "the community" has decided that an article doesn't belong here, i.e. that the content is not appropriate for enwiki, then WP:PRESERVE wouldn't apply. Preserve means "Preserve appropriate content.", but an involved admin is not the right person to decide, against the community consensus process an AfD should be, that some content should not be deleted but preserved.

If you don't believe me and my lengthy explanation, you can read WP:TOOLMISUSE (which i just like "involved" also policy): "Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party). See Involved admins." Additionally: "Reversing the actions of other administrators – Only in a manner that respects the admin whose action is involved, and (usually) after consultation." As far as I can tell, these reversions were usually done without such consultation.

This doesn't make BOZ in any way evil or less dedicated, but it should be made clear that all these policies apply to them, and that not even mentioning which restorations violated WP:INVOLVED gives the impression that they don't understand or care enough about this aspect. Fram (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just so that I understand you - are you saying that the moment an admin has created or edited a page or participated in an AfD, they are ipso facto party to a content dispute and INVOLVED so that they cannot use the tools in any way either respect to a page? Because that isn't how I read INVOLVED (or TOOLMISUSE) at all, and it looks like a violation of NOTBURO.

As I understand it, the point of INVOLVED is that admin are not allowed to use the tools to "win" content (or conduct) disputes. Userification of deleted content does not in any way strike me as an abuse of the tools, and to say that PRESERVE does not apply, say, to the referencing of an article that was deleted for WP:N, PROMO or COPYVIO reasons seems to me to be an inversion of the meaning of all the related policies. If content is reliably sourced and can be preserved (without violating other policies like COPYVIO and BLP), then it ought to be preserved; once again, boundary maintenance by deleting sourced content we don't like is not WP policy, regardless of one's personal inclination. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - it appears that, rather than responding further here, BOZ has elected to document his undeletions here, as explained here and here. He is acknowledging and fixing his mistakes as he goes through the list: whatever the context of specific past misdeeds, I think we can all agree that this is how the tools are meant to be used. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm seeing one copyright issue, which when raised, BOZ fixed and apologized for. I agree that was a significant error. I'm finding an argument that creating articles that later get deleted is a sign of incompetence. That I'll disagree with. BOZ has certainly done some things wrong and it looks like he is taking the feedback seriously and addressing the issues. His AfD votes have also been addressed (need context and actual arguments). However, I can't blame him for not returning to this discussion to be further raked over the coals and instead working to fix the problems he has created (and hopefully not doing again). I think it's time to stop and see if the actual problems (and there are a few) continue from this point onward and drop the stick for now. Hobit (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hobit, there were at least five copyright issues listed explicitly in this discussion alone, Karsus, Angharradh, Akadi, Dark Horse Miniatures, and Steel Reign (and there were others unlisted, like Savras, Tyr, Tymora and a few others). It is good that you try to defend an editor you like (and who does a lot of good work), but this is now the second time in this discussion that you have done this by completely misrepresenting the facts (see my reply from yesterday to you for the other instance). Please don't. Fram (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sitelogo

Event has now ended. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 13:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

We were not hacked, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#6,000,000th_article. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish it wasn't red. I feel like I'm constantly getting notices :/ 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 02:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It will only be up for 2-3 days. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So right about when most regulars will likely have grown accustomed to the vibrancy. Leave the workers wanting more, they'll proudly belt out the next million that much sooner, eh? It's diabolical and simple, but I like it, in theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Money emoji: You won't have to worry. Once we hit lucky seven mill, we'll do green. ミラ P 17:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Rmharman redirecting his user and talk page to User:Auros

Resolved per Auros's response. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I noticed a weird case while on my usual new page patrol beat. User:Rmharman has completely taken over another account and redirects his user and talk page to that account. He even links User:Auros in his signature. I removed the redirect and tried to message him on talkpage but he reverted the edits with the edit summary "Changed username, associated with a legal name change". Razer(talk) 23:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're both the same person, me. Rmharman is older, I had switched to using Auros as the nickname took over my life (and eventually became my legal name), and recently I started making some contributions again but forgot I had converted the account, and the old user/pass was what I'd had stored in 1Password so it auto logged that in. Ideally what I'd like to do is entirely purge the old Rmharman identity and redirect any references / contribs to the new name. This is me. The nickname originated in college, gradually became what everyone calls me in real life, and I legally changed my name in 2017. --Auros (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Auros, I understand you point but using two accounts simultaneously is against wiki policies, Please see WP:MULTIPLE. Your editing patterns are frankly too confusing to follow. Just a example - I posted a edit notice on Rmharman talk page. You cut and pasted it to User talk:Auros and then you replied using the User:Rmharman account but signed it with "User:Auros" 2. Then you made another reply this time with the "Auros" account. Razer(talk) 15:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, You participated in the AFD discussion of "Josh Becker (politician)" and made a comment using your Rmharman account but signed it with "Auros" [31] at the same time you have been editing the article with both Rmharman and Auros account 2 .I would also like to point out that I dont appreciate you editing the content of my replies . Razer(talk) 16:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rmharman could ask for a self-requested block of their account. This would remove the chance of making accidental edits using the old account but would carry no stigma. They would employ the User:Auros account for any future edits. Links from the old user pages to the new ones could stay in place. Unless this is done, continuing to edit with two accounts is against policy and will probably lead to indignant responses. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've fixed the settings in 1Pass, to avoid accidentally logging in the old account again, and edited the old User and User_talk pages to just be text indications of where to look, rather than redirects -- though honestly, I don't see what the harm would be in using the redirect. Suggestion: it would be useful if there were a link right next to the username, in Special:Preferences, that would take a user to WP:CHU (which EdJohnston kindly directed me to). Razer2115, regarding editing your replies, the version of your comment that I replied to is what you originally posted. It looks to me like most likely what happened is that I began composing my reply to that, then you edited your comment, then I posted my reply, and that inadvertently reverted your comment to its previous version. Perhaps you could consider the spirit of WP:AGF. I actually appreciated your original shift of my article on a local politician into the Draft space, which I had not been previously aware of (although now other users seem to be pushing the article back in the other direction). My understanding of Wikipedia as a project is that it should be possible for a user to dip in and out of contributing over time, without becoming an expert on administrative processes. The important thing is to provide factual information that meets basic principles (NPOV, good citations, and so on). The "long tail" of contributions from a very large number of infrequent users is valuable. Acting hostile toward folks, just because they haven't mastered intricacies of procedure, is harmful to the enterprise as a whole. --Auros (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Backlog at WP:RFPP

Backlog caught up-- Deep fried okra 10:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I counted 17 unanswered requests. An advance thank you to whoever helps out with it! Clovermoss (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with a few (feedback is welcome!) --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cleaned out now, thanks @Ritchie333 and Ymblanter:! --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am requesting to say something on the talk page of an article

Sock blocked. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lovely plumage-- Deep fried okra

Sock-it-to-me-- Deep fried okra

Dear Wikipedia administrators, Please visit the Talk:Ahmed Rajib Haider, whether the article Ahmed Rajib Haider should be redirected to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh or not, please consider; I have added some important excerpts from that article to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh, you can see. Thanks - Walter Saphron (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This does not belong on AN
The user is misinterpreting the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Rajib Haider. He attempted to speedy Ahmed Rajib Haider and now is attempting to redirect the entire without a talk page discussion.
The user was created today, after the AFD was closed as keep. Meters (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now the OP has opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Rajib Haider (2nd nomination) just hourt after the first AFD closed as Keep, but is arguing to Keep the article. Meters (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the AfD and left the user a note about discussing on the article talk page.-- Deep fried okra 06:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting all other administrators to see the talk page (Talk:Ahmed Rajib Haider), Deepfriedokra please participate in the discussion of the talk page. Thanks - Walter Saphron (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want all the admins weighing in on this? This looks a lot like an example of WP:SPIDER. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D:, I am sorry, not all admins but some. Walter Saphron (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Saphron is a sock.

Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

racistic deletion in Blond

as for me as for an Asian, these changes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blond&type=revision&diff=925821361&oldid=925815623 seems to be racistic (Idot (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

How can you tell there were racist facets to the removal? El_C 10:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this racist deleted and illustrated referenced information that proves the fact that some Asian ethnic groups could have blond hair at child hood. I'm a Kazakh, and my my mother when she was a little girl use to have blond hair, that become black when she grow up, the same I have some seen for my cousin who is Kazakh too. so this deletion vandalism is really offensive and leads of racial stereotypes (Idot (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Idot, you repeated a conclusory allegation without providing evidence. This is a content dispute, not an admin matter - unless you continue calling people racists without credible evidence, in which case you'll likely be shown the door. Guy (help!) 10:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what evidence I have to show? (Idot (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Howdy hello Idot! In terms of evidence, we usually request several edits that show a pattern, or a convincing explanation of a single edit (which has not been provided). It seems that the editor in question (who I note you did not notify of this discussion despite the big red box at the top of the page) had a legit reason to undo the change. Was it based on racist sentiments? Or was it merely lack of sources? I would suggest discussing it with an editor before making an accusation of racism. A quick note here: on Wikipedia we assume good faith. If you assume that the edits were made with the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, you might realize why the edits were made. What I see here is a dispute over content, that needs discussion. Also, making a claim based on personal experience, while perhaps enlightening, can't be used as a source as that is original research. In this dispute, please find some reliable sources that backup whatever claim you're making. TLDR: AN is not the first place to run when there is trouble (unless its very serious). Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how about vandalism? it was written:
Today, higher frequencies of light hair in Asia are prevalent among Pamiris, Kalash, Nuristani and Uyghur ethnic groups.< ref >{ { cite book
Hunan201p has changed it to
It has been said that blond hair is observed in approximately 10% of Iranian Pamiris.< ref >{ { cite book
do you see the difference?
Hunan201p - removed ethnic groups (Idot (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, but it sounds like content dispute, which you should manage on the article talk page — and do so without casting aspersions on the nature and/or motivation of your opponents in this dispute. El_C 02:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outage of wikipedia.org 26 Jan 2020

Service announcement

Wikipedia has announced in this tweet that there are been service outages across the xx.wikipedia.org domain, affecting multiple language versions. See also this informal reporting website, suggesting the problem has been ongoing since c.14:00 UTC today. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Moyes, the tweet doesn't mention North America but I can confirm there have been problems, as well as some reported to OTRS. S Philbrick (Talk) 22:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes and Sphilbrick: I think the reason of the outage was because so many people were visiting Kobe Bryant, a high-profile figure, after his death. Any similar incidents before? ミラ P 01:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: Really? I didn't know we were that vulnerable. It'll be interesting to see the pageview stats tomorrow, then. I'd never actually heard of him until I reverted what I thought was a couple of uncited edits to a stadium suggesting it had the nickname 'the house that Kobe built' - then I learned who he was. (I cited a news source saying that one fan had called it that. Happy to be reverted if anyone knows it really is a genuine nickname!) Nick Moyes (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: I'm trying not to get offtopic, but this RS confirms that nickname. ミラ P 02:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: That was actually the source I cited as my rationale for reverting the edit! If you read the article, it says one fan used that phrase. Not a WP:RS in my view to support a nickname. But we are rather off topic here - sorry all. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This tweet by Katherine Maher confirms that it was a DDoS attack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Huh - at Phabricator they say that it might have been an internal malfunction. I note that that Tweet by Katherine Maher is attached to a Tweetchain about a different incident last year. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: a better Tweet is probably this one [32] although yes a comment from someone on the tech side would be far more conclusive. The Phabricator doesn't really provide much info. It links it to phab:T243548, and although it probably made sense to consider it possibly related, and no one seems to have ruled it out, I find it unlikely. It sounds like the problems causing T243548 were rolled back a few days ago. And I don't see any sign it's been re-implemented. So it's probably unrelated. phab:T243725 as a contributor seems more likely. Although, and this is a point I've been trying to make at VPT maybe not very successfully, we have to be careful about proscribing one specific cause. Often these things involve a number of different issues which end up pushing things over the edge. In other words, there may very well have been an intentional DDoS, but other issues may have made the problems worse or been part of the reason there was observed problems. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Moyes, 9.5 million hits. A lot, to be sure, but not enough to cripple, I would think. S Philbrick (Talk) 16:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The outage was happening well before the Bryant story broke. It is to do with these kinds of articles: 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak‎? Britishfinance (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was Dmytro Firtash in the library with a lead pipe. Guy (help!) 11:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overlapping new proposed merges/moves/splits of Death of Kobe Bryant

There are a lot of editor eyes already on this, but could some uninvolved admins keep an eye on this?

While a very active discussion for a proposed merge was underway (still ongoing and very active as of posting), a proposed move was opened for the article about 15 minutes later (with 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash one of the proposed targets) while that merge discussion was ongoing and later speedily closed.

A duplicate article was created by verbatim copying from Death of Kobe Bryant to 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash which was later fully protected by Zzyzx11 as a redirect due to edit warring and the already ongoing merge discussion.

Now there is a new proposal to split the article to 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash just a few hours later, while the merge discussion is still ongoing. The centralized merge discussion includes plenty of debate about renaming the article and/or partial merges elsewhere. Surely the concurrent overlapping discussions are unnecessary? — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are under no obligation to actually close discussions until at least a few days have passed, by which time many discussions that are basically editorial disputes will settle themselves. BD2412 T 04:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly yes, there is no rush to close until a reasonable time has elapsed. My concern is that there are multiple concurrent overlapping ones, partially over a target that was fully protected over edit warring. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was requested to open a discussion on splitting, I've would have waited as I am also concerned that editors might think these are two of the same discussions. They are in fact completely different. The original discussion was about merge Death of Kobe Bryant to Kobe Bryant, that discussion divulged into something completely different and is now apparently focused on renaming the article. It appears the merge discussion is now also about splitting. It quite confusing now. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 05:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is a third concurrent requested move. This is getting a little ridiculous. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only just noticed that the proposed merge was closed before the move request was opened. Ignore the above. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate article

A duplicate article was created by verbatim copying from Death of Kobe Bryant to 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash...

No!!!! It was not!!! I wrote the article from scratch, unaware of the existence of the Death of Kobe Bryant article. If anything, material from the article I wrote was copied verbatim into the death article. Not that you'd know from the talk page, as there is no attribution. Mjroots (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Apologies then. But the two articles were identical regardless (I suppose because of the common sources). See the first revision of "2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash" and the revision of "Death of Kobe Bryant" at the same time. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC) (oldid fixed 06:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@MarkH21: I'm not seeing any similarity between the two at the time. That link to the aircrash article was actually the second edit, which added the helicopter image to the infobox. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I matched the time stamps correctly but copied the wrong oldid. The two articles have almost identical content, from the course of events described to the passengers and helicopter being a Sikorsky S-76. There are just minor wording differences. The two articles clearly are covering the same event with the same details based on the same sources. The only real difference are the times given, the firefighting detail, and the then-unreferenced registration number + operator — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still say that there is no great similarity between the two. The article I created had a good structure and was moderately well categorised. Aircraft registration and operator were unreferenced at the time as I was working from this entry at the Aviation Safety Network Wikibase. I was trying to find better sources for that information when other editors came in and trashed the article with malformed redirects, undiscussed redirects etc and I was also getting multiple edit conflicts. The ASN Wikibase is considered by some as unreliable, as opposed to the ASN maid database. I consider it is usable if necessary, as content placed there is vetted by an editorial team, but prefer to find other sources if possible. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, maybe you don't see it, but the two articles were about the same event, described the same details, and used the same sources. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the time in question, the article I created had three sources, an the death article had two. Only one source was common to both articles. Mjroots (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely common that there is parallel article development when some highly notable event without an article happens. Most editors do their best to make sure they aren't creating a duplicate article, but it can be quite hard to find the existing article, especially if it's not linked from anywhere, so it's quite easy to accidentally create a parallel article. There does not seem to be any real consensus for having 2 articles on such highly related events, as I think most with experience here would expect. When things like this happen, there is no simple way to decide which one should be the main one. If one shows significantly more development, probably it's the better choice. But if both are similar, frankly it's a bit random. It can come down to which one is oldest, or which one has the better title or really just randomness based on what whoever first comes across the problem does. Frankly, the most important thing is not to choose the right target but to fix the problem quickly, to avoid further parallel development and confusing edit histories. Whatever article is chosen as the main one, assuming there is any content copied from the other one to the main one, attribution needs to be provided in accordance with the licence terms per WP:Copying within wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: I completely agree. I didn’t mean to focus on the actual creation of the duplicate article, but point out the fact that we had a lot of duplication of discussions & articles. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS

As usual, the root cause here is the attempt to document breaking news as it happens. That's not what we're supposed to do. Guy (help!) 11:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS only applies when the news documented is insignificant enough as to receive no lasting coverage (per WP:LASTING). That is not the case here. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's major news, we're still not a news outlet and we should not be trying to document breaking news as it happens. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot stop the masses without some draconian changes. In cases like these it's best IMO to let the article get written by whosoever feels interested and then come back months later and clean the articles in question. People might still care about the nature of the death in 6 months, but it won't be a madhouse to try to enforce the changes (just the regular-old WP:ARS keep-bombing at AFD...). --Izno (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We all know that the main page has a section called "In the news" at the upper right corner and the death of Kobe Bryant is now the lead item. WP:NOTNEWS lists four specific types of things that we ought to exclude and none of them apply to this helicopter crash that killed nine people, one very famous. For 19 years, Wikipedia has developed articles in real time about major events of long term notability, and that will not be stopped by invoking "NOTNEWS". The worst thing about that policy language is that it directs people to the failed Wikinews project. Look at the garbage article they are now hosting about Kobe Bryant's death. That crappy failed website should be shut down. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No hate for Wikinews (rather unaware of its existence) but what Cullen328 says stands. Furthermore, coverage is mostly most reliable when news sources are actually looking into them, not 10 years later, I don't know what site other than Wikipedia should have documentation of real-life events that should definitely be documented (Encarta, anyone?). --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, coverage is mostly most reliable when news sources are actually looking into them, not 10 years later ... I very strongly believe the exact opposite is true. Historians are far more reliable than journalists. Levivich 17:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how ABC News reported at first that all of Kobe Bryant's children were on the helicopter, I would agree. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no evidence for your statement, historians are no more likely to be more reliable than journalists. As well as it possible to have historians that do their research and journalists who speculate, the reverse holds true as well. The big difference is that a journalist is more likely to be identified as wrong or speculating by their peers, and not historians, which is exactly how you now know that all of his children were not on the helicopter, but you have no way of knowing how accurate the research of your unknown historian is, especially since so less of them are out there to verify and crosscheck their research (and so much of their research is to try to know the unknown). --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us how you really feel Cullen, don't hold back :-)

Pointer to an ongoing related discussion at WP:VPP#A valid criticism ... Levivich 17:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main page, yes - don't get me started on what's wrong with that enormous timesink. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From experience, it is much easier to write articles about events as they happen, rather than weeks or months down the line. This is especially true when sources are all, or nearly all, online. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Writing articles would be much easier if we didn't have to bother with pesky sources at all, wouldn't it? But hey, that's not what we are here for. There are less available "sources" if we wait to write it because all that's left is the secondary sources we really need to write a proper article. News accounts of an unfolding event are primary sources. If all I had to write a biography were a bunch of primary sources, that subject wouldn't be notable. Why should we treat an event differently? John from Idegon (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that writing articles about events as they happen leads to a lot of terrible articles structured like "On X, Y thing happened" repeated ad nauseum. Later sources are often more comprehensive and better structured, and that leads to better articles. I know I'm fighting a losing battle on suggesting restraint and not trying to regurgitate 40KB of breaking news with no evidence of lasting impact, but you certainly don't make good articles out of that formula. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian open proxies

About the report linked in the title that goes back to last week, I'm reporting this new situation. A user registered a new account this morning, and 4 minuts later he used it to restore one of the edits made by the anonymous proxy-user. Here it is:

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

The fact he hasn't done any other edit made me think that he may be the same individual, the vandal who used to hide behind open proxies last week is now try hiding behind a throwaway username to deceive and mislead other users. A CU request can't be requested for this case because checkusers can't link accounts and IPs and because the IP of the open proxy has already been blocked so he can't be using it, but perhaps a checkuser might check the logs of the username and control if the IPs he used are from open proxies in order to block them, and besided this there should be behavioural evidence that the anonymous and the registered users are the same individual. Please use in the best way the information I've provided. --151.21.73.20 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Normally this sort of request is made by opening a sockpuppet investigation and setting the checkuser request flag. No matter, I've blocked the account as an obvious sock of the open-proxy-abusing user. I did not check the account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assamese language topic ban appeal

Appeal

I recently made a request to editwarring noticeboard to look after a edit war. Warnings are not served to parties involved, rather a topic ban is initiated for possible policy violation. Below are grounds that ban is not justifiable for now:

There is no possible violation, relevant edit was made according to general consensus in WP:DRN.

See relevant discussion at:

User_talk:EdJohnston#Appeal_for_roll-backing_ban
Edit_warring#User:Msasag_reported_by_User:Bhaskarbhagawati_(Result:_Filer_topic_banned). Thank you in advance.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston: I think this concerns you. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The grounds for imposing the topic ban are explained in the two links already given above by Bhakarbhagawati, WP:AN3#User:Msasag reported by User:Bhaskarbhagawati (Result: Filer topic banned) and in my response at User talk:EdJohnston#Appeal for roll-backing ban. It would be hard to deny there is a dispute, when it has been running since 2012. It is hard to defend the reasonableness of Bhaskar's January 2020 edits at Early Assamese when the continuity of the Assamese language over the centuries is the very issue complained about in the April 2019 ANI). "Bhaskarbhagawati wishes the articles to reflect the unqualified claim that the former (a modern dialect of Assamese) is in actuality the same language as the latter (a 12th century language)." His new edits at Early Assamese cause it to be redirected to Assamese language. In other words, he denies that what is described in the Early Assamese page could be a separate language. His theory seems to be, 'I lost the previous argument, but I haven't reverted for a long time, so it's correct for me to come back and do more reverts'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good ban A topic ban was the right move here. Filer was being disruptive, and seems to have a strong POV that they are incapable of extricating themselves from. I see no impropriety in applying the ban, and think that the filer needs some time to cool off and consider why they were banned. If they stay out of trouble and show understanding of why they were banned, I would support an unblock in 6 months to a year. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to comply, but i like to clear why "Early Assamese" was redirected. The Assamese language/Standard Assamese itself based on modern Eastern Assam dialect. As said above by EdJohnston, a modern dialect cannot be equal to a old language. Old Assamese language is long covered in Kamrupi Prakrit, thatswhy we don't have such article by name of Early Assamese till 2020, a content fork, nevertheless i am not going get my hands dirty on it and leaving the article for community conscience.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhaskarbhagawati: You are very lucky that you have been handed a very lenient topic ban for your misconduct. You should cease all these attempts to rehash your content dispute and instead focus somewhere else before community would seek a broader topic ban or a block for you. Orientls (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you have power to ban and block me, even though i never acted against consensus in my stint here, i still think Wikipedia cannot be trusted.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a murderer removed, possible oversight issue?

I've removed the name of a murderer from an article here. It was mentioned in the lead, the body didn't use it (just initial). His name is also present on wikidata ((Redacted)) and is given by many media sources. I am not sure if oversight is required, but I trust someone here will know if further action is required? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I have deleted the linked revision pending a decision from an oversighter. Thank you for raising this concern, but in the future please email oversight concerns oversight-en-wp

wikipedia.org rather than at AN as this is a high traffic page. See, e.g., Streissand effect. — Wug·a·po·des 00:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've handled the suppression, and would echo what Wugapodes has to say about not publicly requesting suppression in the future. Thanks for reporting it! I've also informed the Wikidata oversight team. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: You moved it to Sisterproject queue, where unprivileged users can see the ticket contents. I found it and moved it to oversight::oversight-wikidata. — regards, Revi 15:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And duly taken care of. — regards, Revi 15:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, thank you—must have misclicked :| GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP issue isn't the mention of the name, it's the use of "murderer" without reference to a conviction. There was consensus for Wikidata to keep the item, which is unlikely if there were no reliable sources, so unless the name had been removed from the sources, the item probably shouldn't have been deleted - "when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision" seems to be the relevant part of policy. Peter James (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grammarly article, and promotional editing

Recently an article about Grammarly has had a lot of promotional edits done to it, and the article itself is written like an advert, and 2 editors have constantly been edit warring (this thread is not about them, and please don't relate them to the article) may I get a warrant for deletion of the article, or instead get Extended Confirmed protection for the article? 96.230.240.122 (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything that justifies extended confirmed protection, and we cannot delete the page outside of the deletion process. The editors seem to be discussing the dispute on the talk page, and I would prefer to give the bold, revert, discuss cycle a chance before protecting the page. I've added it to my watchlist and if I notice things get worse I'll try to step in. — Wug·a·po·des 03:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Wugapodes! 96.230.240.122 (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamy Jazz appointed trainee clerk

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome Dreamy Jazz (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Dreamy Jazz appointed trainee clerk

Spartan Race involved actions

A user who was banned in 2017 for (among other things) threatening to involve numerous Wikipedia editors in their real-life personal legal drama has returned to push their agenda at Spartan Race. I am one of those editors they've threatened, and have been involved with content at that article off and on, so technically I fail WP:INVOLVED when blocking two of their new IPs and semiprotecting the article for a good long time. These blocks are not checkuser blocks. Would uninvolved admins please review my actions and adjust as required? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only see one block, that of *167, and it seems to be fine. As for the two month protection, it seems to be honest excessive to me: I would not give more than two weeks (though the very fact of the protection is reasonable).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should have specified: the IPs I blocked are 201.170.166.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 2806:1000:8002:6b20::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), and the page is protected for 14 months. It has previously been protected for one and three months, but I don't see any pattern of the user waiting for protection to expire so maybe you're right that a long term is excessive. Feel free to modify. I'm not sure which 167 IP you mean. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the first IP you mentioned, I did not realize the second is the rangeblock. Concerning the protection, let us wait for more opinions.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with annoying but infrequent disruption from the same person does raise puzzling questions. But if a one year block of the /64 is justified then I guess a 14-month semiprotection is OK. The article Spartan Race is not about a major topic that will require lots of updates all the time. So I would keep a semiprotection in place for at least six months. The original ban in 2017 was for an editor who made legal threats and promised to expose personal information, needing oversight. ("..if we find your identity, you will be sued for fraud.") EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File spam

Spam is overwhelming (see WT:WikiProject Spam) so I'm asking here for opinions on how to handle the following new images. These are obviously intended to get a spam external link into Wikipedia after traditional methods of adding them to articles were reverted.

File:A Poster showing benefits of Local SEO.png
File:Equity mortage release.png
File:Flekosteel Review.png
File:Free Equity Release Calculator.png
File:Save money while buying parkour shoes.png

Would it be too bold to delete these and indef the creator? I don't see an applicable speedy delete criterion for files. Is WP:G11 ok despite the wording not quite fitting? Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GCSD specifies that the general speedy criteria apply to all types of pages, explicitly including files. So IMO yes, these qualify for G11 and the creator should be blocked for spam. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, blocked, and taking care of the files. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Profane username

Not a problem, answered by Wugapodes. (non-admin closure) Puddleglum ^2.0 20:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is a user called Dick Pennis, the user has made NO edits in 4 YEARS, and is clearly not here to make an encyclopedia, could you please block this user, due to the profane username? 96.230.240.122 (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Per the username policy, "Consider leaving well enough alone". The user hasn't ever edited, so the username isn't causing problems just sitting there. Even if they were making edits, it's possible that Richard Pennis is someone's name, and it would be very unfortunate to block them out of the blue simply for using their real name. This is why the username policy also recommends discussing the username with a user before seeking intervention. No disruption is occuring and and merely resembling the word "penis" isn't sufficient grounds for an immediate block without warning. — Wug·a·po·des 02:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, in that case sorry for the disruption I have made 96.230.240.122 (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it 96.230; it's a good faith report, but that's just how it is. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Move request

Moved by Ymblanter (non-admin closure) Puddleglum ^2.0 19:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please move User:CptViraj to User:CptViraj/alt without leaving a redirect. Thankyou. -- CptViraj (📧) 08:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Francisco Valcarcel

I have just deleted this article per WP:BLPDELETE. Essentially, it was entirely unsourced except for an external link to wbo-int.com (since replaced with a Wayback Machine archive) and an inline citation to The Sun. In my opinion, it is completely unacceptable to have a BLP in this state. As this is likely to be a controversial action since it is not covered by any of the speedy deletion criteria directly, I am bringing discussion here.

I will look at writing a properly BLP-compliant biography when I have looked through WP:BLPSOURCES compliant material and have time to assemble it; alternatively, if anyone who is knowledgeable about boxing managers, I will have no issue with you writing such an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not knowledgeable on boxing managers, here are a few sources. 1 is here, 2 is here and 3 is here. His nickname is "Paco": Thank you. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect @Ritchie333: here is another source here. Why didn't you mark the article for deletion? There is a Puerto Rico project that would have seen and addressed the lack of sources. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating the article at AfD is not appropriate, because I would anticipate the result to be "keep" (at AfD we discuss if it's possible to write a satisfactory encyclopedia article, which it is). Rather, the point of this is to force a properly, reliably sourced version, not the version that would have been flagged up as a borderline WP:BLPPROD if created today as opposed to 15 years ago. For the minute, I have recreated the page as a redirect to World Boxing Organization, which seems pretty uncontroversial. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither BLPDELETE nor BLPPROD supports the deletion of that article without notice. I have restored the history, but left it as a redirect until it can be improved. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: Thank you... @Ritchie333: ...because if we were going to delete every bio article, without notice, that is poorly sourced, there would be hundreds of thousands of articles deleted.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the spelling of his name, btw.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reservation Number Spamming

We seem to be getting regular additions to airline articles from various IPs in the format "Reservation Number is 1-8XX-XXX-XXX" and similar, they appear to be at best spamming or at worst possibly some sort of scam, perhaps we should consider some form of filter to stop these edits ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne: We do have a scam filter for this type of thing, already operating in several other areas. If you can pull together some numbers and some diffs, drop a note at WP:EFR. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zzuuzz, we should probably stop all additions of phone numbers to mainspace by default. Guy (help!) 09:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has been examined in the past, with negative results. We do filter on some things like "Contact...nnn", but plain (or formatted) phone numbers are a different order of problem. To give an example of the issues, consider ISBN numbers, GND, URLs, even things like the Anomalous magnetic dipole moment. It's a very tricky problem. Returning to the original issue here, I see that some regular filters editors are already clamping down on the airline spam. You can see the filter and related hits by looking at the filter recent changes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See #Airline spam ring encountered between IPs and a user below. I have encountered the same kind of spam and put together a data base of users. Seems to all be from one central location. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page move requests

Would an administrator please move 2005–2006 BAI Basket & 2007–2008 BAI Basket to 2005–06 BAI Basket & 2007–08 BAI Basket. My requests at the proper page, keeps getting deleted by RMCD bot. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please make your request at WP:RMTR. If you try adding things to WP:RMCD the bot will continue to delete your requests. That page is bot-generated and drives off of formal move requests that have been entered on talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page abuse

There is a user, that has abused their talk page (here is the link), by writing something profane on it, could someone check it out?

P.S I think their username sounds a tad to profane, but I could be wrong, and their username could (hopefully) mean Cat Girl. 96.230.240.122 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's 9 years old. I fail to see the need of an ANI report. I blanked it. Praxidicae (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 96.230.240.122 (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also see you found another old account with 0 edits and made a report. While I am sure you mean well, these are frivolous reports and I doubt action would even be taken at AIV. Praxidicae (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals Closed

An arbitration case regarding Portals has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

BrownHairedGirl is prohibited from editing in the Portal: namespace or engaging in discussions about portals anywhere on Wikipedia. She may appeal this restriction in six months.
BrownHairedGirl is indefinitely restricted from interacting with or commenting about Northamerica1000 anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the ordinary exceptions. This restriction may be appealed in six months.
For numerous violations of basic policies and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities as outlined in Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability and Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct, BrownHairedGirl is desysopped. She may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to establish a guideline for portals. The committee further recommends that this RfC be kept open for at least 30 days, be closed by a panel of 3 uninvolved administrators, and at a minimum address the following questions:

Topics: How broad or narrow should a topic area be for it to sustain a portal?
Page views: Should there be a minimum number of page views for a portal to be considered viable? How should those page views be measured?
WikiProjects: Should portals be required to be connected to an active WikiProject or other group of maintainers?
Updates: How often should a portal be updated?
Automation: Can automated tools be used in the creation or maintenance of portals?
Links to portals: How should portals be used? Should they be linked on all relevant Wikipedia articles, or should another method be used to ensure that portals are viewed and used?

For the Arbitration Committee, SQL ^{Query me!} 21:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals Closed

FYI: User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Statement_by_BHG_on_the_ArbCom_decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand what happened here and how I should deal with such requests?

User talk:Thanabordee Muangkod is/was tagged for speedy deletion under criterion WP:U2.

The template says "This redirect may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a user page or subpage of a user that does not exist (check)". So, I clicked check and it says the user was "Created on 25 December 2015 at 08:44".

So, I think, I'll have to decline this and I click Edit. The edit page says in red 'User account "Thanabordee Muangkod" is not registered. If you wish to use "Thanabordee Muangkod" as your username, please make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username.'

Hmm - so does the account exist or not?

I noted that the speedy deletion template also says "This excludes userpages for anonymous users who have edited, redirects from misspellings of an established user's userpage, and for the previous name of a recently renamed user (which should normally be left as a redirect to the new name for a reasonable time", so my next line of enquiry would be "is this a renamed user, and was the renaming recent"? The user list entry for the account which the page has been redirected to doesn't appear to help.

I'm not particularly bothered about this particular page as no doubt somebody else will deal with it, but I have 2 questions:

Why does editing the user page say that the user does not exist, but the "check" link says that they do?

How do I find out if and when an account has been renamed?

--kingboyk (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you click check, it says that Thanabowor Krootdilakanunta exists, not Thanabordee Muangkod. Not sure why it shows that username but they are two different editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The searched username doesn't exist, so the page shows the next username in the alphabet. If you remove the "limit=1" from the URL, you get a list of usernames in alphabetical order. -kyykaarme (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a redirect from a global rename. I really wish people would stop deleting those. They're useful, and deleting them violates WP:U2 ("except ... the previous name of a renamed user"). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, but wouldn’t such a redirect get in the way if a new editor created an account with someone else’s former username? — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a problem anymore, because the antispoof feature has protected old usernames from re-creation since June 2018. A new editor would need help from an account creator or an admin to register such a name. -kyykaarme (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you tell it's a redirect from a global rename?

Interestingly, WP:T2 does indeed except "the previous name of a renamed user", but the template Template:Db-u2 - says "the previous name of a recently renamed user". That's quite a significant discrepancy. --kingboyk (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I think I was wrong. The logs for User talk:ธนบดั เมืองโคตร seem to indicate the user manually moved this page, then moved it back. I thought that I saw this in the global rename log. Weird. I guess I was tired and seeing things. I mostly ignore contradictory or confusing notes about policies on some other page, but I guess you could raise the issue on the template's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've left a message about the wording inconsistency on the template's talk page. --kingboyk (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newimpartial

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

This section is fallout from the above "User:BOZ" section, but since BOZ is not responsible for Newimpartial's edits (and vice versa), I thought it better to start a separate section to discuss the conduct by Newimpartial (and the editors they accuse of misconduct, including me).

While the BOZ discussion was for the most part a polite, reasonable discussion about those issues, Newimpartial brought a very aggressive, attacking aspect to it, with false claims, unreasonable demands, and a disturbing lack of understanding of policies they insisted on discussing anyway. I'll ignore most of the incorrect references to policies (and policy violations) and so on to focus on some clear attacks and incorrect claims.

Third edit to the discussion: they claim falsely that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampire: The Dark Ages Storytellers Screen was not in the relevant categories ("nobody bothered to tag it to the relevant categories"), when it was in Category:AfD debates (Games or sports) and in Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Article alerts [33].

Their next tactic is attacking through out of context quoting: when I state that ""keep or merge per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD" [...] still doesn't address the AfD nominations or gives any actual reasons to keep the articles at all. ", they reply[34]: "I just wanted to note that a "Merge per PRESERVE" !vote is just about as valid a policy consideration as there is on WP, and the fact that Fram doesn't recognize it as such[...] says a good deal more about Fram's competence and good will on this topic than that of BOZ."

In the discussion about WP:INVOLVED, they start adding some things which have nothing to do with the issue at hand: "Userification of deleted content does not in any way strike me as an abuse of the tools", when no userfication happened anyway or is being discussed, and then discussing WP:PRESERVE as if that somehow creates an exception to WP:INVOLVED (they also claim at user talk:BOZ that ArbCom hsa just set "a new and very inclusive definition for INVOLVED; however, it would make no sense at all for me to try to apply it retroactively.", while all ArbCom did was copy the policy text which had been there for years and years.

Finally, they go into pure attack mode[35]: "CIVIL violations and poisonous conduct are potentially quite a bit more serious. And Fram has engaged in a consistent pattern of bullying towards BOZ (as in previous instsnces), such as the condescending dismissal of Space Gamer as a source here and the scathing dismissal (while failing basic reading comprehension) here of the notability of articles that were subsequently Kept at AfD. " I invite all of you to check the links and compare them to Newimpartials description of them, and also to compare my conduct to the description by Newimpartial. Dismissing a source (more precisely, the very short" capsule reviews" in that source, and the use of it even when it was about a product from the same company as the source) is not bullying, uncivil, poisonous conduct, ... Checking and judging sources (for reliability, notability, whether it is a passing mention or not, independence of the subject, ...) is what we are supposed to do.

As long as they restricted their attacks to me, oh well, I apparently trigger this reaction with them, shrug. But it no longer is restricted to me, judging from their most recent edit to the same discussion, about User:Chetsford [36].

And now, another admin, with a documented history of deliberate antagonism, and who has launched a new mode of BATTLEGROUND, has decided to pile on while engaging in some premature ~~grave dancing~~ celebration. Has any admin at WP (besides BOZ) heard of not bullying, or are the tools poisoned somehow?
— User:Newimpartial 22:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

For starters, I'm not an admin, so Chetsford isn't another admin. The "documented history" of hounding is an ANI discussion started by Newimpartial[37] which was closed without any action (with little support for the rather grave accusations by Newimpartial, and which also contained a boommerang proposal to AfD ban Newimpartial), after which Chetsford became this year an admin with near-unanimous support. The links for "battleground", "grave dancing", or "pile on" are all rather standard edits. Trying to find out what the outrage was about, I followed the link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudships & Gunboats. Newimpartial provides three sources, and when they are challenged on these by Chetsford, they start making dubious claims:

Surely some mistake, Chetsford. The Future Wars and Miniature Wargames references are full-length reviews in print sources. None of the three are identical. Care to retract? FAKENEWS does not become you
You might want to confine yourself to sources you can actually see.

Even ignoring that Chetsford said "incidental", not "identical", these replies have some serious problems. Now, I can't see the complete Future Wars source, but it is a fanzine, a self-published, stapled home-made magazine.[38] The "full length review" is of the game Space: 1889, the AFD is for a supplement to it, but in any case not a RS.

But I can see the other two sources, and Chetsford is spot on and Newimpartial is actually bullying an editor who exposed his false claims:

The Miniature Wargames source is from 2017, doesn't mention Cloudships & Gunboats at all, but discusses "Cloudships of Mars", an unrelated game also based on Space 1889, made by different people over two decades later[39].
The book source is the perfect example of a passing mention[40].

This could be an accident, but looking at another AfD they are active in, it seems to be a disturbing pattern. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kerberos Club, they keep insisting against the arguments of all others that "Flames Rising" is a professional site and thus a reliable source, even if the website describes itself as a fanzine, and the review used is written by "spikexan" aka "Anthony Todd Cash", described by Newimpartial as "one of the most respected RPG reviewers around". While this may be true, I can find no evidence of this in the 40 Google hits about him[41] or the fact that his book is self-published at lulu.com. His Spikexan alias doesn't fare any better[42].

TLDR: Newimpartial has provided almost nothing constructive to the above discussions, misinterprets policy, misrepresents what happened in discussions (e.g. about WP:BEFORE), personally attacks editors, misrepresents sources, and then bullies editors who expose his errors. Editors who try to influence discussions by deliberately and repeatedly making false claims should be warned, blocked, or topic banned from such discussions. Considering that a topic ban was already proposed in the previous ANI discussion[43], a warning is no longer warranted, and therefor I propose to Topic ban Newimpartial from all deletion discussions and admin noticeboards. We should strive to have civil and fair discussions, and editors who don't contribute within these rules should not be tolerated. Fram (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted every use of other users' signatures from your post. Please stop using them in a quotation; they belong at the end of a user's own comment only. I used {{tq}} but you are free to go back and convert it to some other acceptable convention for quoting other users on this noticeboard. AGK ■ 10:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand what a quote is, AGK? "they belong at the end of a user's own comment only. " is exactly where they were placed. Please explain to me how

"And now, another admin, with a documented history of deliberate antagonism, and who has launched a new mode of BATTLEGROUND, has decided to pile on while engaging in some premature ~~grave dancing~~ celebration. Has any admin at WP (besides BOZ) heard of not bullying, or are the tools poisoned somehow? Newimpartial (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)"[reply]

is unacceptable, but

And now, another admin, with a documented history of deliberate antagonism, and who has launched a new mode of BATTLEGROUND, has decided to pile on while engaging in some premature ~~grave dancing~~ celebration. Has any admin at WP (besides BOZ) heard of not bullying, or are the tools poisoned somehow?
— User:Newimpartial 22:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

is not? If you wanted me to use a layout which made it more glaring that these were quotes (instead of using quotation marks to indicate quotes, and using the actual layout used by the original poster), then you could have said so. But an "unacceptable use"? That seems like very strong language for this... Fram (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, were you just trying to sneak in another use of the signature, under the guise of an irrelevant comparative illustration, just to be difficult?

When you take another user's comment and restate it, you are quoting them - it is not a comment by that user. Stop duplicating signatures – is that clear? AGK ■ 11:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"When you take another user's comment and restate it, you are quoting them - it is not a comment by that user." Yes, that's why the final part of the quote, the sig + timestamp, are within the quote marks and not outside of it. It is very clear what you want me to do, but it is absolutely not clear why you are insisting on this, never mind being heavy-handed about it. Very perceptive of you though to note my "sneaking", I thought I had hidden it perfectly well. Fram (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The on-going commentary on signatures may also appear pretty irrelevant to some. Firstly, I count three uses of Newimpartial's sig (by Fram), which seems neither excessive nor particularly out of place as a timestamp for a quote. Secondly, if you are going to threaten someone (is that clear? absolutely qualifies as ad verecundiam), please cite the policy upon which you stand. Then everyone knows where they stand, and the thread is not derailed, which could otherwise be an unintended consequence. Cheers! ——SN 54129 12:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a basic convention on enwiki. Wikipedia:Signatures could not be clearer about why we sign posts in the first place: to [help] all users to understand the progress and evolution of a work. Your long post here is a "work" that should end with your signature. Encountering a four-tildes signature in the middle of your comment is jarring and not permitted. You, Fram, are the only user in recent memory who has this habit. Users of this noticeboard are entitled to expect comments, especially ones raising a new issue, to be presented clearly and correctly. AGK ■ 12:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you find it distracting, so instead of asking me to adopt a different method of presenting dated quotes, you come along all guns ablaze, acting as if I made some blockable offense? Right... Fram (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with AGK that inclusion of signatures makes it difficult to ascertain who is writing the comment and should generally be avoided when quoting, a simple {{tq}} suffices. But again, it is not a big deal, just distracting and annoying mostly. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newimpartial

Fram's first allegation is that my statement, "nobody bothered to tag it to the relevant categories" (referring to the Vampire: The Dark Ages Storytellers Screen AfD) is a false claim because it was in Category:AfD debates (Games or sports) and in Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Article alerts [44]. I have already acknowledged the WikiProject tagging - which is not for the AfD per se but which can generate AfD notifications, as Fram has pointed out. However, as far as I am aware, Category:AfD debates (Games or sports) is used for physical sports rather than tabletop games, and the correct (and highly active) deletion sorting category for games is the project deletion sorting page for Games, which was not tagged for the AfD in question. So I don't see how my claim that it "was not tagged to the relevant categories" was false.

Fram's second allegation is attacking through out of context quoting, but the example seems incomplete: I don't see how this diff removes any needed context or misinterprets the quotation it provides. I am, however, quite willing to be enlightened and corrected on this point.

On Fram's third point, User:BOZ can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought some of the undeletions under discussion were related to his practice of bringing material back so that it can be incorporated into userspace drafts; again, I apologise if this an error, but it does reflect my understanding at the time. Re: the Arbcom decision, I was making reference to the comment by BrownHairedGirl, The Arbs' support of a principle of strict interpretation of WP:INVOLVED may well be wise, but it does not reflect current community norms, and has been opposed in this case by many editors in good standing. As pledged, I will apply that strict interpretation in future, but I object strongly to its retrospective imposition on me personally, especially as a basis for sanctions. (found here). Perhaps "new" was not the right word, but I am not the only one to find the ruling novel or controversial in the present context.

And to Fram's "final" point, they manage to make novel interpretations of their own cited comments : this post about Space Gamer is not at all about use of it even when it was about a product from the same company as the source - which, as far as I know, has not happened, Fran said that A review ... in Space Gamer is not sufficient to establish notability at all ... Please don't create further articles on such things unless there are much better sources. Of course one review does not establish Notability, but per NBOOK two independent, RS reviews do, and so for publications from which Space Gamer is independent, it counts as one of the two, as RSN has previously established. Fram's admonishment, "Please don't create further articles in such things unless there are much better sources" was certainly experienced as bullying, whatever their intent. Interestingly, Fram drew no special attention to my description of their comment here as "failing basic reading comprehension" when they confused the article titles they were complaining to BOZ for allegedly duplicating. Is that characterization accepted, then?

As far as the recent AfD's are concerned, the other admin, who keeps a scorecard for his game AfD participation took notice of the BOZ discussion, gave partisan Barnstars to Fram and another editor for sending BOZ articles to AfD, and sent two moreto AfD himself, all in an hour or so. Dismissing these actions by User:Chetsford, Fram then opted to nitpick my participation in a couple of recent AfDs, begun by Chetsford. While I am happy to discuss this participation, it seemed more urgent to put the record straight on Fram's first four points regarding noticeboard participation, since they seem most germane to my participation here. I may have made a mistake or two, but I don't see any evidence in Fram's wall of text or any policy violations on my part. But as I say, I am prepared for correction. Newimpartial (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we definitely need you to comment on issues like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kerberos Club, which are more pressing than the issues you have chosen to address first. AGK ■ 12:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the Admin Noticeboard is the place to discuss the editorial practices of Flames Rising or the merits of Todd Cash as a reviewer. Do you have some other aspect of that AfD in mind? Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"this post about Space Gamer is not at all about use of it even when it was about a product from the same company as the source - which, as far as I know, has not happened" I quote from that post, with emphasis added: "A review (certainly a capsule review) in Space Gamer is not sufficient to establish notability at all (and in some cases wasn't even an independent source, reveiwing stuff from their own company)". The post wasn't that long, so how you missed it even now is not clear. "Interestingly, Fram drew no special attention to my description[...]" Like I said, my post was already TLDR and I tried to focus not on comments you made about me, but attacks on others and factual errors. That doesn't mean that I accept you making such personal attacks, no, and repeating it doesn't seem wise. I have no idea where you get the idea that "they confused the article titles they were complaining to BOZ for allegedly duplicating": the article Field Guide: Southern Vehicles 2 and Field Guide: Northern Vehicles 2 have a different title, a nearly identical image, and identical text. The need for two articles here, when even the lone source treats them together, is absoluetly not clear. This has nothing to do with my reading comprehension. Anyway, like AGK said, some other issues are rather more pressing, like your claims that Chetsford indulged in FakeNews when it appears that it was only you who did this. Fram (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If your complaint was that there should have been a single article for the two field guides because it was more policy compliant for these topics to be treated together rather than to develop as separate articles, then that may have been a failure of comprehension on my part, since I did not at all get that from not only is it rather unclear why these two identical articles are not created as one in the first place (as they clearly belong tgether), but even more why they would pass our notability guideline and would survive an AfD. Of course they DID survive at AfD (ones, by the way, in which I did NOT participate), so perhaps there was some text missing in your original comment.

Also, I am still not clear on the relevance of your "in some cases" comment about the Space Gamer, unless it is hypothetical, since to my knowledge nobody has tried to use a Space Gamer as evidence of WP:N in cases where it lacked independence as a source. But I am open to correction. Newimpartial (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All created by BOZ shortly before my note at their talk page (worse, in some case after my note there): The AADA Vehicle Guide, Armadillo Autoduel Arena, Boat Wars, The Car Wars Compendium, Car Wars Expansion Kit 10, Car Wars Expansion Set 6, Convoy (Car Wars), Double Arena, Hell on Wheels (supplement) (redirected by me, undone by BOZ), The Road (Task Force Games), Sunday Drivers, Truck Stop (Car Wars), Turbofire. I haven't checked whether these are notable or not, but they have all been created with, and still only have, a single primary source, and no secondary sources. But this is something for the BOZ section, not for this section. Fram (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as FAKENEWS is concerned, my comment was, in full, Surely some mistake, Chetsford. The Future Wars and Miniature Wargames references are full-length reviews in print sources. None of the three are identical. Care to retract? FAKENEWS does not become you. ( diff) That comment was a response to this, in which Chetsford erroneously claimed that he examined the three sources I mentioned here and they appear to be incidental mentions in a single sentence. In fact, the two sources with issue citations are full-length reviews, so I thought it important for him to correct his error, but instead Chetsford doubled down. Under these circumstances, I do not see how the term "Fake news" would not apply, but perhaps there are factors I have not considered. Newimpartial (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps there are factors I have not considered": I thought I was explicit enough, but once again: I could access two of the three sources (the third was a fanzine which had a full length review of the main game, not specifically this supplement), and the book was a pure mention (not even a single line mention, more like a three word mention), while the Miniature Wargames magazine[45] doesn't mention Cloudships & Gunboats at all, but instead reviews the unrelated "Cloudships of Mars", a different game created 25 years later by different people. So not only did you include at least one reference not even about this game, but when Chetsford challenged you on these references, you doubled down, claiming that he couldn't have seen them and so on: and even now, when I explained what was wrong, you still maintain that you were right and that you "do not see how the term "fake news" would not apply"? Could you, when multiple people maintain that you have made a factual error (and attacked others over it), at least check what these people say and actually look again whether you haven't made an error? Fram (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I made a factual error over the name of a game reviewed, that has no bearing on whether User:Chetsford was speaking appropriately in referring to two full reviews as mentions in a single sentence and then doubling down on that. You yourself have seen that what he claimed is not conceivably true. And I myself did not "double down" on anything except the falsity of Chetsford's claim. Chetsford did not, as you did, challenge whether the reference was to the correct name - I admit that that is a distinction I could have missed, but it is not part of the dispute with Chetsford because it does not affect the veracity of his statement, which I challenged. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about 'correct name' seems silly here. The key point is that as I understand it, that source has no review of the game you are talking about despite you repeatedly claiming it does. If something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. You cannot assume someone will work out why they cannot find a review of the game you are talking about in the source where you claimed they should find one. Even if someone only has a very quick look at that source, it's probably easy to see there is no review of the game. If someone has a more careful look they may notice there is a review of another game with a vaguely similar name and may wonder if that's why you said there was a review of the game when there wasn't. But it's not someone's responsibility to work out why you keep talking about something which didn't exist. To put it a different way, you're complaining because Chetsford, did not find the review you kept talking about since it didn't exist and so probably chose to assume that the game was mentioned somewhere and they just didn't find it. Or maybe simply forgot there was no mention. And given that, rather than simply saying they couldn't find any mention, they incorrectly said it had brief mention. I actually agree it would have been better if they'd simply said 'I can't find any mention of that game anywhere'. But it is dumb to make such a big deal over what they said. Especially when the problem arose from you making such a major mistake of making a big deal over something which doesn't exist. Nil Einne (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, you didn't have a single full review of the Gunboats supplement. You had one full review of the main 1889 game in a fanzine, a 3-word mention of the Gunboats in a book, and then a long RS review of a completely different game which contained one sentence about the 1889 game, which may have caused Chetsford's charitable conclusion that you were using that one sentence to support the article at AfD. However, on closer inspection even that sentence is not about the Gunboats article.

You were viciously attacking Chetsford over doubting your sources, which they, according to you, hadn't seen. But from your initial mistakes, and your replies here, it seems increasingly likely that you have not seen these sources either. If you had access to the Miniature Wargames source, there would be no reason at all to continue with "IF I made a factual error" and "A distinction I could have missed". You would just open your copy again, read the article, and state "you're right, I completely misread that article", not this evasive stuff. You still say "whether User:Chetsford was speaking appropriately in referring to two full reviews" when there was not a single full review, as you would see if you actually had access to these sources and reopened them, instead of doing a poor Google search but pretending that you had read these sources anyway. Fram (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Fram (and this is also a reply to Nil) - in my hurry to find reviews, I mistook a review of the new game for a review of the old game. But per Future Wars, what I see is a review of Cloudships and Gunboats itself, not Space 1889 as a whole. In any event, the result in the AfD was not me viciously attacking Chetsford over doubting your sources. What happened was that I called out Chetsford for saying they appear to be incidental mentions in a single sentence when that was only true of one of the three sources. When I am at AfD I engage with it, sometimes provide supporting documentation and sometimes concede mistakes and offer substitute examples or even make new suggestions (and I have already made a Merge and redirect proposal at Cloudships & Gunboats). What I don't do is say things that I have reasonable grounds to know are untrue, and then double down on them when challenged, which has been Chetsford's approach to RPG AfD for as long as I have known him. Newimpartial (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You misread the review, and then did it again when challenged by Chetsford, and again when challenged by me. Even now, you continue to claim that in the Future Wars fanzine, "what I see is a review of Cloudships and Gunboats itself, not Space 1889 as a whole." which is very weird for an article titled "Reviews: Space 1889"... You have not even gone back to the AfD and corrected your mistakes. Fram (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, do you not see the Cloudships & Gunships heading that follows next after Space: 1889 in that issue? I am somewhat at a loss here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found another source (forum[46]) mentioning that issue (which, like I said from the start, haven't seen, contrary to your other two sources), and it seems indeed to also have a review of Cloudships and Gunboats (my previous source was [47]). At least here you were telling the truth, still is a fanzine which does nothing to help notability, nor does it change your inclusion of one source not about the game at all, and one where it is mentioned in the briefest possible way: and still doesn't change anything about your treatment of Chetsford, nor of your equally false claims at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kerberos Club, which User:AGK above specifically asked you to address this and similar ones first. Fram (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, thank you for acknowledging your mistake about one of the Cloudships & Gunboats reviews, just as I have acknowledged my mistake about another. As far as The Kerberos Club is concerned - and I don't mean this as doubling down on my part - but I don't see where I have made any "false claims". My statement about the Routledge Companion reference was that, while not SIGCOV in itself being used as an example in an academic text is certainly an example of recognition that corroborates the notability established through significant mentions in RS. Certainly editors may disagree with my statement in terms of policy, but it isn't a "false claim" in the sense we were discussing re: Cloudships & Gunboats.

And as far as Flames rising is concerned, I haven't knowingly made any false clains there either - it has independent editorial oversight and employs writers with professional credentials, so the fact that it has "Fanzine" on its masthead does not per policy make it an unreliable source. Again, I understand that editors may reasonably disagree with this, but that doesn't make it a "false claim" or grounds for the topic ban you have proposed. Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem rather good in cherry-picking the things you answer. "The work is discussed in The Routledge Companion to Cyberpunk Culture" is what you said, but being discussed means that something is said about it, not that it is simply being mentioned. This is the exact same thing as you did in the other AfD, using an extremely minor mention in a book as if it was a discussion of the source. For "Flamesrising", you claimed that it is "a professional publication", with professional editors: the site itself makes no such claims, calls itself a fanzine, and makes it clear that the people behind it actually have daytime job. " the review was written by Anthony Todd Cash, one of the most respected RPG reviewers around, and edited by Matt McElroy," Like I said, the McElroy claim seems unsupported, and the Anthony Cash claim goes against all available evidence. Even here, you claim that flamesrising "employs" writers, which seems to be rather at odds with the site itself, which states "Payment: At this time, we do not offer monetary payment to authors for the ability to publish their work."[48]. So you have, despite multiple people pointing out the problems with using flamesrising as a RS, continued to make claims about it which have no relation to the verifiable reality of it. When mistakes are pointed out and you not only repeat them but add more and more of them to support your fiction, then yes, this is grounds for a topic ban, certainly when coupled with the many personal attacks inbetween. Fram (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me, when something is used as an example in a discussion then it is being discussed; so for example, when I referred to deletion nominations by TTN as an example of what was going on for BOZ right now - even though I don't think TTN is doing anything wrong - I courtesy-linked him in the exchange, per policy, as I was discussing his actions (as example). So your semantic point about "discussing" something and a thing "simply being mentioned", while relevant to SIGCOV certainly, doesn't really speak either to Chetsford's false claims (according to him, as of today, the book source you refer to in "the other AdD" does not exist at all), nor does it show any "false claims" on my part.

As far as Flames rising is concerned, I don't want to keep discussing the same issue in two different parts of the same AN discussion. However, I do want to point out that, based on the masthead information, both the editor and reviewer in question have professional publications in the fields, and the stable of reviewers includes Monica Valentinelli and Ken Hite. Whether or not they are paid for their reviews does not affect the source's editorial standing, of course. Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"took notice of the BOZ discussion" - I think the way Newimpartial has historically chosen to comport him/herself in AfD discussions about fantasy role-play does not offer a positive contribution to our discussion/consensus model and they don't have a rational sense of proportion as seen above when they characterize an AfD discussion as a "dispute" or previously when they equated comparing two fantasy games they thought were dissimilar as "akin to comparing abortion to the holocaust" [49] (among 100 other instances). However, there's nothing I can say here that would add meaningfully to what will certainly become another wall of text death spiral. I do, however, want to correct the preceding un-diffed allegation they made about me. Contrary to the assertion, I was unaware of the existence of the above discussion about BOZ until a few minutes ago when it was mentioned here. The reason I left a barnstar on Fram's talk page [50] was to thank him for nominating several Fancruft articles for deletion, an area in which I've also been active. This should be self-evident from a plain, non-conspiratorial reading of the text. I think it's ridiculous this needs to be said, however, Fram and I do not have a secret code to signal to each other through barnstars. (In fact, from checking the editor interaction analyzer, it appears Fram and I have never interacted with each other before now.) Chetsford (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking, as Fram has earlier, about attacking through out of context quoting, it seems relevant to offer the context of the abortion/holocaust quote, which was as follows: Comparing Hillfolk to concrete in an AfD discussion is pretty much akin to comparing abortion to the holocaust in a feminism discussion: the intent is clearly not to encourage civil discussion of the issues (emphasis added; diff here). As can be seen, this is not about "a comparison of two games I thought were dissimilar", but I will AGF that Chetsford's attention or memory had wandered when he made that incorrect assertion. Also, I doubt that there is any desire to discuss Chetsford's retributive AfD nomination of Hillfolk, but it remains true that his attempts to equate an award-winning cultural work to a construction material were clearly not intended to encourage civil discussion, which as an Admin he is now expected to do more consistently than he has in the past.

Also, how he could have remained unaware of the BOZ issue until "a few minutes ago" when I gave him a courtesy notice yesterday, seems hard to understand. Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing out of context about it, demonstrable by the fact that you had to issue an apology [51] for making the statement when other editors questioned your sense of rationality and proportionality, an apology you now seem to be retracting. You've previously also refactored your standard !vote rationale in AfD "improper nom by clueless editor" (e.g. here [52], here [53], [54], here [55], [56], etc.) after you were cautioned it was the pinnacle of disruption. Do you intend to retract those refactors, also? Insofar as pinging me, I generally disregard pings inviting me to come to ANI, until they become so utterly exhausting they're impossible to ignore, a threshold you've once again successfully surmounted. Chetsford (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not retracted any apologies or undone any refactoring of those 2018 discussions, nor have I had any recent experiences of having to refactor myself for reasons of CIVILity. As I said in the apology diff you cited above, I was trying to come up with an example of deliberate button-pushing that everyone here would understand, because that exemplifies what Chetsford has been doing this week and what, really, I think is one of the key challenges right now in WP discourse - not about games, but about deliberate button-pushing while remaining civil in order to GAME the system and produce drama, in some combination. I have become more temperate since 2018, I think, but I am unsure that your resistance to the temptation to push buttons has improved; viz. the barnstars and the frequent "lapses of attention at AfD, such as mistaking a publication for a company here. Also, we are not at ANI lol. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"viz. the barnstars" If you find that a barnstar left for Fram [57] on Fram's Talk page "push[es your] buttons" then, might I suggest, you — oh, I don't know — just don't read Fram's Talk page? Your suggestion that the community needs to walk around on eggshells since you could be set off at any moment for any reason is not a reasonable request for accommodation. Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any evidence that something on WP has "set me off" since 2018, I have not seen that evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have to say you should never assume someone is aware of something just because you pinged them. There is a reason why most notification requirements, including the AN ones, still require talk page notification. Second, I'm getting very confused now. What is this button pushing you're referring to. If it wasn't the barn star, what is it? Nil Einne (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Re: notifications, I totally take your point. And I don't want to bore everyone with button pushing diffs, but the launch of the Wild Talents AfD pretending it is a company rather than a publication (linked above) seems like a riff on Chetsford's precious riffs in 2018, where he referred to game publishers as toy manufacturers and books as board games (as a series of "mistakes", not by analogy), and compared the top creative awards in pencil and paper RPG publishing to cement manufacturers' industry awards. Most recently, he has argued (and seemingly convinced a less experienced editor) that a long form, four volume, narrative history of the RPG form (which was found to be a RS when Chetsford took it to the RSN in 2018) is actually an industry directory. That is what I mean by button pushing. Diffs available on request, but I'm not sure that is the topic here. Newimpartial (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the Wild Talents AfD and don't see anything that bad. I don't think the AfD opening text was as clear as it should have been, but 'pretending' seems a bit far. Do you have any evidence anyone was likely to incorrectly believe it was a company? Do you have any evidence it was done deliberately with that intention? If anything, their wording was more harmful to their support for deletion than beneficial. As for the dispute over that source, there seems to be a reasonable dispute over whether or not that source counts as one part of WP:SIGCOV. It's a complicated issue, and not one that can or should be solved at AN. I see zero evidence the dispute was a deliberate attempt to 'push your buttons' instead of a reasonable dispute between editors surrounding somewhat complicated areas of policy. If you are going to work here, you're going to need to accept that people may disagree with you interpretation of policy for reasons they will explain, without doing it to 'push your buttons'. If you can't do that, I have to say you should voluntarily stay away from any area where you can't before you get topic banned. Just as a quick addition, I would add that if you're so sure your interpretation is clearly correct, I don't see any reason to worry anyway. Chetsford's arguments would rightfully be disregarded. You don't even really need to say much. It's only if there is a chance that you might not be right that you have cause for concern, but that means it's even clearer that Chetsford is fully entitled to express their views of policy interpretation without being accused of only doing it to 'push your buttons'. (That said, a closer may also chose to say 'well there's only one source so it doesn't matter who is right'.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"he referred to game publishers as toy manufacturers and books as board games (as a series of "mistakes", not by analogy)" Correct, that's almost exactly what I said. And those weren't "mistakes" so I don't know whom you're quoting when you say "mistakes". Precisely, in an AfD discussion I said that - for purposes of WP:NBOOK - a book of rules for a fantasy role-play game was an instruction booklet for a game, not unlike the instruction booklet for Monopoly, and NBOOK doesn't apply. I stand by that. If you find that me comparing a fantasy game to a finance game "pushes [your] buttons" to the point that you lose all self-control then I'd suggest this may be a topic in which you're too emotionally invested to effectively or safely contribute. There's a case to be made for reasonable accommodation to emotional triggers, but those you're identifying as yours seem to be of such innocuous characteristics it's almost impossible for us to predict or avoid. Wikipedia is not worth anyone risking their health or well-being over. Chetsford (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two points in response to Chetsford (which I hope will also address your concern, Nil): first, I said that I am unsure that your resistance to the temptation to push buttons has improved, and I have given evidence for that. What has changed, is that I no longer react intemperately when you try to push my buttons - it doesn't work any more. It doesn't make your deliberate mis-statements any less offensive to me, but my filters are now well in place so my reactions, if any, are measured. I wasn't even the one that involved you in this AN section; Fram brought up my interactions with you as an item in his condemnation. Now granted, this followed my brief invocation of you in the BOZ AN, but that was one example within a complex "kick them while they're down" situation involving three editors, and was not about your interactions with me specifically.

The thing about your "mistakes", Chetsford, is that you are presenting them now as though they were arguments you were making in response to other arguments, analogies of sorts. A few of them were, like the infamous "cement award" comparison. But most of them aren't: AFAICT you just baldly mis-state one thing for another - often in your AfD nomination itself - because (a) you feel they are equivalent though you must know they literally aren't the same, and (b) you think it will help your argument if people are thinking about the second thing you mention. So literary games become "puzzle toys", three hundred page works of imaginative sub-creation become "instruction booklets", narrative histories become directories become "directories" and so on. And you don't mind if someone takes your analogy too literally and accepts your judgement at face value, because in your heart of hearts, that's what you want - for your POV to rule the day. Honestly, the strategy strikes me as Trumpian, which is why I posed the "False news" question, but the difference with your analogies is that my assertion was literally as well as metaphorically true (as supported by diffs above). Newimpartial (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban Newimpartial from all deletion discussions and admin noticeboards

Okay, that's more than enough. These issues aren't new: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive990#Propose topic ban Newimpartial. In the above section, meant to discuss Newimperials personal attacks, misinterpretations of policy, and false statements at AfD, they have simply continued making the same kind of edits. Their rather severe attack on Chetsford was just "an example", but they have not explained how a completely failed attempt initiated by Newimpartial to cause trouble for Chetsford[58] is evidence of a "documented history of deliberate antagonism", nor how a simple AfD log last edited 6 months ago can be equated to " has launched a new mode of BATTLEGROUND". Instead, they continue to attack Chetsford, with statements like "Honestly, the strategy strikes me as Trumpian, which is why I posed the "False news" question, but the difference with your analogies is that my assertion was literally as well as metaphorically true (as supported by diffs above)."

Contrary to this claim, the above section showed clearly that the only one introducing "fake news" into the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudships & Gunboats) was Newimpartial, who used sources which were not even about the game in question, but continued to maintain that they had read them and that they were full length reviews. An editor who deliberately makes false claims at AfD, attacking editors who have actually checked the claims, and who continues to state that they were right in the fae of all actual evidence, can not be trusted in discussions (whether they can be trusted to edit otherwise is not clear, I haven't checked their regular editing). Fram (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Newimpartial Fram, you have made a false (and most UNCIVIL) accusarion against me, referring to me as: an editor who deliberately makes false claims at AfD, attacking editors who have actually checked the claims, and who continues to state that they were right in the fae of all actual evidence. To address these points in turn:

. I never "deliberately made a false claim at AfD"; I made a mistake about which game a reviewer was reviewing, as I have admitted more than once.

. I have not "attacked editors who have actually checked the claim" - the editor Fram believes I attacked, Chetsford, did not AFAICT check the claim as he also did not notice that the review I cited was about a different game. I also have not "attacked" Fram, who did find my error; rather I have acknowledged my mistake.

. Also, there is no reasonable interpretation that I "attacked" Chetsford. The most aggressive point of my comment at AfD was, None of the three are identical. Care to retract? FAKENEWS does not become you, which in the first part an accurate, factual statement and in the last part certainly not a Personal Attack per policy.

. I do not "continue to state that I am right in the face of all evidence"; rather, I have clearly acknowledged my mistake.

Whether "deliberately making false claims at AfD" and "continuing to state they are right in the face of all evidence" might characterize the behaviours of other editors at AfD I leave as an open question but that certainly is not me, unless there are diffs I don't recall making :p. Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False claims at AfD:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kerberos Club:The work is discussed in The Routledge Companion to Cyberpunk Culture, and a casual search reveals multiple RS reviews.. It is mentioned in a footnote in that book[59], and a thorough search reveals no further RS. Flamesrising is a professional publication that has editorial oversight over professional reviewers like Ken Hite; it is not a "Fan site" in the sense of WP:SPS. It is a pure fansite, a good one, but not a professional one. The site itself reveals that the review was written by Anthony Todd Cash, one of the most respected RPG reviewers around, and edited by Matt McElroy, both of whom have professional publications in the field. It is therefore a RS: Like I said above, there is no evidence at all that Cash is "one of the most respected RPG reviewers around", he seems to be barely known as such, and definitely isn't a professional. I can also find no evidence for your claim that it was "edited by Matt McElroy", he isn't mentioned here. At the other AfD, we have this miniatures game was also reviewed in independent source Future Wars (Issue 19) and in Miniature Wargames (Issue 409), and also discussed in Storytelling in the Modern Board Game: Narrative Trends from the late 1960s to today. Need I go on? GNG clearly met. (one non-RS, one source that doesn't mention the game, and one three-word mention, not a "discussion" of it at all). When challenged by someone claiming that they have looked at the sources, you don't check again, but simply repeat The Future Wars and Miniature Wargames references are full-length reviews in print sources.

Attacks at those AfDs: I hope you are not engaged in trolling, Chetsford, Perhaps you jest?, An easily-made rookie mistake (abaout Chetsford's correct claim that ""flamesrising.com" is a fanzine), Chetsford, now that you have the tools, you should feel some responsibility to reflect WP policy rather than your own ideosynctatic convictions., Perhaps your allergy to Monica Valentinelli got the better of you. (all from the Kerberos AfD), Care to retract? FAKENEWS does not become you., You might want to confine yourself to sources you can actually see..

Attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild Talents (role-playing game): Perhaps this admin was given his tools too soon.

Attacks in these two sections: And now, another admin, with a documented history of deliberate antagonism, and who has launched a new mode of BATTLEGROUND, has decided to pile on while engaging in some premature grave dancing celebration. (as mentioned above) Interestingly, Fram drew no special attention to my description of their comment here as "failing basic reading comprehension" when they confused the article titles they were complaining to BOZ for allegedly duplicating. Is that characterization accepted, then?, manage to make novel interpretations of their own cited comments, I am unsure that your resistance to the temptation to push buttons has improved, It doesn't make your deliberate mis-statements any less offensive to me, in your heart of hearts, that's what you want - for your POV to rule the day. Honestly, the strategy strikes me as Trumpian

Problematic claims in these sections:

when called out on their selective quoting[60], they claim I don't see how this diff removes any needed context or misinterprets the quotation it provides: they changed a sentence about "keep or merge per..." to "merge per", even though my statement said " still doesn't address the AfD nominations or gives any actual reasons to keep the articles at all". If the complaint is that no arguments for keeping is provided, and you leave the "keep" out of the quote, only keeping the "merge", then you are selectively quoting: if you then use that quote to make personal attacks (says a good deal more about Fram's competence and good will on this topic than that of BOZ), and don't recognise this when it is brought to your attention, then you either lack the necessary skills to have a meaningful discussion at these noticeboards (hance: topic ban), or you are deliberately trolling (in which case, topic ban and block).

In fact, the two sources with issue citations are full-length reviews, so I thought it important for him to correct his error, but instead Chetsford doubled down. Under these circumstances, I do not see how the term "Fake news" would not apply, but perhaps there are factors I have not considered. Long after it had been brought to his attention that there were no two full length reviews but at most one (unreliable) one, continuing to peddle this

Fram brought up my interactions with you as an item in his condemnation: well, you brought up your interactions with Chetsford, I only reacted to your unfounded, over-the-top attack.

Failure to retract statements: the AfD for the gunboats still contains Newimpartials false claims, something like this post about Space Gamer is not at all about "use of it even when it was about a product from the same company as the source" - which, as far as I know, has not happened remains, just like nearly every point in these discussions

And there are some frankly crappy AfD contributions (and results) in the links you just gave, with lots of "Delete per nom" and no evidence of BEFORE. It was quite easy to see that WP:BEFORE compliant searches were done, but even after this was shown to you, and the relevant portions of BEFORE explained, you still didn't see fit to acknowledge this. Similar, they ask for an explanation of WP:INVOLVED, but stick to their non-policy reading of it anyway, and act all surprised when it turns out that another admin has been desysopped recently in part for just such violations, claiming that this was a novel reading of the policy.

Basically, your claim that there is no reasonable interpretation that I "attacked" Chetsford. alone, compared to the many attacks you launched, is enough to make your approach clear. Fram (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this newer list, I expect that most readers (sic.) will be relieved to hear that I will not address each point individually, unless asked. However, I will respond to the first point as it seems to be Fram's key - and repeated - assertion, that I make "false claims at AfD.

. About the Routledge Companion, the fact that the mention is in a footnote discussion of GDW's Space: 1889 does not change what I said at the AfD, that being used as an example in an academic text is certainly an example of recognition that corroborates the notability established through significant mentions in RS. I don't see a false claim.

. About Flames rising, the editorial staff of the site is documented here. I haven't checked out all of the staff, but the Owner/Editor, the Project Manager (whose WP bio Chetsford previously sent to AfD), and the Reviewer in question all have professional publications in the field. I understand that other arguments can be made and AN isn't the place to argue about article sourcing, but I don't see a "false claim" here either, just a claim with which Fram and Chetsford disagree.

. Concerning Cloudships & Gunships, I erroneously cited a review in Miniatures Wargaming that was for another game, and have acknowledged my mistake. I cited a review in Future Wars that Chetsford claims not to exist and that Fram acknowledged but does not see as reliable. I also cited a mention in Storytelling in the Modern Board Game and my point there is, as with the mention of Kerberos in theRoutledge Guide, that being cited as an example in a scholarly work can contribute to Notability even if it is not SIGCOV or useful for documenting facts about the subject. Again, one can disagree but I don't see a "false claim" there either just a mistake on my part and a couple of items of disagreement (where the disagreement on Chetsford's part is whether the mention exists, while Fram disagrees about its relevance).

I could discuss the alleged CIVIL violations if any Admin wants me to, but I don't see anything in Fram's examples that is more defamatory than the comments he has made about me right here at AN, and continues to make. Newimpartial (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That someone involved with a fanzine may also have had a few paid articles in other magazines is quite far removed from your claim that this is a professional publication, with professional editors, and that Anthony Cash is "one of the most respected RPG reviewers around". These are not simple disagreements, these are elements which show your total misunderstanding of policies and guidelines. So far, you have given and repeated severe misinterpretations of WP:BEFORE, WP:INVOLVED, WP:RS and WP:CIVIL. Feel free to start a section about my violations of WP:CIVIL, but the misdoings of another editor don't justify yours, so whether I have been uncivil or not is hardly an excuse for your comments about Chetsford in these various places. Fram (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The key paragraph from WP:RS is as follows: Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. On Flames rising we have a reliable publication process producing reviews that are widely cited by third parties. We have authors who are widely regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, as I have documented previously. This isn't a "misinterpretation of WP:RS", it is what the policy actually says. The fact that WP:BEFORE is supposed to include, inter alia, discussion with contributors and potential contributorsto the article and consideration of a possible MERGE: if an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag ... If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. I don't see where you or Chetsford have carried out either of these steps with any consistency, but anyway, I do think I understand BEFORE well enough.

As far as CIVIL and INVOLVED are concerned, I don't pretend to be an expert in either, except that I don't think Admin are supposed to !vote in disputes where they are INVOLVED. But, again, I don't pretend to be an expert. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<posted prior to Fram's response of 15:28 - 31 January>To elaborate slightly, Fram says Contrary to this claim, the above section showed clearly that the only one introducing "fake news" into the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudships & Gunboats) was Newimpartial. No, Chetsford introduced information he should have known to be ungrounded when he referred to two reviews as incidental mentions in a single sentence and then repeating the claim when challenged. In fact, seemingly he can't help himself, since in response to this AN thread, Chetford today made and then elaborated the claim, which he should know is untrue, that there are no references to the game in the three sources I cited even though Storytelling in the Modern Board Game: Narrative Trends from the late 1960s to today affords a mention (if only a brief one, as Fram has also noted, and the other offers a review - as Fram also now accepts - whether or not the review is RS. I do not know for sure why Chetsford does this, though I have described the process I believe to be at work. In any event, it is clearly Chetsford who seems to, in Fram's words, "deliberately make false claims at AfD" (or at least, claims they should reasonably know not to be true) and "continue to state they are right in the face of all evidence", which I referred to with the rather mild comment, FAKENEWS does not become you, which I have also subsequently explained at greater length.

As far as Fram's out of context quoting of me in the opening this section, I don't see how it could be construed as me "attacking" Chetsford - rather, it responds to issues raised by Chetsford and Nils about my previous comments concerning "button pushing". And I thought it was clear that in pointing to the previous ANI I opened against Chetsford in 2018, I was pointing readers to the body of evidence about my concern that Chetsford has been antagonistic towards me (as well as his defenses and countercharges) so that those interested would have the opportunity to see the context for our current interaction, without my dredging up and documenting those old issues again (though Chetsford's drive-by comments here and here have obliged me to explain some of it anyway). Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fram's out of context quoting of me in the opening this section Care to elaborate? How did my quote gave a false impression, which the context would have made clearer?
I thought it was clear that in pointing to the previous ANI I opened against Chetsford in 2018, I was pointing readers to the body of evidence about my concern that Chetsford has been antagonistic towards me (as well as his defenses and countercharges) so that those interested would have the opportunity to see the context for our current interaction (emphasis mine) In a discussion of BOZ, you bring up another editor who has nominated two articles by BOZ, and given some barnstars to others doing the same. Fine, but why, when everything else is about BOZ, would you need to bring up "the body of evidence about my concern that Chetsford has been antagonistic towards me"? Evidence that Chetsford had been antagonistic towards BOZ, now that might perhaps have been relevant. But what you did is simply a personal attack, and even then not actully evidence of Chetsford being antagonistic towards you, but you being antagonistic towards Chetsford, since you opened the section about them, not the other way around. Basically, you are making up false excuses for your personal attacks. When in a hole, stop digging. Fram (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I still have not communicated clearly. In the BOZ discussion, I was pointing to the 2018 ANI because, in that ANI, I presented a body of evidence of Chetsford being antagonistic (and disruptive) - generally but not exclusively towards me - such as making statements that are not literally true (and which he now acknowledges as deliberate but which I have been calling 'mistakes' here, per CIVIL). The ANI also included mentions of the BATTLEGROUND attitude he maintains by scorekeeping his gaming AfDs and the groundless and retaliatory AfDs he has launched against clearly notable subjects, such as the one against Monica Valentinelli and the one against Hillfolk - the latter being his intemperate response when I mentioned a narrative theory framework introduced in that book in another AfD. These actions seemed to me to be relevant context for his recent awarding of barnstars and his resumption of RPG AfD nominations that had him placing notices on BOZ's and my talk pages (which is why it caught my notice). I thought it more parsimonious to point to the 2018 ANI I launched than to rehash the evidence I presented there, since all I wanted to do in the BOZ heading was to give context to Chetsford's current "piling on" behaviour. I don't see how any of this is a "personal attack", and at the time I made the mention my only concern was to note what was happening to BOZ. The sole reason I have had to discuss Chetsford's behaviour further is because you made it an issue in this filing. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the out of context quote was "Honestly, the strategy strikes me as Trumpian, which is why I posed the "False news" question, but the difference with your analogies is that my assertion was literally as well as metaphorically true (as supported by diffs above)." The contact for it was this:

AFAICT you just baldly mis-state one thing for another - often in your AfD nomination itself - because (a) you feel they are equivalent though you must know they literally aren't the same, and (b) you think it will help your argument if people are thinking about the second thing you mention. So literary games become "puzzle toys", three hundred page works of imaginative sub-creation become "instruction booklets", narrative histories become directories become "directories" and so on. And you don't mind if someone takes your analogy too literally and accepts your judgement at face value, because in your heart of hearts, that's what you want - for your POV to rule the day. Honestly, the strategy strikes me as Trumpian, which is why I posed the "False news" question, but the difference with your analogies is that my assertion was literally as well as metaphorically true (as supported by diffs above).

My comment, "the strategy strikes me as Trumpian" was based on points (a) and (b), so by removing my supporting evidence you made it seem like an attack, rather than an evidence-based comparison. Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with reluctance, AfD ban only but time-limited to not more than 12 months. Oppose noticeboard ban. I abstained from the last of these consultations, but feel the situation has not improved in any meaningful way. We've previously established, by precedent, that !voting out of consensus at a high enough threshold at AfD can be disruptive (that threshold should be high to protect minority viewpoints, but by any measure Newimpartial has met it as they are currently out of consensus nearly a third of the time at AfD, a number that would be even higher if not for the No Consensus closes that are being forced by their !votes). The rationale at that time was that there are so few !voters generally that even one !voter who is chronically and wildly out of consensus can cause the entire system to grind to a halt. Additionally, in the preceding sub-thread, Newimpartial signals this is an area of intense stress for him as he notes that some AfD arguments "pushes [his] buttons" and that's the genesis of his unusual interlocutions. But the arguments he cites as triggers for him are fairly typical of the kind one will find at AfD, and will continue to find. A TBAN in this case, therefore, is as much of an editor welfare measure as it is about protecting the project. Chetsford (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, I don't know whether you read my reply here, but you are no longer successful in "pushing my buttons" so the major premise of your (INVOLVED) !vote no longer applies (though I observe even today that you are still being deliberately provicative).

Also, I have participated in very few AfD's in the last 12 months, mostly because when I see a deletion posted and agree with the deletion I don't enter the discussion, as I don't have anything valuable to contribute. I only enter these discussions for borderline or remarkable cases, and there weren't many of those in 2019, so I don't see any evidence that I am somehow "disrupting" AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that explanation. However, the fact you find those diffs "provocative" actually reinforces my opinion that you do not have a good sense of proportion and are likely to continue to assume that even the most routine arguments in an AfD are part of a larger design or plan of which you are the target. Therefore, for reasons previously stated, I'm going to maintain Support at this time. Chetsford (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As previously noted, in those two diffs at AfD you are doubling down on a statement you know or ought to know is false. Could you suggest a more apt term for that than "provocative"? Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been told endlessly by myself and others, diffs to your own posts declaring something to be "true" or "false" does not make that thing "true" or "false". Nor does your assertion that certain subject matter "pushes [your] buttons" remove that subject matter as a permitted topic for discussion on WP. It is the job of individual editors to conform to the community, not the job of the community to conform to the idiosyncrasies of individual editors. This discussion has evolved beyond the bizarre and there's obviously nothing more I can do to assuage your concerns, so I'm going to leave it there. I wish you the very best. Chetsford (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As previously noted, in spite of your best efforts, you are no longer able to push my buttons, so I don't know what the content of that message is supposed to be. Your contribution clearly has "evolved beyond the bizarre", since what we are supposed to be discussing is your INVOLVED !vote on a topic ban and, instead, you are opining on what "true and false" mean and the importance of "conforming to the community". One part of WP:CIVIL, to which we should all conform, is that editors not make unsupported allegations about other editors, and that we focus on content rather than personalities. Perhaps that is where you could start. Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose retaliatory BS. Fram's attempted bullying of BOZ got dismantled and now he's trying to attack the person who dismantled it. oknazevad (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog at WP:RFPP

Resolved

– taken care of by User:Oshwah. Thanks!

I counted 15 unanswered requests at WP:RFPP. An advance thank you to whoever decides to help out with it. Clovermoss (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Airline spam ring encountered between IPs and a user

Hello, while scouting airline articles to improve, I have encountered several IPs recently that have been making similar edits to a bunch of airlines. They are inserting spam and phone numbers to the airline. Tracing the IP, it seems that all of them are in Asia/India. Most are registered to Airtel Broadband. I think this may be a spam ring. Here are the IPs and one user I found AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kerrywilliams123 (talk · contribs),
2401:4900:2E92:7:842E:D206:EB93:C8B6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
2401:4900:40F9:5E84:59BF:1DB3:DCFC:74FF (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
122.177.57.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 122.177.25.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
122.177.84.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
2405:204:111B:2C6:6DBD:AE7B:D64A:16EB (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
27.6.199.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
2405:204:3409:1B96:0:0:DD1:E0A5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
2405:204:308c:9f74:e6dd:9dd9:45bb:c667 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
2405:204:3085:6d9b:b59f:551c:5f0f:3fd3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
103.46.201.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
47.30.163.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
103.46.200.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

See also #Reservation Number Spamming above. Might be worth combining the reports. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Bennett

Kaitlin Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A sophomoric meme is being added to this article very frequently. It's currently at PC, should we apply ECP do you think? Guy (help!) 09:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I applied semiprotection for 1 month, after which it will revert to PC. As far as I can tell the recent abuse has not been coming from confirmed accounts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change redirect

Please change the redirects in this articles: Göncz Árpád városközpont and Göncz Árpád városközpont metro station. These were duplicates. The second one is the ordinary name, but the first has the page history. Thanks. Kemenymate (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, looks like appending "metro station" is indeed consistent with the other Budapest metro articles. For future things like this, using the {{db-move}} template might be the quickest way to get an admin to move it over the redirect! Thanks ~ mazca ^talk 16:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll use that template! Kemenymate (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of Arbitration Enforcement Sanction

On January 6, 2020 user:Johnuniq placed me under a [61] that prevents me from filing "frivolous" reports at administrative notice boards. The full text of that sanction is If Rusf10 initiates an administrative report against another user in the topic area and that report is dismissed with a result of "no action" or "no violation", or otherwise deemed frivolous, a 1-month topic ban from the topic area may be imposed at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. This applies to reports filed at WP:AN, WP:AN/I, WP:AN/EW, and WP:AE. and resulted from the the discussion [62] after I filed a report against user:BullRangifer for attacking my competence.

I am filing this appeal for several reasons: 1. Several administrators claimed that the reports I made against BullRangifer were "vexatious" and "frivolous", but this cannot be further from the truth. In fact, don't take my word for it, in all instances that I filed an AE request against BullRangifer (including this one), the administrators found his behavior to be inappropriate and issued him warnings.

July 20, 2018 BullRangifer is warned that if they persist in making personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as a battleground, they may be topic-banned from the American politics topic area or made subject to other sanctions
March 13, 2019 The comment was clearly inappropriate, especially given the previous warning. BullRangifer has struck the comment and apologised and so I am closing this with no action, but this is thin ice being skated.
April 24, 2019 Awilley has applied some specific sanctions to both editors involved. Additionally, everyone involved (and specifically Rusf10 and BullRangifer) is reminded that wikipedia is not a battleground, nor a forum for discussing politics, but a place where we summarise the world's knowledge as we find it in reliable sources.
January 6, 2020 BullRangifer is warned that he must not speculate about the competence of other users in discussions regarding a topic under discretionary sanctions.

How is it that every single time I bring a complaint about BullRangier, he is issued a warning, but I am told the complaint was frivolous? How is it possible for a frivolous complaint to result in a warning? After four warnings, you would think some type of actual sanction would be imposed on BullRangifer, but this is not the case. Instead, the admins at AE have sanctioned me and given him multiple meaningless warnings that have done nothing to correct his behavior.

2. The sanction I was given is both unprecedented and purely punitive. To my knowledge, the arbitration committee itself has never imposed such a sanction on any other editor designed to silence him on noticeboards. The sanction imposed on me does absolutely nothing except open me to further personal attacks in AP2 because I cannot bring any complaints for fear they will be deemed "frivolous" regardless of whether they really are or not.

3. The sanction is overly vague. It states I will be topic banned if the "report is dismissed with a result of "no action" or "no violation", or otherwise deemed frivolous". With this language, even if a sanction is imposed on the editor I reported, the admins can still deem the report to be frivolous and put me under a topic ban. I have no way of knowing what is considered a "frivolous" report and am in effect banned from filing any reports for fear of administrative retribution.

In conclusion, I believe the admins have imposed a double standard here excusing BullRangifer's behavior despite recognizing it was inappropriate and sanctioning me for reporting it. It is inexplicable to aknowledge that the sbustance of my complaint has merit and at the same time tell me that it is "frivolous" and "vexatious". --Rusf10 (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth closed

An arbitration case regarding RHaworth has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For failure to meet the standards expected of an administrator, including repeated misuse of the deletion tool, RHaworth's administrative user rights are removed. RHaworth may regain administrative user rights at any time via a successful request for adminship.
Administrators are reminded that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 05:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth closed

@@ Line 1,526: / Line 1,526: @@
 In conclusion, I believe the admins have imposed a double standard here excusing BullRangifer's behavior despite recognizing it was inappropriate and sanctioning me for reporting it. It is inexplicable to aknowledge that the sbustance of my complaint has merit and at the same time tell me that it is "frivolous" and "vexatious". --[[User:Rusf10|Rusf10]] ([[User talk:Rusf10|talk]]) 03:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
+== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth]] closed ==
+An arbitration case regarding [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
+*For failure to meet the standards expected of an administrator, including repeated misuse of the deletion tool, RHaworth's administrative user rights are removed. RHaworth may regain administrative user rights at any time via a successful request for adminship.
+*Administrators are reminded that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
+For the Arbitration Committee, <span style= "font-weight: bold;">[[User:CodeLyoko|<span style="color:#800000">CodeLyoko</span>]]</span><sup>[[User talk:CodeLyoko|talk]]</sup>  05:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
+: Discuss this at: '''[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth closed]]'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 05:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards