User talk:Mazca/Archive 2020

Thank you

Hi Mazca

Thanks for unblocking me. I appreciate it and glad you accepted it. I'll not be making issues in the agreed barred area of demographics.

Kind curiosity

JoshuaIsTheFalco JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'm glad you're back to doing other useful edits! ~ mazca ^talk 19:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Closer's Barnstar

Your close of the deletion discussion at AfD of Megxit, I think, joins SilkTork's and Jo-Jo Eumerus' closes of the Erica C. Barnett AfD (awarded by Serial Number 54129) and The Simpsons MfD (awarded by me), respectively, so I am pleased to present you with The Closer's Barnstar (with Thank you to Atsme for creation of the excellent graphic). As Britishfinance and, arguably, any participant in the Megxit AfD would almost certainly agree, your close appropriately hit on all the appropriate points and gave appropriate weight to each argument. Doug Mehus T·C 16:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the award and the kind words! ~ mazca ^talk 17:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, most definately second Dmehus on that, and other recent closes I have seen you do at AfD – very high grade work and it is much appreciated. A good close, regardless of outcome, is a great device for both teaching others, and to inform any future action re the topic. Excellent work – you are a natural at this. Britishfinance (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megxit

Thank you for your detailed explanation on the close of this AfD. Such explanations for a complex AfD as this one can really head off problems in the future. Much appreciated! --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome; I do think it's important to elaborate on closes wherever there's any doubt and I'm glad you think it's helpful. Thanks for the message. ~ mazca ^talk 17:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for the good faith decision re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nafisa Kamal (2nd nomination).

Missvain (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the goat! It was a messy AfD but I think you definitely helped significantly sorting it out. ~ mazca ^talk 20:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding you blocking User: JosieDuck

I think they might be compromised because they were making ok edits a few weeks ago and even attempted a article, now out of the blue they go on a vandalizing spree. Cheers Bobherry Talk Edits 00:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bobherry: Yeah, that's a possibility! My read on it was just that it's a very young or immature user who might have made some vague attempts at productive Wikipedia editing, and now happens to be messing around with friends or something. I decided to block for a significant, but not indefinite, time to see if they make another attempt to be productive in the future! The vandalism was so juvenile and harmless that I don't really see much risk of this being a genuine compromised account. ~ mazca ^talk 01:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mazca:Same thing I was thinking, he and his friends were sitting around a computer messing around or one of his friends got his password. Bobherry Talk Edits 01:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the prompt response to the apparent sock-puppetry of Special:Contributions/Liamrawson0309. Much appreciated. Stroness (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem. It's helpful when they label themselves quite that clearly - thanks for the report! ~ mazca ^talk 16:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for the block of User:Savehumanityfromislam. That username and the edits that they did disgusted me about how they were treating those innocent groups of people. Thanks for that edit to their talkpage confronting them and blocking them, and the good work you do. TFFfan (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! You're very welcome. ~ mazca ^talk 15:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

'the pig'

I have to say, I like

the pig

That is really all. Thank you ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I checked, he likes you too. Cheers! ~ mazca ^talk 16:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

About the AfD relisting of Ravi V. Melwani

I'm sorry for not listing the article correctly. I'm still getting used to the TWINKLE tool. The relisting was done as the AfD wasn't properly placed on the AfD discussions page. Please let me know how I could have done this better. Thank you. Syriusa (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Syriusa: Don't worry, the initial mistake was made by Tabletop123 who created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravi V. Melwani and then didn't add it to the daily log page at all. When you then tried to nominate it, Twinkle got confused and created a second AfD, which Joe Roe then closed as a duplicate. We then added the first AfD to the correct log page for yesterday, and I added that relist notice just to make it clear when it was finally nominated properly. Twinkle, as you've found, can be very confusing and make things worse when things aren't exactly as it expects! Thanks for your efforts, it's all cleared up now. ~ mazca ^talk 19:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mazca: How does the deletion work from this point? I've reviewed this article for a while now, the subject has tried to make edits and the cited links are not reliable. Syriusa (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Syriusa: The article will probably be deleted in the next day or two after that 7-day period I mentioned. The unreliable edits have not continued over the last week and the discussion seems to be unanimously in favour of deleting it. ~ mazca ^talk 18:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Blue-cheese or Pabst Blue Ribbon

I have closed the Race and intelligence DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 12, and noted that the consensus is for you to be involved in the blue-ribbon committee to reclose the AfD. The other admins named are User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, User:Barkeep49, User:RoySmith, and User:Scottywong. I am approaching them all to let them know. Please advise if you are willing to be involved. Reghards SilkTork (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the closure of that SilkTork, I'm happy to be involved in a closure panel if my additional input's going to be useful. ~ mazca ^talk 14:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

3EA

Don't mean to be rude, but two day semi isn't going to do jack, needs to be indef, cheers. Govvy (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: I did intend it to be 3 months, but apparently didn't get it right on the protect form, it's now implemented properly. Not convinced it needs indef protection because the disruption only started a week or so ago, I'll watchlist it and see if it resumes when it unprotects. Thanks. ~ mazca ^talk 17:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHS Nightingale Hospitals

Thank you for the very clear closing summary you wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHS Nightingale Hospitals, that is a good summary of the discussion and clearly points to the best way forward to settle the remaining questions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Your Close

Your close here is masterful in its diplomacy and navigating the Gordion Knot. I applaud you.--Jorm (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind message. It's one of those situations where there's no consensus to do anything specific, but we can at least emphasise what we learned in the discussion! ~ mazca ^talk 22:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Article block issue

Hello. On April 28 you blocked the IP 172.127.114.212 (talk · contribs) from editing the article Shazam! (film) due to disruption and edit-warring. Somehow, the IP was able to edit the article today, making the same type of edits which led to the block. Is the article block not working for some reason? Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@IllaZilla: It looks like I'd missed the exclamation mark in the title, my block was technically only preventing them from editing Shazam (film), a redirect, rather than Shazam! (film), the actual article. Thanks for letting me know, I've fixed it. ~ mazca ^talk 12:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Sigh...It looks like the IP has decided to circumvent the block by starting an account, Alvinandthechipmunksfan2007 (talk · contribs). Check out this diff (these are the account's only contributions so far)...it's obviously the same person. Can you assist? --IllaZilla (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@IllaZilla: Yes, it's obviously the same guy. As they've now made an account I've taken the (optimistic) step of mentioning it on their talk page and giving them another chance to engage in discussion, but any further edits and they're just getting blocked. Thanks! ~ mazca ^talk 18:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the continued help. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you

Delete the edits by 94.66.77.115 (talk · contribs) and related reverts from that page. Just in case. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 00:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

And everything from These Are the Voyages.... They tend to recycle anything filters don't catch. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 00:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: Done. Thanks for the recommendation. ~ mazca ^talk 00:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, he moved to Jerry Stiller. They generally move to Recent deaths after TFAs are protected. After that they de-activate for some reason. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 00:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Rajib Haider (3rd nomination)

@Mazca:, please close this - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Rajib Haider (3rd nomination) (nominated by a sock). ChokLador (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It's now closed by someone else and you're now blocked as a sock, so my work here is done with minimal effort! ~ mazca ^talk 12:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Renaissance Workshop Company

At the end, everything about the Renaissance Workshop Company has been removed in favour of the Early Music Shop in Saltaire. As usual.

Fortunately, the truth will keep being the truth independently what is stated in the wikipedia.

Kind regards 81.34.79.85 (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad the truth will continue to be the truth. I feel I did everything necessary to help you demonstrate the notability of the article, and there may simply not have been enough coverage in reliable sources to actually warrant an encyclopedia page. ~ mazca ^talk 00:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

User:JohnT122 ‎

We're approaching a WP:CIR block here; see the latest, including an absurd SPI (which probably should just be reverted). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks very solved now, thanks for the notification! Honestly if I was going to suggest to someone a method of getting blocked by getting the attention of as many administrators as possible I could scarcely do better than this sequence of actions. Cheers! ~ mazca ^talk 21:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!

Sorry I've not closed AFDs for awhile guess I'm out of practise *face-palm*. Cheers. Glen 14:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha, no worries! It's extremely easy to miss. ~ mazca ^talk 14:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Mentorship

Hi Mazca,

I hope you're that doing well. I'm just reaching out to you, firstly, to thank you for your offer to provisionally serve as a mentor, in order to harness my editing energy and refocus it in other, productive areas (besides, largely, the XfD and other meta-type project discussions that led to my prohibition on editing in the Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces). Secondly, are you still interested in serving as my mentor?

Since Floquenbeam's close noted that to make loosening or eliminating that namespace prohibition more likely in a future a AN discussion, my thought was that we could set up a page and companion talk page, say User:Mazca/Mentorships/Dmehus and User talk:Mazca/Mentorships/Dmehus, in your userspace that would serve as one space, containing any discussions between you and I that the community could ultimately review in a future WP:AN discussion.

Look forward to hearing from you soon.

Cheers,
Dmehus (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: Welcome back. I'm indeed still happy to mentor you. I think a dedicated page is a good idea in principle as we look at getting your editing restrictions lifted in future, but given the amount of general grumpiness in the ANI thread that you got blocked in, I think we're looking a good number of months before anyone's likely to look favourably on lifting them; Floquenbeam's guess at a 4-month minimum in the closure is reasonable if not outright optimistic. I would suggest that you spend a couple of weeks pointing your editing energy solely at actual productive article work, and then I'll create a mentorship page after that and we can figure out the best ways to demonstrate improvement without actually editing Wikipedia-space.

The reason I think it's best to avoid creating anything remotely formal immediately is I'd rather not give you a new process to get bogged down in immediately, as that was definitely part of the original issue - work on stuff that isn't one step removed from actually building the encyclopedia, and we'll get there. Cheers. ~ mazca ^talk 22:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Mazca, thanks. Yeah, I have a few ideas where I think I can be helpful that don't require editing in any of those namespaces. Should I work on putting together those ideas, in addition to some articles I have in mind to creating (looking at mainly a notable website or two, a few local or regional buildings, a prison, and maybe a multi-use trail or two). Not saying I plan to finalize them in the next month or two, but would at least start working on or two of them. I really just haven't spent enough time on content creation, though I suppose it's helpful that of the limited number of articles I have created, none were deleted. I know it's common for a lot of editors to have their first articles deleted. Dmehus (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I am coming back from my own (short) break and so I can understand the need to do a bit of housekeeping and catching-up upon return. However, the goal of the restriction was to channel your energies in positive ways, not divert the focus from project to user space. Try to keep this goal in mind as you continue your activities. I will also note some puzzlement in regards to the use of initials at the ends of your messages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, thank you for your reply, and for the well-articulated thoughts from your two minds in the discussion. (I had been wanting to thank you.) Yes, I haven't really resumed editing in any significant way, but did want to take care of some necessary updates to my user page and to reach out to a few people. As for including my initials in my edit summaries, I guess it is by a bit of a force of habit, from leaving pertinent notes in customers' "notes" areas whether at the bank or self storage facilities. Dmehus (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, rather than a bank form think of the diff as a marc record. I'd be pretty upset to find a author's (or cataloger's) initials in the 520 field when it was already in 100 to continue that metaphor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, great point. I will work on consciously remembering not to include my initials in my edit summaries. It is redundant and not needed, especially there for that reason, anyway. Dmehus (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Mjsa

Thanks for the ping. I have indeffed the user per my investigation into the matter, of which your note was key. I have also emailed the Arbitration Committee about this, so they may wish take further action themselves. El_C 12:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: thanks. It was unclear at the time what exactly the issue was, but it was clear that (a) it wasn't an AIV thing and (b) you were already on top of it, so I figured a quiet ping was the best method! Glad it helped. ~ mazca ^talk 19:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

For sure, it made a big difference. The Committee has also been involved and those revisions have been suppressed. El_C 19:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Recreation of Charles Okpaleke

Greetings Mazca, if you notice, I thanked you on the talk page link here because I believe it is wrong to for another user to recreate a deleted page without contacting the user who deleted the original page. In the short time I have spent on wikipedia, I have learnt that. I also have seen the great work you have been doing. I will like to recreate the page Charles Okpaleke having researched and got some reliable sources. I just watched his film on Netflix and searched him on wiki only to find out he has no wiki page. Charles Okpaleke produced the movie LIVING IN BONDAGE: BREAKING FREE which happened the be the highest grossing film in Nigeria in 2019. It also has won the biggest awards on the African continent. How can you help me to create this page? I will be excited to create it because he is one of the most searched celebrities in Africa. Thank you again for all the works you have been doing. MarkCarey911 (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

See Articles for creation, create a draft and submit it for review. Regardless of how famous you feel he is, he cannot be covered on Wikipedia unless there is demonstrable coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. There have been sufficient bad attempts at an article by similarly excited people that we definitely need to see a draft resolving the problems. ~ mazca ^talk 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Range block

Hello there. You range-blocked a few disruptive IPs on 6 July. Now the block is expired, the IPs started again as if nothing had happened not at all discouraged by the several warnings. I've asked for a new SPI procedure, without success. Since I'm quite tired of reverting all the edits mostly by myself, I'm wondering if you could consider a longer range-block. Khruner (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Khruner:, Dealt with your new SPI report and re-blocked for a month, let me know if it reoccurs before or after then! Thanks for the efforts. ~ mazca ^talk 00:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mazca, here we go again as soon as the block has expired. What a stubborn indifference. Khruner (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Khruner: Re-blocked for 3 months this time, tedious indeed! I'd also note that the other IP address they were using last time, 68.55.103.35, seems to be globally blocked for cross-wiki vandalism at the moment, so clearly they haven't been dissuaded. Thanks for the report! ~ mazca ^talk 00:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, as you can see, our friend is back from the block of what I believe is their personal IP (not the range block which is still active)... Khruner (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like Ohnoitsjamie has already reblocked them for 3 months; knowing this user, they'll probably be back at that point! Cheers for the report again. ~ mazca ^talk 19:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Caste-based prostitution

Hello, you closed the DRV for Caste-based prostitution as delete here [1] citing that "a reasonable argument can be made that there's significant coverage of "caste based prostitution" as a separate topic". I had also sent a request for closure to the administrators' noticeboard for a RCF related to mentioning caste-based prostitution and was wondering if you could close that as well? I had brought it up in the AFD and the DRV for Caste-based prostitution that the content is not really covered elsewhere and any attempt to add any mention of it on other articles is removed by the same group of users who opposed the article's creation at the same time. Since you also agreed with that side, I thought it would be helpful if the same administrator also close this rcf so that there is a consistent judgment. JustBeCool (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I get the argument for a consistent judgement (the problems with the AfD were closely connected to the embedded views on the topic) but I'm not comfortable closing that discussion after I reached a fairly tight decision on that DRV, this would probably have the appearance of looking for a closer on the basis of their opinion on the subject. Sorry! ~ mazca ^talk 19:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Persistent IP

The Arabian Nights (disambiguation) IP won't take no for an answer. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: I've protected the page for 2 weeks now, thanks for the report. I'll keep an eye on the IP, they switched to a very similar address so they can probably be rangeblocked if they start 'helping' somewhere else. ~ mazca ^talk 09:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Closing remarks re Mail on Sunday

Hi, For ‎Clarification: Does Daily Mail RfC apply to the Mail on Sunday?, you wrote: "The prohibition on citing dailymail.co.uk in practice provides a significant de facto barrier to using the Mail on Sunday as a source ...". I believe you should explain there why you think one cannot cite the print edition of Mail on Sunday, which requires no mention of url=dailymail.co.uk, and why you think there was a consensus for that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: I didn't say anything about the print version in the closing statement because it literally wasn't mentioned in the discussion, and implying I said there was a consensus explicitly forbidding that is incorrect. The sentence you quoted is, I believe, accurate - using the online version of the Mail on Sunday would contravene the 2017 and 2019 RfCs as it is on the prohibited dailymail.co.uk, but the print version was not mentioned in the closes of those RfCs. This does, however, lead to a "significant de facto barrier" in the normal meaning of that term, because it means both searching and verifying items sourced to the publication is much harder. If one were to start regularly citing the print version of the Mail on Sunday, one would not be in explicit violation of the letter of those RfCs but I imagine there would be significant opposition for several reasons, and it would probably exacerbate the need for an actual RfC clarifying the exact position. ~ mazca ^talk 23:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi mazca. As the poster of the clarification request I can confirm I was alluding to the print version as well. I mentioned the domain explicitly because it may have posed an issue with prior RfCs, but my statement wasn’t meant to limit from the print. That being said, for the online version, the content of The Mail on Sunday is available under the dailymail.co.uk domain. I must say I’m also confused how your close addresses the underlying question. Web content can also be accessed via mailonsunday.co.uk, so a close based on domain alone kinda avoids the bigger question: what’s the *current status* of this source, which is what I was trying to clarify. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader I'm sorry to hear the close didn't help, but I'm honestly not sure what you would reasonably expect from a closure of that discussion. The issue is not clear from previous RfCs, and the result of the request for clarification is that lots of people said different varieties of that statement. I genuinely think I tried my very best to extract what useful information can be taken from this discussion going forward - (1) The Daily Mail is prohibited. (2) dailymail.co.uk is prohibited (3) the Mail on Sunday as a title is not explicitly prohibited but many people think it should be and (4) it uses the expressly-prohibited dailymail.co.uk, making its use difficult and likely to be objected to. A closure reaching any more conclusion than that from a small free-form discussion would have been basically legislating based on my own opinion on the topic - and, from PG's comments above, even this inconclusive narrative closure seemingly could be read as an overreach.

Ultimately this was the kind of non-RfC freeform discussion that often doesn't need a formal closure. As several people had requested one, including Peter Gulutzan at ANRFC and Guy Macon unarchiving it to request one at AN, I was happy to do it - but I think any lack of conclusion here is due to the discussion itself, and the lack of formal consensus on this topic, rather than my closure. My intention was to summarise for future reference, as I don't believe any new consensus has developed in that discussion, nor did most participants seemingly intend to do so. I apologise if this didn't solve your issue. ~ mazca ^talk 15:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It was a good close. If Mazca had decided the issue in the closing summary after the discussion made it clear that the RfC was not clear on this specific question that would have been a WP:SUPERVOTE.

In my personal opinion, if we ever have an RfC on The Mail On Sunday it would end up being deprecated just like The Daily Mail was, but of course I could be wrong; only an actual RfC will show whether my prediction is accurate. If any editor starts insisting on citing The Mail On Sunday based upon the previous RfC not being clear on this, I guarantee that the result will be an RfC on it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)::

mazca, If you had used words like "difficult and likely to be objected to" in your summary, that would perhaps be close to the statement by Primefac that dailymail.co.uk usage "muddies the waters somewhat". Even if you had used such words about Mail on Sunday in general, i.e. even when there is no use of dailymail.co.uk, well, who would argue? All that's asked of a closer is a summary that actually reflects what was in the discussion, without addition of your opinion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I simply feel the terms are basically identical in meaning in this context. The lack of specific consensus regarding the print MoS combined with the prohibition of its website means that using it is "difficult and likely to be objected to". The same situation presents a "significant de facto barrier" for its use. Both could technically be described as my opinion, but only in so far as it's my summary of the views expressed the discussion as I understand them. ~ mazca ^talk 19:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I make a specific proposal. If you reject it I will support a close challenge but will not initiate one. (1) Quote what Primefac said: "A closer of the Daily Mail RfC explained that Mail on Sunday 'is not covered by the scope of the original discussion ... I will, however, note that dailymail.co.uk was specifically included in the close, which muddies the water somewhat as MoS uses that base URL'.". (2) Replace your sentence "The prohibition on citing dailymail.co.uk in practice provides a significant de facto barrier to using the Mail on Sunday as a source, and I think specific consensus via a new RfC would be needed to overturn that default." with what you apparently think is equivalent: "The use of Mail on Sunday as a source will therefore be difficult and likely to be objected to, and I think specific consensus via a new RfC would be needed to overturn that default." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

If anyone challenges this close I will post a comment comment that the close was a good close and that the challenge is totally without merit. I have carefully read all of the above and do not find the arguments persuasive. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but, having thought about this, I'm not going to adjust it to your preferred wording. That quote of Primefac, while not inaccurate, seems rather selective in that it leaves out both the conditional at the start and the explicit statement that a new RfC would be needed to clarify - and when there's been quite a lot of other participation I prefer to avoid directly quoting people in closures. The other part I wouldn't ordinarily have a problem with as I do indeed view the two parts of it as broadly equivalent - but I still totally fail to see any argument as to why they aren't broadly equivalent, and that just makes me faintly dubious as to the point of the change. I'd encourage you to request a close review if you genuinely think this closure does not reflect the discussion, as despite all this extra discussion I don't think I've come to agree. ~ mazca ^talk 14:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted a pending change to October 28 that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the edit notice on that page, the content guideline and/or the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide.

All new additions to the DOY pages without references are now being either reverted on-sight or in some cases where the patroller is especially motivated, immediately sourced. I've gone ahead and backed this edit out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, it's not required but it sure would be helpful if you didn't accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you and please keep up your good work! Toddst1 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Thanks for the notification. I was indeed unfamiliar with the new WikiProject guideline regarding this, and I'll plan on avoiding making any PC approvals when I run across them on DOY pages. I'd just draw your attention to a few aspects of this that made me unaware:

• That page currently only has two citations across the whole thing. I totally get, now that I've reviewed the WikiProject page, that the intention here is to fully source all of them, and avoid new unsourced entries - but right now, a page like that looks like it's been made deliberately without inline sources. In this case, I checked the addition, saw it was sourced on the subject's article, and approved it given this matched all the other nearby entries.
• The editnotice does not appear when you're just doing a pending changes review. I suspect other admins and PC reviewers not familiar with the project may make the same incorrect assumption.

I don't mean this as a criticism; you're very welcome to enforce WP:V in this way on those pages, but I figured I'd give some feedback on why this surprised me! Cheers ~ mazca ^talk 14:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yeah, we have a lot of work to do to clean those pages up. You're not the only one who has been surprised. There's a lot of incorrect or unverifiable info in them. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

An article currently exist that should not

I believe there is an article that does not pass notability criteria and still exists.Please have a look at that Shahoodu (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Shahoodu: Please actually specify what article you're referring to if you'd like me to look into it. Articles for deletion is how you'd suggest an article needs to be removed. ~ mazca ^talk 17:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

West Block Blues.This article does not even have enough contents to be approved as an independent one.WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Even though the page has cited 6 sources, most of them not uses the term "West Block Blues".No real indication that the supporters of the club have recieved in depth reliable coverage. A lot of the sources are just stats about attendences and WP:ROUTINE news reporting about the sort of events that happen to some degree.Still it was not delted as per the discusion Shahoodu (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The article only have 6 sentences.I insist on that it must be merged with the page of the club which they are supporting. Shahoodu (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The closing admin in the deletion discussionbm said that they passes GNG.But there is not a single notable event or anything they have done so far apart being from the supporters club.So please take necessary action on this issue Shahoodu (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Both AfDs had a significant consensus that there was enough coverage to justify an article. I get your argument, but while the article's a bit short and pointless it isn't actually doing any harm. I'm just one admin that's not involved in this - I just don't have any particular authority or desire to get rid of this article just because it's a bit of an unnecessary split. If you think you've got stronger arguments than were made in the last two AfDs, it's entirely reasonable to renominate it, I agree some of the arguments weren't great. ~ mazca ^talk 19:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

List of fatal dog attacks

Thanks for being willing to close this long one. Going to disagree with your close there, though. Obviously I was involved, but it seems like a definite consensus to delete on count but especially on strength of argument. On the specifics:

The only real reason I mention headcount is because you wrote "fairly split" on the application of WP:NOT, which doesn't seem accurate.

The "reasonable argument that this is a valid split," as I understand it, takes for granted that (depending on which person's argument you meant) that there is a rationale for having a total list of all fatal dog attacks in the world and this is a split off of that (the case certainly wasn't made there) or that including every single fatal dog attack in a particular country would make sense in an article but needed to be spun out because it was too big. I don't see consensus for that, either (and indeed basically all of the delete arguments still apply).

You mentioned the sources provided for coverage as a group, but didn't really come to a conclusion about that (the sentence ends with "this starts to cross into very emotive territory regarding certain advocacy groups"). Did you see the thread on RSN? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododentrites:Thanks. On your final point: I deliberately didn't draw a conclusion there because it really felt like we were moving out of any reasonable scope of a close that I already felt was getting too lengthy. Trying to apply an RSN discussion to a side-discussion in a discussion as inconclusive as this is really going beyond assessing a consensus, and starts to feel like issuing an adjudication. But overall, I think we disagree as to how effectively WP:NOT really covers this type of article as currently phrased; in particular I think a lot of the mentions of WP:IINFO in particular without trying to describe why this article applies to them (the section as phrased just doesn't really mention this type of article) were relatively weak. The headcount was close, and I don't think either side really had a monopoly on strong or weak arguments, and I could not in good faith conclude there was a consensus here, even though I'd have loved to be the one that actually put this long-running debate away. Do feel free to WP:DRV it if you genuinely think I've reached an incorrect conclusion here, but I do think that an RFC to reach some more general policy/guideline on how WP:NOT applies to lists of "deaths by x method" is most likely to actually fix this disagreement, without getting directly back into the emotive dog attack area. ~ mazca ^talk 18:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

After this afd, I'm have no interest in getting further involved in the dog-attack area (who could have guessed that this would be such a controversial topic!). I need to think more about your well thought out close, just wanted to say here that 1) I appreciate you taking the time to offer a well thought-out rationale (in a discussion that was sure to make people upset however you closed it) and 2) I think that as an involved editor, I'd agree with Rhododendrites statement above that I really did feel there was a (rough) consensus to delete the list, though I can see the argument for NC. Maybe it's worth taking to DRV for wider input from users whose opinion is not as clouded by involvement as mine? Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eddie891: I know the feeling! If you think a DRV would actually help, you're very welcome to do so and see if other uninvolved users feel there was an actionable consensus there. ~ mazca ^talk 00:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but am involved as well. The policy-based arguments far out-weighed the keeps in number but most of all because they are policy-based. Another thought as a parent - I would not want to see the description of my child's death in any list for the world to see, especially one like that list. WP is supposed to respect the private lives of people, and plastering the death of a child with a description of it and strong potental for a misidentification of the dog type just because it was published in a newspaper is against everything WP represents, and is just plain wrong morally. It is a terrible injustice to the families of the deceased. And that doesn't take into consideration the beloved family pets that will be targeted, misidentified and put to death because WP gave that list validity. It serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme:The headcount was close, and I just did not reach the same conclusion as to the strength of the policy-based arguments. I genuinely did not think a consensus was reached here: obviously you are welcome to disagree, but I don't really appreciate the implication that I'm somehow going to be responsible for the deaths of beloved family pets as a result of not finding a consensus. This is an understandably an area with strong opinions, but I'm not sure how to even respond here. ~ mazca ^talk 18:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I think our BLP policy speaks loudest, along with several WP:NOT policies. That list includes the names of minors - babies & small children - and provides the circumstances of the death that advocacies can use for impact in their relentless attempts to get breed-specific ban-legislation passed despite the misidentification of dog types in the reports WP has allowed editors to mirror, despite policy. What other reason would we add such details? We don't list condition of bodies involved in car wrecks, and we certainly don't list people, especially children who were murdered along with a detailed description of the circumstances. We rarely do that for notable people. The goal with this list is to put an end to all bully-types once and for all, and that includes dogs that have been misidentified based on looks only. They're doing it now in animal shelters. I also believe this situation needs further review by ArbCom because of the strong BLP vios in these death lists, and the names of children being exposed globally - we customarily don't include the names of living children in any of our articles, even when they are notable BLPs. To name them when there is a strong potential for inaccuracy surrounding the circumstances goes beyond the pale. You are probably not aware, but SMcCandlish and I have recently been attacked and outed off-wiki. He turned the incident over to ArbCom but it demonstrates to what lengths these advocacies will go. You might also make note, if you haven't already when you did the iVote count, that a couple of the support iVotes had fewer than 500 edits. The most problematic editors at the AfD was Normal Op because of his bludgeoning and was warned about his behavior but ignored the warning - which is typical behavior for him - because he made a PA against me right after being warned. His former user name was Nomopbs - No More Pit Bulls, perhaps? He just came off a t-ban for similar bludgeoning behavior and PAs. Your decisions are your own, Mazca - I'm simply presenting policy-based facts. My comment at the AfD provides all the diffs needed to support my position. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It was definitely meaning "no more pit bulls". Agitating against those and related breeds was pretty much that editor's WP:SPA purpose, and they did not deny this was the meaning when taken to ANI for that topic ban. Which should probably be re-instituted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Not only did I deny those incorrect guesses about my old username at that ANI, but I repeatedly denied it elsewhere and explained what it did mean. Nothing made a difference so I finally changed it to avoid further misunderstanding. But here you are bringing it up again. Anyone thinking I'm an SPA should visit my edit history and the WP:SPA article, including "An established editor focusing on a single topic is not an SPA. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, he or she can focus on single subjects for extended periods of time without being labeled an SPA." Can't you just WP:DROPTHESTICK already. Normal Op (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme:I definitely share your opinion that I don't think the victim names belong on the list - it just isn't useful information to 99% of readers, even if we set aside differences on whether the article as a whole is encyclopedic. But I ultimately think that a lot of these issues have got tangled up in themselves in that AfD - quite a lot of the best arguments about the current state of the article (individual entry inaccuracies, and the very questionable inclusion of superfluous victim information) are re-hashes of very valid editorial arguments about what belongs in the article, and not necessarily useful arguments about how suitable the article itself is. The policy argument for deleting the article is an awful lot more ambiguous than the argument for removing one or more of the columns.

Beyond that, I don't disagree with anything else you said in that post - but I still don't think it changes my opinion of the lack of consensus in that discussion. There are some long term behavioural issues here, and I'd be happy to provide input in future if this does end up at ArbCom. But these things aside, as someone who's a dog owner but not particularly involved in the US-centred pitbull debate, there are way too many toxifying factors to make this issue solvable via an AfD consensus. If there are tendentious editors ruining it, get them topic banned (again?) at ANI or at ArbCom. Potentially, the WP:NOT policy around these articles needs clarifying too, and getting a consensus there via RfC, one step removed from the direct dog attack area, is also potentially productive. The fact that the overall situation is messy, I would say, makes it harder, not easier, for an uninvolved administrator to honestly find a consensus in a tough debate. ~ mazca ^talk 19:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• You also mentioned holding an RFC on the wider suitability of these type articles, but in my opinion, something like List of fatal shark attacks in the United States is not comparable. Compare the most recent entry, which got articles in NYT, The Guardian, BBC, and many other news publications, and there are numerous books, on the topic. It's a much more widely covered topic, imo. Anyways, best wishes and we shall see what other uninvolved admins think-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment good policy based close Mazca. Lightburst (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of fatal dog attacks in the United States

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of fatal dog attacks in the United States. 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Another WP:NOTHERE

Since you kindly offered to take a look, at such cases, see User:Nawabkh2040.

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Deleted and blocked. Particularly unsubtle one there. Cheers ~ mazca ^talk 22:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Another one: User:Chandan Kumar Shee (Creator). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Deleted it - left the account alone for now, hasn't done anything else egregious! Cheers ~ mazca ^talk 22:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yet another: User:Madhubabu yalla, who reverted my first blanking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked and deleted, cheers ~ mazca ^talk 23:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• And a role account: User:THE SERVICE PARTY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• Promo autobiog: User:Mahendra Kudiya. --13:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• Promo autobiog: User:Asingh408. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked the role account; other one's already been dealt with by other admins and Asingh408 seems harmless enough to just leave blanked. Thanks again. ~ mazca ^talk 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Promo autobiog: User:Devarapalli Manikanth Reddy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Promo role account: User:Papergeni. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  Both blocked and deleted. Cheers ~ mazca ^talk 20:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed

Hello Mazca, I am currently on mobile. I was granted extended confirmed on this my alternate account but I realize I can’t edit semi protected articles. If you don’t mind can you add confirmed status to this my alt account. Best regards --Synomobi (talk). 11:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Synoman Barris mobile:  Done, no problem! ~ mazca ^talk 12:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much Mazca --Synomobi (talk). 12:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Subpage protection request

Thanks for adding TE protection to Template:Family name hatnote. Can you please add it to Template:Family name hatnote/core, which is a necessary subpage that is part of the template? I would appreciate it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95:  Done, thanks for pointing that one out. Anytime ~ mazca ^talk 18:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Sock activity resumption

Hi there, I've noticed that this sock has resumed activities in a similar vein (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/92.14.216.40/Archive#11_October_2020, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/92.14.216.40/Archive#22_October_2020). Could you extend their block please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: Yup, done. I'll disable the ability to edit their own talk page editing too if they carry on, always unclear as to which IPs are long-term and which ones are very dynamic with this guy. ~ mazca ^talk 17:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

They're back (cf this edit) on a new IP, the page protection on the article having been lifted only today. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind restoring the page protection and blocking the new IP please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done, sorry missed this yesterday. Clearly the same user again. ~ mazca ^talk 15:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No worries, most grateful. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Good morning, the latest IP is User:81.170.43.217. The indicated geolcation is slightly different but it isn't the first time they've popped up in Ayrshire, see User:88.110.127.48, whom you blocked. Usual kind of subject matter, indicative American spelling of "behavior". Could you swat this one too please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, they've been blocked now for 72 hours but I'd imagine the article will attract more attention from whatever IP they pop up on next. Would you mind reinstating page protection at Scottish people? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool - Scottish people is already protected for a month based on the last appearance on the 25th. ~ mazca ^talk 11:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so it is. That doesn't cover the talk page then? I guess pp for a talk page is a bit of a different kettle of fish. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the two things are separate and talk page protection is rarer. However, in this particular case it might become reasonable if the disruption does continue, as there's been little other activity on it - we can consider it in future. ~ mazca ^talk 12:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's greetings Mazca. Like a repeating brussels sprout, there's a familiar, undesirable whiff about User:78.147.182.89's style. It is apparently close to their recent incarnation as User:78.147.186.15. Would the range block you imposed here have covered the new IP, has it thus lapsed and, if so, would it be worth reimposing? The edits are at an article that they have targeted before and this can be seen above in the hidden NOTFORUM sections at Talk:English_people#Ethnic. I've no current intention of disputing the two edits they have made so far, though it wouldn't surprise me if there is an agenda there that's not yet apparent. I will keep an eye on them at the very least. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC>

Return of the food fighter

Hi Mazca, you may recall the ANI report where you blocked Special:Contributions/2A01:E34:EC2E:5270::/64. Looks like they haven't learned anything, and are back to making unsourced changes claiming Lebanese national origins of foods, contradicting the existing sources... maybe you could take a look? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@IamNotU:  Done. Clearly still the same person on that /64 range, blocked for 3 months this time given it's exactly the same behaviour. Thanks for the report! ~ mazca ^talk 14:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

2001:d08:d5:43ed:68bf:68b2:76ae:e619

user:2001:d08:d5:43ed:68bf:68b2:76ae:e619 is a sock of user:2001:d08:d5:43ed:68bf:68b2:76ae:e619 and is rapidly vandalizing right now. CLCStudent (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, now all sorted by Materialscientist before I got there. ~ mazca ^talk 13:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Long-term abuser

Hello, not sure if you remember this discussion. Well, they are back as if nothing had happened and ignoring warnings. The previous IP was globally blocked a few months ago, yet they are now editing with IP 73.18.218.180. Could you stop them once again? Khruner (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Khruner: Materialscientist has blocked them for 31h, i'll do a longer one if it continues after that ends. Cheers! ~ mazca ^talk 20:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC