Open main menu


Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

  Administrator changes

  AnetodeLaser brainWorm That Turned

  Bureaucrat changes

  Worm That Turned

  Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

  Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Quick request

This probably should have been done before, but since this edit summary appears to meet the criteria for REVDEL as a personal attack, would you mind deleting it? Bneu2013 (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I missed this one (I was away over the Christmas holidays). I’ve had a look, it’s not polite but I don’t think it rises to the level of being ‘grossly offensive’ to warrant being redacted and simply ignoring it is sufficient in the circumstances. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi Malcolmn,

Just wondering. Why is this page deleted?

07:26, 20 December 2017 Malcolmxl5 (talk | contribs) deleted page Emily Lam Ho (R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace (TW))


Thanks for helping.

Mkou88 (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mkou88.
The page had earlier been moved out of article space into user space and all that was left was a redirect that I deleted as we don’t retain redirects that cross over from article space to user space.
The page itself had been moved to User:Cashannam/ Emily Lam Ho, then to User:Cashannam/Emily Lam Ho and then to Draft:Emily Lam Ho, where it was deleted by Primefac as it had been created by a banned or blocked user in violation of their ban or block and also as uncontroversial maintenance, citing the community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Lam to delete the article and that the creator was a sockpuppet.
--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


I'm probably going WP:BEANS here, but you could also protect Suvo deep Chatterjee, and similar capitalization variants? Home Lander (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Home Lander. I’ve protected Suvo deep Chatterjee and also Suvo Deep Chatterjee and Suvo Deep chatterjee. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  Thank you Home Lander (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Hey Malcolm - I was just looking at the block log for 2600:8800:FF0E:1200:0:0:0:0/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) - currently blocked for trolling current events portals - and noticed a previous block from you for block evasion. Is this range connected to a registered master, or have they just used varying IPs to get around previous blocks? Home Lander (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Home Lander, I don’t recall that block but looking back, a block was certainly justified! I expect they were evading a block by IP hopping and I dealt with it, as I usually do, by blocking the /64 subnet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, that's what I figured. They've continued to IP-hop since then, and it led to an ANI discussion and another rangeblock. Thankfully this range seems quite exclusive to this one editor. Home Lander (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

JC Gonzalez

Hi Malcolmxl5. You an article titled JC Gonzalez deleted this back in Janaury 2016 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JC Gonzalez. As you can see, it (or something with the same name) has just been recreated. Is this the same article you deleted per tha AfD and should it be tagged for speedy per WP:G4 if it is?. FWIW, it looks like the creator AshnaAgg is a new SPA whose only edits have been related to working on this in their user sandbox before directly moving it to the mainspace. It could be a good-faith recreation or the someone with a COI or even being paid to edit. The article didn't go through AfC and looks like it was just copied-and-pasted into the mainspace, so it's not clear whether it's a completely original new improved version over what was AfD'd, or a copyvio problem per WP:PATT. I cannot tell since I don't have the tools to see what was deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, it is similar but not identical. In particular, it has 22 citations whereas the page that went to AfD had only four. Given that, I would suggest assessing it for notability (do the citations show significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject?) and sending it back to AfD if appropriate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. There are other editors besides the creator now working on it, so maybe whatever issues it had at the time it was deleted have now been resolved. I just was curious as to whether G4 applied, but that doesn't seem to be the case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi again Malcolmxl5. Just thought you should know about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Texancool/Archive#18 January 2018. I was not aware that the article had been being re-created by a sock when I posted above and have no connection to the SPI. For what it's worth, it did seem, however, that others beside the sock had started working on it and were trying to improve it. I'm not sure if that would've been enough to survive an AfD, but the sources were probably a bit better this time around, at least good enough for the article to not be tagged for speedy deletion. There was still quite a lot of promotional stuff in the article for sure, but it might have survived as a stub containing only the content which could be reliably sourced. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the SPI, Marchjuly. I guess that’s the end of that. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi again Malcolmxl5. You might want to take a look at WP:DRV#JC Gonzalez. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Marchjuly. I have commented. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Fatima Togbe

Hello Malcolmxl5, Please check whether this recently recreated article qualifies for G4. Here is the link to previous deletion discussion. Regards Hitro talk 09:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi HitroMilanese, it’s the same person but the content is different and there are many more citations so I don’t think this is G4 material. I suggest assessing the citations for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and, if appropriate, taking it back to AfD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Lady Kitty Spencer

Hi there! I noticed you recently deleted the article for Lady Kitty Spencer. I am considering rewriting the article, since she actually is notable, beyond her noble statues and relation to the royal family, as a fashion model in the United Kingdom. I wanted to check in with you before doing so. Her modeling has been covered by reliable sources, for example: Town and Country Town and Country Vanity Fair Today InStyle Hello Magazine Hello Magazine The Times Huffington Post. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Willthacheerleader18, yes, I deleted the page following the rather emphatic discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Kitty Spencer. No objection to recreating the article if you find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject though I would suggest that you work on it in your user space. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

  Administrator changes

  BlurpeaceDana boomerDeltabeignetDenelson83GrandioseSalvidrim!Ymblanter

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

  Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

How did you do that?

It had me baffled! What was I doing wrong, Malcolmxl5? Was it because the 1st AfD was closed incorrectly, and the closer forgot to do something? Atsme📞📧 00:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I’m not entirely sure, User:Atsme. It might be that the Page Curation tool can’t handle a second nomination or it misfired. Anyway, I came across it on the daily log and fixed it manually. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you!! Atsme📞📧 01:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for looking into my ANI rangeblock request. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy to help, Bennv3771. I have since blocked a third /24 range. Let me know if they pop up elsewhere. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Blocked another /24 range for a month, Bennv3771. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Tom Nowicki

Hi, this AFD wasn't added to the list of actors and filmmakers AFDs despite it being claimed. If it had been I would have voted keep. Can you please consider relisting it and i'll add it to the actors and filmmakers list, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem, Atlantic306, I’ll undo my closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, it’s done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Nowicki. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for acting so quick, will add it to the actor's list Atlantic306 (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


Yorkshire protection

Thank you for quality articles beginning with Helen Ghosh and James Leasor, for service from 2007, for beginning article talk pages with "WPBiography tag", for fighting vandalism and page protection, - user from Yorkshire, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That’s very kind of you, Gerda, thank you! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Dashkin (video game) deleted

Hello Malcolm. Would you mind providing me with the the text, in source mode, of this page that you deleted, which I made, so I be able to work on it off the site, getting to a standard that Wikipedia would accept? I forgot to save it as a document. Thank you. --Luka1184 (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Luka1184, yes, no problem. I’ll email it to you later today. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Now done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Halibutt's sub-pages

You recently protected User:Halibutt; please do the same for User:Halibutt/Babel and User:Halibutt/About me, which are transcluded there; and also their talk pages, which I have redirected to the main talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Andy. I have protected the two pages that you link to and their talk pages, and a few more pages that also transclude to User:Halibutt. For good measure, I’ve protected the talk archive pages too - there is no reason for anyone to be editing those. If there are any other pages in User:Halibutt user space that you feel should be protected, let me know. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Filipov

Hi, Malcomxl5. I noticed that you're closing deletion discussions at the moment. Could you do the same for the above discussion for the Roman Filipov page? The discussion has reached eight days old, and has a unanimous vote. Much appreciated, thanks. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Rowland

Hello Malcolmxl5 I'm just wondering why you deleted the Andrew Rowland page recently? I've read the earlier Feb discussions relating to this page and think the page should be restored but I do not know how to do this. The notoriety (which I think does comply with the Wikipedia biography guidelines) comes from his elected position representing UK medical doctors as the Head of the UK Delegation to the European Union of Medical Specialists (not least because of his elected role nationally as the UK leads up to Brexit, and as a charity founder, to give just two examples. How can the page be restored, please? Sheffield Warrier (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sheffield Warrier (I have moved your question here; this page is not protected at the moment so you ought to be able to edit here). The Andrew Rowland article was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Rowland in which the participants felt that Mr Rowland was not notable enough for an article in the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia has criteria for what might be included in the encyclopaedia, chief among those is the ‘notability’ criteria: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. I can restore the article to your user space where you can work on it to improve it to that standard if that’s what you would like to do. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Malcolmxl5. Thanks for your reply! I can see the article is back in my user space so I will work on it there. No problem. Thank you Sheffield Warrier (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

please take permission for update information and unblock user

Hello! I write to you about next page: The information described by the user "Isrswissnews" is authentic and is confirmed by a copy of the application to the Israeli police. A link to this document is also provided below: Please place this information as a matter of principle for all victims of fascism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisalmowar (talkcontribs) 16:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated allegations of those kind are not permitted on Wikipedia per our biographies of living persons policy. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleted article

Good morning,

Having spent the past four years creating a page about an English cricketer, Paul Davidge, who I have followed for some time, I have logged in today to find my page has been deleted. The discussion page makes unfounded claims, which are both incorrect and without evidence. This subject is one of about twenty English players (I am not claiming them to be international when I use this term) who I believe have played a significant number of high class/grade matches to warrant recognition. Until now I have been creating pages on Patrick Turk, Peter Dennett, James Hayward’s and Paul Carter to name a few who have had distinguished careers in High level and Minor County Cricket, which is the second tier of English domestic cricket. I note that other sportspeople playing in tier two domestic sport are recognised on Wikipedia.

The reasons for my request for re-publication are as follows:

- PD has played over 50 Minor County matches. These are classified on both ESPN Cricinfo, Cricket archive and the Minor Counties CA website.

- Please note that information on both Cricketarchive and ESPN is not fully up to date and never has been. (i.e. it states Davidge’s Major teams as Berkshire and then it lists a handful of matches Davidge played for Wiltshire and then the MCC). There is a full list of teams Davidge has played for on Cricketarchive, which are all included in this original article.

- If you scroll through the Cricketarchive website you find all of the scorecards that verify all of the matches that I written about in this article. Also please note that all matches on cricket archive go under the heading of miscellaneous until their classification is

- Although there is no reference to Davidge having played first class cricket or List A cricket (of which I have not stated anyway) there are numerous examples, from scorecards that he has played in matches for teams with first class status or List A status (MCC) against teams of the same standing (Durham MCCU, Oxford MCCU, Cambridge MCCU, Cardiff MCCU, Middlesex etc.)

- Certainly the career or details of a Minor County/High Level cricketer should be highlighted, especially as there are numerous examples where these are highlighted. These teams are listed under numerous players, in their domestic profile page. Many players are recognised with their Minor Counties championship, One Day etc competition debuts as is the player in this article.

- The claim about the Australian overseas ventures are also unfounded. How long do these ‘contributors spend’ looking for evidence? If you google Paul Davidge Cricket, the details of the matches he played in in Queensland alone are readily available on the ‘mycricket’ page.

- I have accuilated the stats myself from scorecards I have read, as ESPN has this information stored in its archive. Therefore I am happy for these to be taken out. I am also happy to edit this article if it is required, although as previously stated all of the information is true and correct. Some of the information such as the rankings in Australia is evidence I received from hard copy press articles, therefore online referencing is difficult.

I am disappointed that I was not contacted about this, especially as I first penned this article in 2014 (4 years ago), 2 years after first watching this subject play in the Netherlands. I have held off publishing my other contributions about, who I think are cricketers of note, until this is resolved.

I do think this is an article about a cricketer of High standing as are the article I have written about cricketers of the Same ilke.

Silvercar82 (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Silvercar82: I’m sorry to hear that you were not notified of the deletion discussion and so were unable to present your arguments. I do not think I can overturn the closure so may I suggest opening a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review asking for the deletion discussion to be reopened on the basis that there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion because you as a substantial contributor to the article were not notified and were unable to present counter-arguments to those presented. Let me know if you do this and I will comment. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


As to ... .. can you just block the computer of the vandal(s), and keep the article open for other editors? This guy is competing in the Winter Olympics now. --2604:2000:E016:A700:1CFB:32A9:4513:C756 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the page was protected because there are people trying to insert defamatory content into the page. It will automatically be unprotected on 2 March. In the meantime, leave the details of the edits you would like to have made on the article talk page with the {{edit semi-protected}} template and someone will help you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleted article

Many thanks for your speedy response and understanding. How do I go about opening this discussion? Do I simply create a new discussion under today’s date? Silvercar82 (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Silvercar82, I missed your reply. Yes, it goes under today’s date, the current day’s date, were you able to do this? If not, I’ll start a discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi, they seem to have disabled the thanks function for some reason, so I was unable to use it to thank you for your edits, so I'm doing it here instead :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr. Vogel, that’s kind you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: Chorley vandal

...Has a name. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iniced. Sro23 (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I didn’t realise that, Sro23! Hopefully, the rangeblocks I’ve put in place will curtail his activities a bit. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleted article

I have been unable so far so if you could start a discussion the would be great - many thanks. Silvercar82 (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I’ll get on to it in the next couple of days. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

  Administrator changes

  AngelOfSadnessBhadaniChris 73CorenFridayMidomMike V
  Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

  Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

  Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.



  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Move fast and break things article

I've moved this to Draft as the new article didn't have anything notable that couldn't already be said at the author's article. It is currently redirecting to the author. Please develop it fully from there. If there's not much to say about the book then it can be a section in the author's article. Thanks. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Noted, thank you, AngusWOOF. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

any idea who this is?

Obviously a sock. Doug Weller talk 07:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I do recognise this, I blocked an IP who was posting this in January. The only account I can associate with this is the one mentioned, PrincessMassacre, though I suspect they were using IPs well before that. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Belated Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Veela (singer) and full protection

Hi Malcolmxl5! It's good to talk to you again and I hope you're doing well. While patrolling RFPP requests and while looking into a request for protection on Veela (singer), I see that you've applied full editing protection to the page for 24 hours. I believe that a much more appropriate and adequate solution here would be to modify the protection level and lower it to semi editing protection and for a longer duration (at least a few days). The information I'm being provided in the request indicates that there's meatpuppetry afoot, and I don't see where full protection is needed, since the disruption involved only anonymous IP users. May I change the protection to this page and apply semi editing protection instead? I'd like to get your input before doing this, since you applied the original admin action and it's the proper courtesy to give before changing it :-). Let me know if that's okay, or if you see any issues that I may have missed where full protection is needed instead - I'll be happy to respond if that's the case. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I of course see the two edits made by Salvidrim! and Dw122339 on the article today, but it looks to me like they were trying to help control the flood of incoming IP users' changes rather than add to the dispute here - let me know if you feel differently and I'll be happy to discuss. I'm not going to modify the protection on the article unless you give your approval. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Oshwah, I’m good, thanks. I’ve applied semi-protection (not full protection) for 24 hours. By all means, amend the protection or lift it if you feel it appropriate to do so. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
....... 'Oh, god damnit! I'm such a bone head! .... I read through the protection log on the article and saw "Protected "Veela (singer)": Edit warring / content dispute" and assumed from there that you had fully protected the article because of the reason. I'm sorry, man... I'll get out of your hair now and leave you alone... haha. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Ha, yes. I didn’t want to use ‘vandalism’ because it seemed good faith but clumsy editing by newbies, maybe ‘disruptive editing’ would have been better. Anyway, I advised User:XSklzxDark, one of the newbies, to create a draft page and they seem to be doing that at Draft:Veela (producer). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

David Cassidy

David Cassidy not dead. Its still showing dead in google summary Ella4sam (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ella4sam, I’m afraid there’s nothing we can do about Google. What we can do is make sure our article reflect what high quality sources say and I think editors are on top of that at the moment. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

David Cassidy

Regarding your threat about sanctioning me, fuck off! I did not change the article maliciously and was really led to believe he was dead. I have not tried to change the last revert by "Theroadislong", which was some time ago and occurred after your undo. Theroadislong already address this. So, can you drop it already?

I made a mistake. When you Google search "David Cassidy death", Google presents a dialogue box showing he died. As far as the link I provided, I only read the summary that was provided on the Google page. Had I clicked the link, I would have saw that Google was incorrect in reporting a death date and that it was a hoax.

Stevebradley1 (talk)

Oh dear, Stevebradley1, it’s not a threat or a sanction or anything like that, it’s just a notice letting you know what the state of play on biographies of living persons is. That’s something you ought be aware of, right? OK, you made a mistake, it happens. Searching for "David Cassidy death" is of course going give results about his ‘death’ - that’s confirmation bias. Trying searching for ‘David Cassidy’ in Google News and filter the results by the last 24 hours and you’ll see he’s very much alive though critically ill. His death, whenever it happens, will be reported in multiple reputable sources - keep an eye on the New York Times (he was born in Manhattan, they will cover it). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for going overboard. It just sounded like an unnecessary threat.

Stevebradley1 (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

List of Ghana heads of state by age

This page was created as similar pages for lots of other nationalities. I note with interest that the one for Ghana is noted to be irrelevant or duplication but that for other countries such as List of heads of state of Greece by age for Greece and List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by age for the UK are acceptable. I have had edits of African personalities deleted as not notable which have later appeared without their status changing. What is the difference between the Greece and UK page for example and that for Ghana?--Natsubee (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand the frustration at seeing a page deleted, Natsubee, when similar pages still exist, it happens surprisingly often. Given there was a consensus that the list of Ghana heads of states was inappropriate content for the encyclopaedia then it follows that the list of heads of state of Greece by age and list of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by age are also inappropriate content and should also be nominated for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't dispute that. What is interesting is how quickly articles about third world issues are deleted but those from Europe and North America with far more hits are more difficult to identify as inappropriate. Interesting! --Natsubee (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, Wikipedia is well known for having a systematic bias. Lesser coverage of third world issues contributes to that. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Question on deleteion

Hi Malcolmxl5!

On January 30, 2018 you deleted the page Labour Law Plus: I am wondering what I can do to improve this page? I've noticed that there are a number of larger law offices ( and for example) who remain despite having similar news articles to those I had.

Any insight you can provide would be so helpful.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trent77 (talkcontribs) 00:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Trent77. High quality, independent sources with significant coverage of the topic are the key here. If you can find a few decent, independent sources that are substantially about Labour Law Plus then you ought have a starting point for an article. Summarise what they say (in your own words). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hi, I have started a discussion on the deleted article. If you would be so kind to add to the discussion it would be much appreciated. Silvercar82 (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Silvercar82, I have commented. Deletion review discussions usually focus on whether the closure has been properly carried out - it was but the discussion itself was flawed - so that’s what’s I’ve commented on. I see someone has put forward the fact that Paul Davidge played a first class match for the MCC and so meets the standard at WP:NCRICKET for inclusion, which is a good point to bring out. Finally, I have to apologise, I said I would start a discussion but I forgot so sorry about that. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much for putting a level of protection on the page describing my work. I am extremely grateful. All my best, Cindy. Cynthia Ross Friedman (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


The user named above is also trying very hard to discredit me and the Cynthia Ross Friedman page. All the links have been updated and work. Please consider banning this person as well. Their username is brand new and all they have done is attempt to attack that page. Thank you. Cynthia Ross Friedman (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have an eye on Truthandrealfacts. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

SLAppForge Sigma

Hi Malcom

Can you help me understand the reasons for deletion of ? Its quite close to and

If you can suggest what is missing, I can help improve it and get your feedback before resubmission

thanks asankha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asankha (talkcontribs) 17:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Asankha: The page was deleted following a short discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SLAppForge Sigma. The concern there was that the topic had not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria to merit an article in the encyclopaedia. The way forward will be to find independent, reliable sources that cover the topic in some depth. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Re NOQUORUM deletion of certain articles: please restore them

I notice that you closed the AfD discussions for the following articles as WP:SOFTDELETE because there was WP:NOQUORUM and, therefore, no consensus to delete:

Accordingly I would be grateful if you would restore the deleted articles under the rubric of WP:SOFTDELETE, which says they must be restored on request, because such a request is equivalent to contesting a PROD. All of the circuit judges satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, because the Crown Court of which they are members is a national court and they accordingly hold national office. All of the QCs satisfy WP:ANYBIO. And all of these people satisfy WP:GNG. These nominations were part of a WP:MASSNOM in which there was no pretence of complying with WP:BEFORE. Several subsequent AfDs were actually shut down by an admin who noticed how quickly the nominations were being made. In almost all these AfDs the single !voter is the same editor. And I was unable to participate at the AfDs in question, and if I had been present, there would have been no deletions. I shall conclude by sending an Echo notification to User:Graemp, who has expressed an interesting in restoring these articles in the past. Thank you in advance. James500 (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks for the notification. I remember these AfDs which included many articles I had either created or contributed to. I opposed many of the AfDs but not all. I was not aware of any articles being deleted as a consequence. Some I had not contributed to, may have lacked sufficient notability. It is hard to tell if any of those in the list above had sufficient notability. Restoring them in the first instance seems to be the best way forward. Graemp (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @James500 and Graemp: I closed these as ‘delete’, not as ‘soft delete’. If I had intended to close as ‘soft delete’, I would have said so per the instructions at WP:NOQUORUM: The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline. Rather, I used the discretion that was given to me by WP:NOQUORUM (in March 2016) to close the discussion - the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. - as delete in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. That said, I recognise we have since moved to treating these discussions with one or few participants as expired PRODs, which is reflected in the paragraph added in July 2017 following a RFC, and I’m happy to restore them on that basis. I’ll ping you when I’ve done this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I thank you for doing this. I was not aware that WP:NOQUORUM had been amended in 2017. I apologise for my error in suggesting your closing rationale was something other than one it was. James500 (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologise, James500. Keep up the good work! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Roni Lee redirects

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I was in the middle of a merge/redirect from Roni Lee to Venus and the Razorblades, per the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roni Lee, when I got called away to a different task in the real world. Hence the odd redirects that you cleared up during my momentary absence. All is complete now, and thanks for your help along the way. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Doomsdayer520. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

  Administrator changes

  331dotCordless LarryClueBot NG
  Gogo DodoPb30SebastiankesselSeicerSoLando

  Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

  Technical news


  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.


  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

2600:1702:1690:e10::/64 block

I think the last block was for a week. Isn't it customary to increase the block each time? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Walter, I see a block of 31 hours in the block log, a block that mirrored the 36 hour block on 2600:1702:1690:E10:387C:9EC8:F449:2305 made by Oshwah and then my block of one week. Certainly a longer block will be warranted if the editor returned to editing disruptively, have they been back? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

T35 Hosting

Would you be able to push the deleted T35 Hosting page back to drafts? I'd like to take another stab at improving it and submitting it for review. Thanks! ITGuru (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@ITGuru: Yes, no problem. You can find it at Draft:T35 Hosting. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Malcomx15: Thank you! ITGuru (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

11 years of editing, today.

  Hey, Malcolmxl5. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Chris Troutman (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Chris. Eleven years? Eek! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent Edit and Locked Page for Further Edits

Hi, With Recent Edits, You have changed Status of Page 'Sambhaji' to Protected, But there is some Controversial information which is based on poor references and Lacks Historical Evidences. There are several attempts for User to remove the Information from the Page but the information is reintroduced with Your recent Edits, I request You to Remove the Sensitive Information from the page with procedure or help people who are in agreement, with Further steps As We are exploring legal ways for removing the same, I believe there are other ways and forums for resolving the disputes than stopping people from their right to Update the information with references.

Historyprotect (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Historyprotect: You say “Suggest us Further steps“. Who is “us”? Are you talking about a group of people? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@Historyprotect: I see that you changed “Suggest us Further steps“ to “help MD with Further steps“. I have no idea what that means. It is clear that you do not write sufficiently well in English to be editing the English Wikipedia and I would encourage you to find and edit the Wikipedia that is written in your native language. So far as the article is concerned, I protected it due to a pattern of disruptive editing on that page. Since the protection has been effective in curbing the disruptive behaviour, and you are able to edit the page, I see no reason to lift it. So far as the content is concerned, editors should find a consensus as to what sources say on the talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Malcomx15 I was asking for help regarding the procedure to remove content which are controversial in Nature & there is no consensus between Editors and people who requested the change in Content. I may not be the best When it comes to writing in English, Ironically People Who written this Content also do not belong to this Region or language,Still they have added contents which are sensitive and Controversial. I request editors and Who Protected the page to learn Language 'Marathi' in which they will find good and authentic literature to study further. Also to clarify further, to help 'Us', in this context 'US' means people who are in agreement that Content is controversial and to get removed and seeking further help to resolve conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyprotect (talkcontribs) 15:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


After you deleted the previous one, someone created another article called BanitaSandhu. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 02:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Harshrathod50, it’s been deleted and I’ve added the salt. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Fidelitrade Incorporated

Would you be able to push the deleted Fidelitrade Incorporated page back to drafts? I'd like to attempt some revisions and additions of more sources for improvement before submitting it for review. Best Regards Ty1695 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ty1695, do you still want this? I see there is already a draft: Draft:FideliTrade Incorporated. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Malcolmxl5/Archive 11,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Vinayak Nath

Hi there! I noticed you recently deleted the article for Vinayak Nath. I am considering rewriting the article, since he is actually is notable, beyond his noble statues and relation to the political and State Government Family, and as a role model for the Startups of Uttar Pradesh. I wanted to check in with you before doing so. His recent work are covered by renowned media houses, for example: TEDTEDx Times of India IIM Lucknow Business World Business World Times Of India Inc42 Times Of India Daily Hunt HubPress Reader. Kindly do let me know, if I could initiate re-writing. -- ≠Shayaanahmadnoori (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shayaanahmadnoori, you can of course write a new article but if it is not to be deleted again, you will need to take onboard the concerns expressed in the deletion discussion, which were, broadly, the article was not written in encyclopaedic style and there was no significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject found to attest to the subject’s notability. If you do attempt a new article, I would suggest that you do this in draft space and put it forward for review using {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page before it is moved to article space. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonnie Stewart (2nd nomination)

Can you possibly restore this article in my user space? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:A Quest For Knowledge, it’s done, you can find it at User:A Quest For Knowledge/Jonnie Stewart. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for review article deleted Sikandar Ali Jogi

Hi Dear, I request for this article deletion review as I was offline during the deletion discussion and I think that article was sufficient with supportive reliable sources. Article deletion Review Sikandar Ali Jogi...Thanks.Jogi 007 (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Jogi, it’s always disappointing when an article you have created is nominated for deletion and it was particularly unfortunate that you were offline when it happened. Because there was little participation other than the nominator, may I suggest that we WP:REFUND the page into draft space so the content can be improved upon before returning it to article space? PhilKnight said of the sources that there was “lots of trivial mentions, but no significant coverage” and this will give you an opportunity to improve this aspect of the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks dear, I'll work on it.....Jogi Asad, Talk to me 15:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
==Deletion review for Sikandar Ali Jogi==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sikandar Ali Jogi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ..Jogi Asad, Talk to me 06:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jogi Asad, where are we with this? Do you want me to move the page to draft space so you can work on it? I don’t see a ‘deletion review’ in progress nor is one necessary, I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
yes plz "draft space", unfortunately there are some biased afd, I wonder one user I don't know what is his position on enwiki is pushing my articles to afd, unjustifiably and planned tendentiously without any proof of allegations put topic ban and unjustifiably those articles having keep votes, and reliable sources were deleted, I'm expecting some admins and arbitrator to neutrally save those afds which meets the GNG and atleast having one or two reliable sources, otherwise it will be very prone such biased users will harm Wikipedia "sum of all human knowledge" content, articles and objectives. JogiAsad (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi JogiAsad, I have restored and moved the page to Draft:Sikandar Ali Jogi so you can improve it before returning it to article space. When you have improved it, nominate it for review by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. So far as sourcing is concerned, Wikipedia requires significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. If you have high quality sources that are substantially about the subject, you should have no problem. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks also make drafts for Amb Jogi afd and Iqbal Jogi afds..JogiAsad (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The deletion review was removed a a topic ban violation. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

  Administrator changes

  ChochopkCoffeeGryffindorJimpKnowledge SeekerLankiveilPeridonRjd0060

  Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

  Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.



  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Your deletion of Kalten

Hi Malcomxl5,

I have List of rivers of Bavaria on my watchlist and therefore noted your deletion of the article Kalten and your removal of the entry Kalten from this list. As far as I understand you deleted Kalten because it was a redir to the deleted article List of The Elenium and The Tamuli characters. However, can you please check whether there was an older version of Kalten that is a proper article about a German river, and if so, copy this version somewhere to my userspace?

My reason:

The entry Kalten was already present in Dr. Blofeld's first version of the list. It was obviously copied from the German version of the list from August 28. 2011. At this time, there existed a river article named Kalten in the German Wikipedia. Since then, this article has been moved in the German Wikipedia to Kaltenbach (Mangfall), because Kaltenbach seems the more common name for this river.

From this, I conclude that some older version of Kalten in the English Wikipedia contains useful material for a new river article Kaltenbach (Mangfall) which I want to create. I assume that the article Kalten here in the Englisch Wikipedia was simply vandalised and replaced by a redir to List of The Elenium and The Tamuli characters. Therefore, the second newest version should be the proper river article.

Thank you, I hope my theory is correct --j (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cyfal: Hi, Cyfal. Yes, Kalten was a redirect to ‘List of The Elenium and The Tamuli characters’. The page started life in 2005 as a short article about a ‘knight of the Pandion Order and boyhood friend of Sparhawk’(!) and was redirected in 2006. There is no history of any article about a river there. I guess that when Dr. Blofeld created the list, the link was blue and it was overlooked that the linked page was not about a river. We have I think an article that is missing and a opportunity to create one. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your work and your explanations! Thus, the knight did even manage to appear on the list of rivers of Bavaria! Ok, I will then create the river article again, but this time with a real river. --Cyfal (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Charles

Hi Malcolm, an article I had started on the above subject was deleted last year. I have since found some new material which I have incorporated and put a revised draft in my sandbox Please have a look and let me know whether it appears notable. Tissueboy (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Asshole hat.jpg

Hi Malcolm, thanks for blacklisting the above image. It looks like the transclusion counter has purged down to a small group and the image is actually legitimately used on a few user pages:

Not sure if this is all of them, but I think you might want to add exceptions for those. Home Lander (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Home Lander: I’ve added exceptions for these but I do wonder, you know, whether this image is really worth adding to the list (most entries are pornographic in nature). Perhaps we can review this in a few weeks time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured it was not likely to be of real use on any actual pages, and more likely in the short term to be misused again. Suppose it could stay there temporarily. Home Lander (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Let’s see how it goes. :) It’s not something to agonise over. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ha, that file is an actual picture of me. I included it on my user page years ago and forgot about it. I'm surprised to see it got re-used by others. If it's somehow a problem, I'm not upset if it goes away. ENDelt260 (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@ENDelt260: My guess is it's probably mostly trolls that come across it; if you enter "File:Asshole" into the search bar it's one of the first things that generates. (I'm probably violating WP:BEANS here.) Home Lander (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

S Uma Neha

Hello, just dropped by to bring this article to your attention as you have protected Uma Neha and Uma Neha S (Singer) from creation. I sense sockpuppetry and UPE too here. Thanks. Hitro talk 20:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@HitroMilanese: Including Musskan Sethi‎ so reported Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Proudpurian. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

  Administrator changes

  Al Ameer sonAliveFreeHappyCenariumLupoMichaelBillington

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.


  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your deletion of the ETS page was not based on a true consensus between scientists

Dear Marcolmx15, as you might be informed by C.Fred, I launched a contest for the deletion of the page Geodakyan Evolutionary Theory of Sex. I am totally not the author and I am willing to make just one more extra step to restore the page, just as a matter of principle to fight Editorial biases. Mr. Lem, who consistently vandalized the page during its existence, is the only opponent to this page, and he openly expressed his biases towards Russian science during the discussions on the Talk page. I wished you looked at this discussion first before making the deletion to see that Mr. Lem sneaked in his AfD when nobody was watching the page at the end of University term. We, mathematical biologists, are scientists and professors, we don't monitor Wikipedia all the time, and it is sad that biases of a single Editor can kill the page so easy and fast, but it takes many bureaucratic, almost impossible steps to restore it. The ETS theory is very technical and only experts can recommend either deletion or improvement of the page, and it is hard to believe that immediately, same day after Mr. Lem posted the AdD, 2 opinions emerged for deletion (it is hard to find experts on this topic), and btw, their arguments were not true. The theory is well-known in Russian science (see the references to the reports of the Academy of Science, rather a large and respectful academic organization). The fact that it was proposed in a non-English language and was not exposed to the West due to the Iron Curtain should be irrelevant. So, please restore the page as the consensus was not reached (considering the opinions on the Talk page) and was made-up based on just two false opinions. Plus, C.Fred recommended me to contact you for the access to the archive of the Talk page of this deleted page. If you feel that the page should not be restored, the history of existence and deletion of this page is a good examples of the flaws of the Wikipedia editing. Instead of contacting all members of discussants of this page for a restoration I will rather launch a discussion of editorial biases, and I need an assess to the archives. Thank you for your work on it. KaiStr (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear KaiStr.
I am the uninvolved administrator who closed the deletion discussion. The nomination for deletion and the deletion discussion were in accord with the deletion processes of the English Wikipedia. So far as the closure is concerned, it was clear to me that there was consensus that the article should be deleted because the topic had not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I do not see any other way of closing the deletion discussion other than delete and I do not see any basis on which I can overturn the result.
So where to go from here.
If you believe that there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or that I interpreted the consensus incorrectly, you may request a deletion review at WP:DRV for one or the other (or both) of these reason(s). I do not believe that there were errors in the discussion or that I interpreted the consensus incorrectly.
Alternatively, if you were to produce evidence of “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”, you may ask for a deletion review and argue that the deleted page should be recreated because “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject” exist.
Whatever you choose to do, I suggest strongly that you stop making reference to Mr. Lem and other editors and focus entirely on sources. The deleted article talk page can be found at User:Discospinster/Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex.
Pinging all those mentioned or involved here: @KaiStr, C.Fred, Discospinster, and Staszek Lem: --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
P.S. It is summer and I am not around very much so I may not reply swiftly to any responses.
Thank you very much for the link to the archive. Also thank you for listing the rules but how was it "clear to you that there was consensus about low coverage" if right on the discussion page the conclusion, as posted by another administrator, was that the topic is "probably notable"? It is hard not to mention Mr. Lem as, looking from the Talk page, 1) he was the only, single major opponent, and 2) it was he who nominated the page for deletion AFTER the consensus about "probably notable" was reached on the Talk page. This is not my theory, so I am not going to break my head to restore it, but I am certainly motivated to improve Wikipedia's rules, and use this ETS page history as a public example. Just look again at the Talk page and get a sense of which side you are on. You, as a deleting Editor, at least in theory, should note the biases of the Editor who nominated the page for deletion (simply from the review of the Talk page). Just to make a "kill" decision on 2 quick postings "for delete", ignoring the fact that they emerged almost on the day of the AfD by Mr. Lem might look like a rather negligent decision. I kindly ask you to review your decision again, and we will go from there.KaiStr (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@KaiStr: As an uninvolved administrator closing that deletion discussion, I can only take into account what is put forward in the deletion discussion. The outcome was clear. The best way forward now is to show that the topic has received 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject’. Do that and everything is resolved. This should be a simple matter if these sources exists. Present these sources at WP:DRV and the English Wikipedia community will consider whether the article should be recreated. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Malcolmxl5: 1) The absense of the rule for deleting administrator to screen for biases of the parties proposing the deletion troubles me. The Wikipedia should protect pages from deletion by biased individuals who has a personal vendetta against specific pages/theories/items, etc. requiring a specific expertise. Is Mr. Lem a mathematical biologist? Did he edit many biological pages? The ETS page would not be deleted if there is a rule that the AfD cannot be posted by a user/Editor who has earlier expressed a biased opinion or showed actions against a given page. That what the case with Mr. Lem: he had many actions and postings of opposing nature on the Talk page. An uninvolved administrator should first screen for biases in the party posting the AfD simply by looking at the Talk page, this is manageable and not very far to go. Once you saw the biases, there should be a mechanism to stop the deletion as the proposition for deletion came from a biased source.

2) Plus if the subject relates to science, an AfD should be posted only by experts in this field. Mr. Lem's arguments are more in line that "Russians have a lot of pseudoscience" but nothing specific. This sounds like like a national bias. These two rules should be discussed with the community using the ETS case, if the page is not restored. 3) Re: "significant coverage" - the discussion in regards to such coverage WAS going on for an year, and at least decision by the administrators of the Wikipedia WAS MADE that there is probably some exposure. Russian colleagues would argue that there was a massive exposure, considering the size of Russian population, but at least some exposure was officially already accepted. So now you are telling us that the contribution of opinions on the Talk page means nothing and we have to start all over again with gathering opinions. I am not a social animal, I am just a scientist, and not a young one, so I simply don't have energy to go in loops between deletions and restorations using the same arguments for years only because Wikipedia cannot protect the page from one, single biased Editor. I am asking the Administrators who killed the page to reverse their decision, as I believe that it was not based on a consensus. Mr. Lem already attempted to delete the page in the past, a consensus was to keep it, why should we repeat this cycle again? I am explaining that all steps to gain consensus for keeping the page was already made and these steps should not be ignored. You suggest to repeat a round of support for evidence that I observed earlier, and this is not very productive way of protection against individuals with biases. When I have time, I rather go directly at the Administration level, to discuss current policies of the Wikipedia than fight over a single page about one of rather complex theories of mathematical biology. 4) Another rule about deletion should be added for a balance of the time frame for deletion: Now 7 days for the AfD has more weight for the decision about the deletion, even when it is based on two, superficial, few-words and wrong opinions than much longer and and much more detailed discussion, with more parties involved, with more references and evidence. Something should be done about it, at least Administrators deleting the page should compare the activity on the Talk page and activity on the Deletion page. People who post their opinions on Talk pages do it using their time and intellectual resources, and their contributions should be equally respected. Same, as I truly respect your time reading this and thinking about it.KaiStr (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Condominium of Bosnia redirect

The page Condominium of Bosnia and Herzegovina has what appears to be an unnecessary redirect to it that obfuscates the fact that, whether you want to get into debates of whether it was de facto or de jure, Bosnia and Herzegovina became a defined condominium of Austria-Hungary. The original move was suggested by someone who was ultimately banned as a pan-Serbian sockpuppet account. I'd like to know if the standards for Wikipedia in 2018 are such that the redirect should stay in place, or can this be amended? Thanks! --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Malcolmxl5/Archive 11".