This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes.ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}}{{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
(Initiated 68 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
new closer needed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.
If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.
Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.
However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 46 days ago on 7 April 2024)
Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 45 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. AwesomeAasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 45 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 36 days ago on 17 April 2024) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please assess consensus? There has been a request at DRN now that the RFC has completed activity, but what is needed is formal closure of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 32 days ago on 20 April 2024)
An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"
In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.
I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".
I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.
The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 46 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 114 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 100 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 37 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 20 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The civility restriction in question is vacated, and other proposed changes are implemented without objection. Swarm talk 00:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This template currently includes a "Civility" restriction that was added in January 2018 by User:Coffee a couple months before his retirement. It reads:
Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.
I don't recall the extent to which Coffee enforced this sanction, but to my knowledge it has not been enforced since he retired. Searches I did of WP:AE archives didn't pull up anything except this in which one of the commenting users cited the Civility restriction, and where administrator User:NeilN (the primary admin patrolling the AP area at the time) commented with this: "many of these pages are already under a tightened civility restriction: [quotes the restriction] Doesn't seem to do much." The AE report was closed with a reminder/warning.
I believe this restriction should be removed for the following reasons:
It is redundant with our current civility policy. Administrators can already block uncivil users for personal attacks, etc., without the need to cite discretionary sanctions. (The other sanctions in this template (1RR and Consensus Required) are in addition to, not restatements of, current policy.)
The longer a template is the less likely users are to read it. Also WP:CREEP
The template is for sanctions, not reminders. If we want to make it a template for reminders I can think of better policies to remind users about (NPOV for instance)
The other sanctions are fairly "bright-line" sanctions with violations that can be easily and uniformly identified and enforced. It's not clear what constitutes a violation of "proper decorum during discussions and edits".
I'm with you. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have problems with the whole thing, and never place it on Am Pol pages, for my part. But getting rid of the civility restriction makes it a little better, so go ahead, AFAIC. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Ugh bureaucracy. We really need a reasonable way to modify sanctions after a sanctioning admin becomes permanently unreachable. Any objections to me copying/pasting this section (with comments) over to WP:AN? ~Awilley (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AE would also work. As a way to solve the problem in the future, does any admin want to step forward as Coffee's successor? Then that person would 'own' the discretionary sanctions that Coffee imposed and could agree to any changes. The new owner could be confirmed by consensus at a noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC
You're right, AE would have been a better venue. Unfortunately I already started a thread at WP:AN and my attempt to undo that got garbled somehow, and now that it's been commented on there as well I'm going to give up on trying to move it again. ~Awilley (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
End of copy-pasted material
Support removal of civility restrictions yeah, they don't work and are virtually unenforceable. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal - I don't see them as necessary. On the other hand, I'm unhappy that DS alerts dropped "edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies." and now only mentions policies, and might bring that up at WP:AE at some point. Doug Wellertalk 19:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Doug--thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, I'm not familiar with the dropping that you referenced. But I do notice that this template includes the sentence "Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" near the end of the collapsed portion. ~Awilley (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of that text from this template. Discretionary sanctions already can be applied for poor behavior in an area subject to DS, and that's noted on the original alert an editor receives for DS. This seems rather redundant. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 01:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade: the DS alert simply says "Commons-emblem-notice.svg This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. " Doug Wellertalk 16:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Civility is a general requirement for remaining in good standing. It is my understanding that admins have general discretion to call out editors who are repeatedly failing to abide by a modicum of decorum. Articles about politics are nothing special in that respect. — JFGtalk 22:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Y OK, I've made the change. Thank you for the input! ~Awilley (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it
In the spirit of making the template more readable I'd also propose the following changes:
The first sentence currently says: "The article [article name], [extra mumbo jumbo], is currently subject to discretionary sanctions..." with [extra mumbo jumbo] = "along with other pages perceived at the discretion of an administrator to have a high potential for continuous disruption and which relate to topic of post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people". [Extra mumbo jumbo] is mostly redundant with stuff in the last bullet point and last paragraph of the template, and I propose removing it from the first paragraph.
The last bullet point beginning "This article and its editors" is not a sanction, it's another general statement about what sanctions are, and is redundant with stuff in the first and last paragraph. In fact the template uses the phrase "post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people" three times, and the sentence "All edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, are placed under discretionary sanctions." in the last bullet point is reproduced word for word in the last paragraph. I propose that the last bullet point be merged into the last paragraph.
Since this isn’t actually a sanction, you’re free to modify those to be clearer without consensus. What needs consensus is modification of any specific DS. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The simpler the better. — JFGtalk 22:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Y OK, I'll go ahead and make those changes. ~Awilley (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updating this template has been on my to-do list for eons now.. thanks for doing this, very appreciated Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 09:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all for your work on the ref desks. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 131#Protection suggestion. There wasn't any response there so I'm adding the link here for wider input. During one attack last month There'sNoTime did change the protections so that the desks couldn't be hit at the same time. Thanks for your consideration. MarnetteD|Talk 14:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say this at the time but it seemed a good idea to me Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two living people under the name "Jenny Boyd"
I am currently unable to create a article for the American actress "Jenny Boyd" who stars on The CW's Legacies whom is 27 years of age due to the fact that another article under "Jenny Boyd" already exists which is a completely different person who is a former english model 71 years of age, it also seems that "Legacies" is shown to be her work which is not the case.
The only possibly notable part that she's played is in a series that only started airing two weeks ago, so this is WP:TOOSOON. Also, the image appears to be copied from IMDB, so I have tagged it for deletion at Commons. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revision Deletion- Coupé Utility article
Hello,
This edit of mine was deleted, due to a claim of copyright infringement: link
Although I didn't write the text in question, (the blog post) seems to be a copy of Wikipedia pages so I don't think it's a Copyright Infringement.
"Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed. Administrators should consult as usual if uncertain that a revision would be appropriate to redact."
"Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at WP:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion."
I think the Revision Delete was not in accordance with Wikipedia policy, especially without any consultation.
Could my edit please be restored? If that is not possible, could the content please be placed in a Sandbox? (the edit also included other changes I made, that I would like access to please)
@1292simon: that revision was deleted by admin User:Sphilbrick - contacting Sphilbrick at their talk page should be your first stop. — xaosfluxTalk 22:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Xaosflux, will do. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1292simon, This is not the right forum for a content discussion. Let's continue this on my talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked per the standard offer. — xaosfluxTalk 19:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Working through CAT:UNB, came across a WP:SO unblock request at User talk:RazrRekr201. Block has been 3 years, and he says he has not edited in that time. Pinging @Elockid:, the blocking admin as well. I have no opinion, but am posting here for review. Thanks. --Jayron32 05:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest accepting the SO request, pending a Checkuser's confirmation insofar as possible, because it was a CU block; assuming that's all right, he's not been disruptive, he's admitted what he did, asserts he won't do it again and, in the end, if he messes up again (which i hope he won't) then reblock. Also pinging Tiptoety, like Elockid sadly inactive, because he made a comment at the sockpuppet investigation. Happy days, LindsayHello 14:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, accept, pending CU evidence that they haven't socked for three months. At the end of the day, it's been three years: that's long enough for characters to change in. Which is doubtless what's happened here. ——SerialNumber54129 14:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's difficult to say anything conclusively based on a single edit, but it's usually possible to detect obvious sock puppetry on this ISP. So, nothing obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support reasonable unblock request. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support a long time since block and no sign for more disruption. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Accesscrawl etc. BTW as a minor aside might it be helpful to copy the unblock request text here? I thought this was the norm so someone else would mention it, but no one ever did so am I confused? Nil Einne (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I had a message on my talk page from Kosack about a possible an impersonator and I was wondering if it's related to this new account User:Rocket blastoff who has been leaving my messages as the two accounts were created around the near the same time of day I thought it might be the same person. Also maybe because I didn't see any reason to help this Rocket person as I felt they were just wasting my time and that's the reason for the comment on this Govvyy with "I am govvyy , one of these days I will make some edits ." Or if the two accounts are related to this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anuchak at all. Maybe an admin could look into these accounts, thanks, Cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: Had my suspicions and thank you very much for sorting that out thanks. Govvy (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Toyota Land Cruiser
Request fulfilled, article reverted to stable version prior to the undiscussed move; discussion initiated at the talk page. No such user (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On 9 November 2018, new user Wallacevio renamed a bunch of Toyota Land Cruiser articles and redirects. I believe he thought he was doing good but unfortunately it is now a total mess with the wrong article names and subject matter. Eg the 200 was only one particular generation but the Toyota Land Cruiser 200 article now covers all generations. Some other editors have made attempts to correct it and some bots have tried to patch up some of the redirects but have only made it worse. Eg Toyota BJ, the first Land Cruiser generation in 1951) was meant to go to the first generation entry on the main Land Cruiser page but now redirects to a non-existent anchor at Toyota Land Cruiser Prado. The Prado didn't come into existence util 1990, so a 1951 BJ definitely does not belong here. This is way too complex for me to handle. Even just following what Wallacevio did is hard. My request is for an administrator to totally revert the various Toyota Land Cruiser articles and all redirects back to their name and content before 9 November 2018. Stepho talk 12:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have I asked at the wrong place? I can't find any guidelines for requesting a move to be undone and the 'move' tool says there is a conflict. I can only find guides for requesting new moves, which require lengthy discussions while the page is left in the controversial state. If we can have the move undone then Wallacevio can open a discussion before any new moves. Discussion is at Talk:Toyota Land Cruiser Grande#Requested move 10 November 2018 but user Wallacevio is not participating (he has been informed) and no administrator have given any clue that this is the right procedure. Thanks. Stepho talk 21:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No answer in 4 days? Can somebody suggest the correct place to ask for help? Thanks. Stepho talk 22:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Use of William Sayle image
The image used - a illustration of William Sayle - on the Bahamas Colonial history page was drawn by myself and has been lifted and used without permission. I have the original drawing. Please acknowledge source of the image as Sheila Bethel.
Thank you
Sheila Bethel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.75.97.198 (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear the image in question, if it is File:William Sayle.jpg, which isn't certain because Bahamas Colonial history is a redlink, was uploaded by a Russian editor, Valdis72, taken from here and identified as in the public domain. IP user 65.75.97.198, have i identified the image, if so can you explain why you are claiming a public domain image? Happy days, LindsayHello 19:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RfPP backlog
No backlog. For now ... Fish+Karate 13:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi admins. Sorry to bother all of you, but Wikipedia:Requests for page protection currently has 45 pending requests, many of which are from days ago, which based off of what I've seen in the past would be considered a very high backlog for RfPP. It also has had {{admin backlog}} on it for a while now. If someone (multiple people would be even better) would like to help clear the backlog on the page a bit that would be much appreciated.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've knocked out most of it, if someone can scan through the last few I didn't get to. -- ferret (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@SemiHypercube:, that precisely means I'm writing a closing statement, (which got delayed courtesy Fred Bauder stuff). I blame myself for a poor choice of wording; though:-)∯WBGconverse 01:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
R/D needed
The ref desk troll changed their pattern of rapid mass spamming posts to the desks to making a few edits and then moving on to the next IP. While blocks are being applied to the IPs the followup rev/del of their posts is being missed. The edit summaries and posts may look like gibberish but they contain personal attacks and other nonsense that needs removal. The ones I've seen are 103.63.24.155 (talk·contribs) - 176.104.105.82 (talk·contribs) - 190.214.51.210 (talk·contribs). I know that zzuuzz has been zapping them when he has a chance but he has to enjoy his life away from the 'pedia as well as sleep for a few moments. If anyone available can get these it would be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 07:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was fairly surprised to learn that user:Koavf has accepted pay to edit two articles, Bob's Watches and On Becoming Baby Wise, a rather controversial book about child rearing.
Knowing he is one of our most prolific contributors I approached him carefully at User_talk:Koavf#Conflict_of_interest_in_Wikipedia;_paid_editing and talked through community expectations about paid editing. They were ~more or less~ receptive but signalled they still intended to edit directly.
I was very surprised to see this terrible edit tonight, where they a) directly edited and b) replaced criticism with endorsements, sourced to the organization's own website. Yikes.
I reverted with an edit note Replacing criticism with endorsements cited to their own website violates WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO. No thanks to the spamming and asked them to explain why they are editing directly.
They reverted (!) and blithely responded at their talk page Per the above. You knew that I would edit this page and I made it explicitly clear why, how I was contacted to do so, etc.
This person clearly has no intention of honoring the spirit or letter of WP:COI and WP:PAID; how any experienced Wikipedian could think that replacing independently sourced criticism from the APA with endorsements sourced to the organization's website is OK, is impossible for me to understand.
Please see the actual edit: I did not replace or remove any criticism of the book and actually added a critical quotation that wasn't there before. Nothing I did warrants banning me from editing and I was transparent about how I was contacted off-wiki to edit the page. See the talk page for both an initial statement of COI and then later (after Jytdog's posts), a more proper statement of who contacted me, why, and when. I have not violated any rule except inadvertently not including all of this information in my first disclosure. I have since posted it, talked to users at NPP to see if they see a COI problem with my user rights, said I would not do paid editing in the future (i.e. after this article), gone thru an AfD on the other paid article (which passed), not accepted any further paid editing, and I have posted to Talk:On Becoming Baby Wise for feedback on my edits. Note that Jytdog has flagrantly lied about what I did in the edit summary: I did not replace or remove any criticism from the page and when prompted about self-promotional content, I removed it in my revert. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't include the 2nd restoration with the edit note I have every right to edit this page, including things like adding sourced information.. When any editor, but especially paid editors, start talking about their "rights" it is clear that things are very far gone. This posting is requesting a TBAN only from the baby-rearing article; we have already fixed up the Bob's Watches page. Jytdog (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me a diff where I replaced or removed criticism of the book. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: There is no criticism that was removed: it is all in the reception section. The lead and reception had identical information in them: I did not remove any citation or claim at all. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Actually in that 2nd diff (which I forgot to include) you did not add back the spam, nor did you in the 1st edit warring diff. You did, in each of those, replace the APA-sourced criticism with weasel wording. This still fails NPOV and is promotional; totally tedious paid advocacy. And you edit warred to do it when you should even be editing directly at all. You should not be editing directly, much less removing criticism, much less adding spam.
Since you will not follow the spirit and letter of COI and PAID -- and even here give no sign of understanding how bad your edits were nor how inappropriate it is for you to directly edit where you have a clear COI, you should be TBANed. I have no desire to wrangle over garbage editing like this with somebody who should know better. This is getting cluttered and I will not be responding further to you. Jytdog (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Sure. We'll see what others have to say. This can all be resolved on talk and as you yourself pointed out, I am happy to listen to constructive criticism about how to make the article better and my edits as well. Please don't misrepresent the AAP or my edits in the future. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban, and recommend an admonition to Koavf for very poor judgement in this case. Paid editors should always defer to highly experienced uninvolved volunteer editors, and it is really disappointing to see such a highly experienced editor behaving this way. Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support (non-admin) topic ban per the promotional COI of the articles. The unwillingness to admit an error is particularly concerning. SportingFlyertalk 07:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban. This is galling. The current (painful, awkward) paid-editing compromise does rest on paid editors showing particular adherence to NPOV editing practices, more so than a run-of-the-mill contributor. You can do paid stuff if you are a paragon of editing ethics about it. Otherwise, please desist (and the community will tell you so). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Although Koavf is prolific, he is often problematic in his judgment, and unresponsive to the concerns of other editors. His movement into paid editing is therefore of concern to me, as I do not trust in his ability to understand the nuances of that position. This -- very focused -- TB may help to guide him in that respect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban, obviously. When you accept payment to edit on a subject, you forfeit the right to judge whether your edits are in accordance with NPOV and you must defer to others - that's the whole point of the thing about requesting edits on the talk page. Exceedingly poor judgment from Koavf here, especially going as far as to edit war over it! I would even support a community ban if we see anything similar in the future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having read more of the article, I'm surprised to see there is no mention of the religious background to this book in the lead. That's not Koavf's fault and I don't blame him for it, but the fact that he's being paid to push a religion-based subject strengthens my support for a topic ban. Paid editing bad, religious promotion bad, paid religious promotion super bad. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban. Using Wikipedia as a marketing platform is bad enough. But these edits toned down or removed legitimate and well sourced criticism from medical professionals, replacing it with self promotion from the company's website. The only thing worse than using Wikipedia as a billboard is using it to promote woo-woo. ReykYO! 08:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now, where do I go to wash my hands? -Roxy, the Prod.wooF 09:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support TBAN with regret. What is the inclusion of an Amazon wishlist on the user page but a solicitation for reward? It's a very sad lapse of judgement. Cabayi (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a list of things you want to own is an obvious solicitation. I removed it, but Koavf restored, and I don't plan to restore the deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't reckon it is solicitation but it has nothing to do with JasonKoavf's work in WP and shouldn't be there per WP:USERPAGE; userspace is not a personal webhost etc. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC) (fixed, apologies Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]
@Jytdog: I'm assuming you accidentally misnamed me? Also, user pages can have "Useful links, tools, and scripts". The goal is to show what I do around the Web, not just on WMF projects. I'm not sure what you think web hosting is but a link on a page does not constitute web hosting. *@Cabayi: in case you were legitimately asking. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not misname you. Much of your userpage violates WP:USERPAGE which you should read sometime. But this is just clutter away from the purpose of this thread; I won't respond further about this. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC) (yes i did accidentally misname Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)}[reply]
@Jytdog: - I think Koavf is referring to the fact that you called him "Jason" instead of "Justin". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oh poop. distraction on top of distraction. fixed w apologies. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf has removed the Amazon wishlist from his user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voluntary ban
Voluntary ban Per WP:SNOW, it's clear what community consensus is emerging to be and I won't edit the page directly. I don't want to prejudice discussion, so please continue as you feel is necessary but I will make any further suggestions on the talk page to the article. I am fine with the community having a perspective that's different than mine and I'll abide by consensus but I have to admit that I am honestly shocked by several things here:
Complete misrepresentation of my editing
The imposition of a ban °as tho it's a rule. WP:PAIDdiscourages direct editing but doesn't prohibit it. User:Jytdog didn't even bother to discuss on talk before posting here. How is that the process? If the process is that direct editing is disallowed, then make that the rule. It's honestly vexing and I have no idea why the conversation here is so rancorous. Rather than attempt to discuss, he immediately went to ANI, which is not why this board exists.
Some allegation that I am soliciting funds. I have always turned down anyone asking me to edit for pay, usually several times. I had a link to an Amazon wishlist because it's a place where I have an account on the Internet; just like I have links to Everything2 and Reddit. Someone else had the gall to remove it which I think is totally inappropriate. (Either way, I haven't actually used Amazon in... seven? years so I removed it myself and made that wishlist private. I don't condone or endorse Amazon and only have a wishlist as a reminder to myself. No one has ever gotten me anything off of a wishlist.)
And now there is some kind of ban creep based on my views which is something I'm struggling to even comprehend.
The attitude here in no way seems collegial or assuming good faith. Why this couldn't be resolved by the default which is posting to talk and discussing it is some mixture of disappointing, insulting, and outrageous to be frank. Again, feel free to continue the discussion but by my own volition, I'll only be posting to the talk page there and not directly to the article itself. After [x] weeks or months, I will appeal this simply so I don't have any existing bans out there but suffice it to say that I'm not interested in editing for pay or editing on this topic ever again after my suggestions to the talk page are addressed. I'm really disappointed in the process here by wildly escalating things that did not need to be, assuming bad faith on my part, and making some mockery of consensus by not even attempting it on the page in question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF is for volunteer editors, not for paid editors. When you took money, you crossed a line, and you no longer get the benefit of the doubt -- now, you have to prove to us your good faith, we will no longer assume it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: I did a Ctrl+F on that page for "volunt" and got no results. Please show me where this distinction is made. Also, how in principle do you propose proving good faith? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The way anyone shows good faith, by your actions. You could show good faith, for instance, by voluntarily accepting the topic ban that Jytdog has proposed above, not the watered-down version you prefer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an accurate reading of the !votes above, which is for a complete TBAN from the subject. Again, just yikes. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The subject"? I'll happily not edit on intermittent baby feeding and sleep schedule techniques outside of this particular article as well, sure. (Do we have any others? News to me.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a TBAN not just a direct editing ban. So no - no further suggestions and no dialogue on the talk page. Nothing. A ban on the topic. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Justin, just a few thoughts on your comments above, specifically your note #2. Nobody is suggesting imposing a ban "as tho it's a rule", the proposal is to impose a ban as consensus - which you clearly do understand is the community's prerogative. Also, yes, WP:PAIDdiscourages direct editing but doesn't prohibit it. But you do have to be especially careful when making edits for pay, and you absolutely must stop the instant you are challenged on it and take it to the talk page to seek consensus. You must accept other people's oversight of your paid edits and you really should not revert the removal of any paid edits you make without consensus - doing that is what I see as your big lapse in judgment here. I'll also add that if you are editing in subject areas connected to something where you have strong personal convictions, in this case Christianity, you need to be especially wary of even doing paid editing in the first place - and edit warring in such cases is pretty much guaranteed to result in a storm. I have great respect for your enormous contribution here and I thank you for it - but I have to add my own feeling that those held in such high esteem as yourself have a more prominent profile than most, and I personally see it as a misjudgment when they accept paid editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to add (sorry for the wordiness) that I thought Jytdog's approach to you at User talk:Koavf#Conflict of interest in Wikipedia; paid editing and explanation of the community's feelings on paid editing was fair and thorough, and that your response there was not as collaborative as I would have hoped. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Justin, the community basically pleads, implores, begs, 'no direct edits'. (Of the many reasons it does so, is so not to have to have proceedings like this, here.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker: Take it for granted. I'll appeal this after [x] weeks and see if the community is comfortable with me posting suggested edits to the talk and then I'll be done with this topic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your contempt for the community is showing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extended topic ban proposal
Looking at Koavf's user page, I see he has strong religious and political convictions. There's nothing wrong with that, but I feel it should disqualify him from paid editing in related areas. So I propose a topic ban from paid editing in subject areas in which Koavf has personal religious or political convictions. If there is doubt about the degree of personal conviction involved in a specific subject, Koavf should make a request to the community before accepting paid editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given the "not interested in editing for pay or editing on this topic ever again" response above, I'm happy to withdraw this proposal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Boing! said Zebedee the message above is decidedly mixed. The words after my suggestions to the talk page are addressed directly follow the bit you quoted, and the first sentence says I will make any further suggestions on the talk page to the article. Much of what Koavf has written on the topic of paid editing has been decidedly mixed; they really seem to be deaf to a) their edits being terribly POV (I still shake my head every time I read their disclosure, which is quite... freudian -- see hereI was contacted independently to edit this page by Blake Weber, who knows the authors and he offered compensation for that editing to ensure POV against what he felt was NPOV editing.") and b) the very clear sense in the community that direct editing by paid/conflicted editors generally leads to content and behavioral problems and should be avoided (with the very few, clear standard exceptions). (btw Blake Weber controlled the rights to the books/marks etc and may still do; "knows the authors" was very poor and misleading disclosure).
I thought your proposal was interesting. Would probably be very hard to live with given Koavf's lack of self-insight, but it was interesting. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree his comments are very mixed - and it's disappointing that he doesn't seem to fully get it. But I now think just the specific topic ban above should suffice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
same page. OK. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A bit of background, this relates to updating the protection level icons. As such, the new icons need adding to Module:Protection banner/config, which I did here. I reverted here, seeing as the files need protecting before this change is applied (it's not every day you're updating the protection icons!).
The current situation is that the new files are create-protected on enwiki, Upload and Move Protected on Commons.
I've done the legwork of uploading local copies of the icons. Of course, they couldn't be uploaded over the Commons versions, as I am not an administrator. As such, the following changes need administrator intervention, unless the status quo is adequate (judging by the wording of {{Keep local high-risk}}, I'm guessing that there's a policy of keeping enwiki control over the protection level).
@Bellezzasolo: Done. Didn't see much of a reason to keep the shakle1 redirects, but feel free to remake them if you wish. I've fully protected all of them. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: no reason to keep them at all. I've made the module change, the new icons are now officially live. ∰Bellezzasolo✡Discuss 12:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anarchyte I know this isn't common knowledge, but we don't edit protect files unless the file page itself is in danger - edits to a file only show on the file page, they don't show up on the file itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Ah, I'll change that then. I just saw the golden lock on the pre-existing padlock files and assumed they were fully protected. Anarchyte (talk | work) 15:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: for these ones, they should be: local uploads, full-move-protected, and full-upload-protected. They can be unprotected for edit. — xaosfluxTalk 16:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Local upload: That depends on whether you trust Commons with such sorta-sensitive images. I don't think we usually do but it's more status quo/"that's how it currently is, usually" rather than policy. If you do it might be worth asking on commons:COM:AN to protect them, there is certainly precedent for files that are in use in other projects to be protected on Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already protected all the Commons versions last night. Originally I had seen that they were put into use without protection so I quickly did them all and then asked Mz7 to create protect the local links to avoid overwrite. Over the course of the day they were all uploaded locally and protected locally. No big deal. Either way works. --Majora (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove 'extendedconfirmed' right from blocked user Hasive
Dear concerned administrators, please consider removing the user rights of the above mentioned indefinitely blocked user which is no longer necessary.
My apologies if this request should be put on some other page. — T. 16:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not done@Wikitanvir: as they are blocked they can't edit so this isn't needed. We generally only revoke that flag for users that have actively abused it (such as by gaming the counts or users that had an exceptional early issuance). — xaosfluxTalk 16:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: I'm aware of the fact, but I thought it is redundant to keep such rights and you guys remove redundant user rights. Anyway, if it's against the policy or so, I understand. — T. 08:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question about new users creating additional accounts
Why do we allow brand new users to create additional accounts willy-nilly? See, eg, these. DuncanHill (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rule against creating alternate accounts. Sometimes vandals create a few sock puppets before they get blocked, though. Those accounts also need to get blocked, but they're usually easy enough to find. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A user came on the IRC help channel to ask about his block and I had a conversation with him; he consented to my pasting it here. I decline to do the unblock myself, but this is at least something for you to consider,
<Dragonfly6-7> what was th ename of the previous account, please.
<Dragonfly6-7> out of curiosity, can I ask why you switched from one to the other?
<FrogCast> Yes. I run a youtube channel
<FrogCast> I make derivative works from wikipedia
<FrogCast> my youtube channel is named, "FrogCast",
<FrogCast> I wanted all future contributions to be under that rudrick and not my real name.
<FrogCast> most of my contributions under akiva.avraham are all things concerning my youtube channel, which are extremely small edits correcting punctuation and syntax.
<Dragonfly6-7> also I'd like you to bear in mind the notion of 'false balance'
<FrogCast> Dragonfly6-7: Yeah. I had over an hour long discussion about that with Huon, the admin who rejected my unblock:
<FrogCast> ""I thought that if "Right-wing conspiracy theories" was allowed in, that this language was fair and neutral as long as a source was provided." Funny how you then failed to provide a source for "left-wing conspiracy theory" and rather argued about the number of intelligence agencies which confirmed that this supposed "left-wing conspiracy theory" is what actually happend. Huon (talk)"
<FrogCast> Huon took the time to articulate the nuance around what constitutes a "conspiracy theory", and I happily accepted and understood the principle that was laid out to bare, and promised to apply it moving forward. At the end of that conversation however, that admin did not want to unblock me based on "a hunch", and then promptly left without explaining.
<FrogCast> The point being, is that look, I see what everyone is saying about "false balance" and I have always agreed with it, but it really honestly feels at this point, after promising and doing everything conceivable to address the issue, to admit guilt, rectify it moving forward, and still be denied, is that... That I had committed a thought crime. I really dont know what to do.
[much later]
<Dragonfly6-7> oh jeeze, i forgot i was still connected
<Dragonfly6-7> uh
<FrogCast> ttyl
<Dragonfly6-7> what you're saying *looks* sensible; would you be okay with me copying it into a message to another admin
<FrogCast> Fine with me. Use your best discretion.
so, this looks prima facie like contrition and comprehension to me. What do you think? DS (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The User:Akiva account was renamed to User:Akiva~enwiki. The latter has no live edits, but a few deleted edits ending in 2006. Akiva~enwiki has never been blocked. The newer account Akiva.avraham was editing up through April 2018 and is not currently blocked. User:FrogCast is another story, and I'm not yet seeing good reasons for an unblock there. In the block appeal on his talk page FrogCast seems to be stubbornly defending bad behavior. There is more good information in this user's UTRS appeal. Still, the last UTRS reviewing admin was User:Just Chilling and he declined to lift the block, recommending a later appeal instead. In the UTRS appeal FrogCast does reveal what he says are his previous accounts, and anyone who has UTRS access can compare those statements to the above IRC discussion. There doesn't seem to be any reason to ask for an SPI or a checkuser. (It's the current account that is behaving badly, not the older ones). EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked because this clearly wasn't a new user, and he posted this to a talk page I stalk, plus the nonsense on his own talk page. Given the three edits to murder of Seth Rich I'd only support an unblock with a US politics TBAN. What do people think about that? I don't feel super strongly either way here, none of the accounts has edited much, but Akiva.avraham and FrogCast were both used concurrently for some time and his choice of topics includes some with which we have long-standing issues, such as Burzynski Clinic, a ruinously expensive quack cancer centre, and Rudolf Steiner, the German faux-mystic cultist. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to support unblock and neutral on Guy's proposed restriction. Frankly, Mjolnirpants and David Tornheim sitting on the user's talkpage demanding they reveal their previous accounts is harassment and should not have been allowed, and if they responded to that poorly, well, sometimes that happens. As for the accounts listed here, the only page with any overlap between the two active accounts is History of Mexico (see [1]) and that was a series of three insignificant edits. Akiva.avraham hasn't edited in months and definitely hasn't edited while FrogCast has been blocked, so it's my view that no violation of the multiple accounts policy has occurred. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New user shows up and starts causing problems at an area thats under a variety of restrictions - and states they are not a new user? Yeah the first thing thats going to be demanded is they disclose any previous accounts. And I will note the that WP:HAND there. Using a bad hand account for disruptive editing certainly is a violation of WP:SOCK. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be the YouTube channel, which appears to be audios of Wikipedia articles: [2]. I'm wondering if the username "FrogCast" may violate username protocol in that the username could be perceived as advertising the name of his YouTube channel? Softlavender (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed their Youtube channel said it was frogcast.org but it didn't work then and still doesn't work now. But I agree they need a user rename Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This edit summary has a link to a forum insulting me without any ground. Could any admin please delete the edit summary and place a warning to the user?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please note that it makes little sense to want something removed, but advertise the diff here on one of the most widely watched pages on the project. Next time, probably better to email an admin or the oversight mailing list. But for now, it's REVDEL'd and I've left the editor a note. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will follow your advice next time (I hope there isn't "next time").―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I am posting this on the behalf of User:SuperSucker, since they requested a renaming and are blocked on English Wikipedia. (A little discussion about this is here). 17:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1997kB (talk • contribs)
Unblock has been declined by NRP per IP socking. I see no reason to grant a rename here. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally see a reason to oppose renaming since they seem in good standing on commons and they can be required to ensure to mention their previous username on any unblock request here. I mean if there's fear someone will try and push their images onto articles and people won't recognise the creator, we could always notify of the username change on relevant article talk pages. Or in other words, I don't see how them being renamed harms us in any way and they have a reason for wanting to be renamed, despite being blocked here. (It's obviously normally a waste of time to rename people if they're not editing anywhere.) After all, if they were to ever successfully unblocked, we'd surely allow a rename right after. And while people sometimes have to put up with the consequences of their ill advised choices, having a username SuperSucker must be super sucky. But I'd oppose an unblock if they've been editing with an IP less than 6 months ago. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename - if they can convince one of the other wikis to rename them then fine, but if they're blocked here and socking, I've no interest in doing them any favours. Username's inconvenient for editing other projects? Not English Wikipedia's problem. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: Read the notice prominently displayed at the top of this page for your convenience. "The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." ―Mandruss☎ 20:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's there now. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not ANI, but close enough. ―Mandruss☎ 20:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't ANI, this is AN. It's a barely new editor who's causing problems, which likely doesn't meet the whole community's concern. Just administrators. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And your section heading says "ANI report". As I said, close enough. As long as the link gets them here, which it does. ―Mandruss☎ 20:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, fixed it :) GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check enough of the mainspace edits to get a solid impression of whether sanctions were warranted, primarily because those last two diffs in usertalkspace are sufficient. It's a stretch, but maybe one could argue that he doesn't realise it's a bad idea to replace a message on his talk with a different message and keep the signature. But there's no way one could argue that replacing the whole talk page with a fake message is maybe not done in bad faith — except maybe by arguing that Kimtisdale doesn't have any clue at all, in which case a WP:CIR block would be needed. Therefore, blocked for 48 hours. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RfPP Backlog
Hi guys - sorry to raise a fairly small issue, but theres a couple of dozen outstanding raise-protection requests in WP:RFPP, some of which have been there a fairly long time. Any hands who could help would be really appreciated
Can an admin take a look at Sabrina Carpenter discography and evaluate the discussion on the talk page to see if the current revision needs to be with or without the rowspan parameter? There is an ongoing dispute but the current revision should include rowspan because it is the "default/long-standing" stable version as it was in the article for years until its bold removal in June which was reverted. Flooded with them hundreds 05:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Admins cannot rule on content if that is what you are asking them to do. Regarding behavior, the page just came off a full-protection and discussion is proceeding on the talk page. Do you have a specific concern about the interactions on the talk page after the protection was put on the article? --Izno (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I'm just asking that the long-standing stable version be restored. Flooded with them hundreds 05:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved in the talk page "discussion", and I agree with Flooded again here: the editors who were recruited to the talk page by each other have watchlisted the article and have stated they will revert anybody who tries to change the article back to the way it was. The editor who proposed the change for the article to be "accessibility-compliant" ignored WP:BRD when they first edited the article, and recently told two other editors of the article's situation, one of whom in turn asked yet another to "keep an eye on" the article—so essentially a clique now controls the article. There are several editors who engaged in edit warring (mainly the editor who proposed the change, who did it for months) that I am honestly surprised were not blocked (even though Dlohcierekim pondered it when I asked for the page to be protected at RFPP). Flooded and I were told we were "just as bad as racists and homophobes" for wanting rowspans on an article when that's the way it originally was and most discographies are (I have heard it all now, folks). I know admins don't like to get involved in "content disputes" but it should be restored to the long-standing version (that is not possible to be restored by regular editors because they will be reverted almost instantly) and then the discussion can continue from there. For the record: I was not involved in the editing disputes; I noticed it last week and informed Ad Orientem, who locked the page for a day then. I did edit the page yesterday, but nothing to do with what is being disputed. Ss112 06:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion can continue no matter which version the article is on at the moment, and making that determination remains a content issue. See m:The Wrong Version. Ss112, if there are conduct concerns such as edit warring, ownership, and so on, then please post diffs rather than making assertions we can't readily check. Thanks. Fish+Karate 11:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fish and karate: It's right there in the edit history: [3]. The reverts by one particular editor go back months, and another who was recruited to the article by the first editor threatened to take anybody who edit warred to AN/EW, even though they themselves were edit warring. Ss112 11:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the history, and I don't see it. Please provide specific diffs to support the assertions you have made, and the new assertions made about "recruiting" and "threatening". Also, rather than talking about "the editor" perhaps you could name the user(s) about whom you have concerns, and notify them on their talk pages. Fish+Karate 11:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "editor" in question is no doubt myself, Flooded with them hundreds did not notify me of this discussion, and in my one and only comment here I would strong encourage Flooded with them hundreds to review WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, e.g.: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users..." There is no current disruption at this article, a discussion is ongoing on the Talk page, and I personally am now much less interested in some in WP:DISCOGRAPHY's attempts to WP:OWN this specific article, and am more interested in coming up with a permanent solution to the issue of these problematic Discography tables (see the Talk discussion at the article for more...) which have pretty much been confirmed to be problematic on WP:ACCESS grounds. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IJBall I've not referred to you directly in this discussion until now nor am I trying to get you blocked and this request is for administrators to restore the article to its long-standing version as it currently is in an unjust position after the war's end yesterday.
Fish and karate, the last removal of rowspan broke the table and is also against the attempts of more than 15 editors who have tried to reinstate it but failed. Since the absence of rowspan breaks things, why not restore the article to the previous version and get others to discuss removing it instead, because (1) rowspan has been included in the article since 2015 until its removal in June, (2) the editor removing it has failed to adhere to WP:BRD [1, 2, 3] by not taking it to the talk page but continuing to revert, (3) ~15 to ~5 is a consensus in favor of keeping, and (4) as Ss112 said above, there is some canvassing/tag-teaming involved [1, 2, 3]? Flooded with them hundreds 14:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flooded, again, it's a content dispute – Admins will not intervene on this (nor should they), esp. when there is an ongoing discussion at the Talk page. (P.S. Also, you should have originally posted this request to WP:ANI, not WP:AN...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an issue of interest to administrators not about a particular incident so this is the right venue. Flooded with them hundreds 14:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:EPROM continues to add links from his website and still uses the page as a forum.
Alcyon007 (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EPROM is clearly only here to promote their own WP:FRINGE theory about this paradox (and an external link about that view). They are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and should probably be indeffed; if they have any explanation for their link-pushing and WP:NOTFORUM violations, or plans to make constructive improvements on other topic they can explain it in an unblock request. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That said, their last edit was 3 days ago; though it was after a fairly explicit warning to not make that type of edit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In response to EPROM's allegations of canvassing (on his talk page), I'll point out that I didn't notify just the WP:Atheism noticeboard, I also notified WP:Religion and WP:Philosophy. I picked these three because they're the three noticeboards given in the header above the talk page. As of time of writing, the notices are still there. [4][5]Banedon (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have not added any links nor even attempted to add any content at all to the Wikipedia Omnipotence Paradox page after an Administrator stepped in. I challenge anyone to provide a like showing otherwise. I have also not mentioned any links on the Omnipotence Paradox "talk page" after being warned not to do so. I have also not participated in any "forum discussion" (like Branedon and Alcyon007 have consistently done) on that talk page either.
All I have done since my warning is add a new section asking why there is no "External Links" section for the page topic. This is absolutely appropriate and relevant to the topic.
Power~enwiki's claim that a "response that works" to the Stone Paradox is tantamount to WP:FRINGE is absolutely ridiculous. A paradoxical response to a paradoxical question is not "Fringe Theory" nor anything remotely close. Nobody claims the responses from people such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Norman Geisler, Rene Descartes, Alvin Plantinga represent "Fringe Theory" and neither does MY response. You don't get to pick and choose what is "fringe" based on your particular ideology or an individual's level of fame, power or notoriety. You can only base it on whether it is an "effective response" or not!
There is clearly a nefarious reason why you and the others are so vehemently obsessed with trying to get me removed from Wikipedia. I know the real reason and so does the Administrator. You absolutely HATE the fact that there now exists a response to the Stone Paradox that anyone can use to where the question is nullified and Omnipotence survives. You know that you cannot present an argument that refutes this fact, so the only thing left is to try to bury it. Nobody goes through this much personal effort to ban someone unless they have an agenda.
Furthermore, it is not possible to have a "Fringe Theory" Response to a paradoxical question. You require me to provide proof that there is an "Atheist agenda" going on, well I equally require you to support your claim that my CGCP resolution constitutes "Fringe Theory." The truth is that you and the others will say and do anything to protect the Omnipotence Paradox from being marginalized by an effective response. You all know that my CGCP works... otherwise you would be so dedicated to making sure it is nowhere to be found. If it were truly "Fringe" you wouldn't care about it at all.
As far as any rule violations are concerned, I have not violated the Administrator's warning at all nor have I attempted to add any content on the Omnipotence Paradox page. These are all false accusations founded in ideologically-driven desire for censorship. This type of "mob rule" mentality only does a disservice to the reputation of Wikipedia--EPROM (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
May an administrator please review my topic ban which disallows me from any type of edit to Balkans subjects. I have respected and fully observed this term & condition for my unblocking after many years banned, I have never flouted this policy that exists over me. I promise to edit neutrally, not editwar and to take other people's opinions into consideration before any action. I'd be extremely grateful. --Sinbad Barron (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This ban appears to have been an unblock condition in 2015; see [6]. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also the next diff, [7] which states "'Let's keep it neutral is indefinitely topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the Balkans, broadly construed." Pinging @Swarm: - it was a while ago but do you have any thoughts? Fish+Karate 12:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No comment yet, but note that the user appealed directly to Swarm back in April ([8]) but Swarm seems to have missed it; the comment was bot-archived without a reply. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's happened twice at least, also back in January ([9]). Swarm, are your archiving settings too aggressive? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Done Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted by editor BilledMammal on 21 May 2024. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
OK, I've made the change. Thank you for the input! ~Awilley (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll go ahead and make those changes. ~Awilley (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Confirmed to each other: Rocket blastoff, Werewolf in a teddy bear's clothing, Govvyy, and Govby. Saturn 5 apollo is very 
Likely the same person, and they're all probably Anuchak. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
renamed a bunch of Toyota Land Cruiser articles and redirects. I believe he thought he was doing good but unfortunately it is now a total mess with the wrong article names and subject matter. Eg the 200 was only one particular generation but the Toyota Land Cruiser 200 article now covers all generations. Some other editors have made attempts to correct it and some bots have tried to patch up some of the redirects but have only made it worse. Eg Toyota BJ, the first Land Cruiser generation in 1951) was meant to go to the first generation entry on the main Land Cruiser page but now redirects to a non-existent anchor at Toyota Land Cruiser Prado. The Prado didn't come into existence util 1990, so a 1951 BJ definitely does not belong here. This is way too complex for me to handle. Even just following what Wallacevio did is hard. My request is for an administrator to totally revert the various Toyota Land Cruiser articles and all redirects back to their name and content before 9 November 2018. Stepho talk 12:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Not done @Wikitanvir: as they are blocked they can't edit so this isn't needed. We generally only revoke that flag for users that have actively abused it (such as by gaming the counts or users that had an exceptional early issuance). — xaosflux Talk 16:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
