Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

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.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

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.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 23 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 77 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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) 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) Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 55 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)

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 54 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. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 53 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)

 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)

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 51 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 41 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)

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)

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 37 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	9	15	0	24
TfD	0	0	4	0	4
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	3	27	0	30
AfD	0	0	12	0	12

WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 11#Colonia Ulpia Traiana

(Initiated 63 days ago on 30 March 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Phone computer

(Initiated 60 days ago on 2 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

(Initiated 58 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

(Initiated 55 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 55 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)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

(Initiated 54 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

(Initiated 54 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family

(Initiated 54 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

(Initiated 53 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Larissa Hodge

(Initiated 53 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 28#Freeze, everybody clap your hands!

(Initiated 52 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

(Initiated 50 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

(Initiated 48 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Jackahuahua

(Initiated 47 days ago on 14 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

(Initiated 47 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Hornless unicorn

(Initiated 44 days ago on 17 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#TotalMedia Theatre

(Initiated 44 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 19#Dougie (disambiguation)

(Initiated 43 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

(Initiated 37 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Sucking peepee

(Initiated 37 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Supplemental Result

(Initiated 37 days ago on 25 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

(Initiated 35 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

(Initiated 35 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#D-bar operator

(Initiated 35 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Fictional animals by taxon

(Initiated 35 days ago on 27 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

(Initiated 33 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Frances and Richard Lockridge

(Initiated 31 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#Desi (Tibetan)

(Initiated 30 days ago on 2 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 26 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 25 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 15#Category:American people of Arab descent

(Initiated 25 days ago on 7 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia

(Initiated 22 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 15#Category:American people of Arab descent

(Initiated 16 days ago on 15 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 73 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 45 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)

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)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 29 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Poll:_Should_the_article_include_a_political_position_for_the_Republican_Party_in_the_infobox?

(Initiated 17 days ago on 14 May 2024) The topic of this poll is contentious and has been the subject of dozens of talk page discussions over the past years, so I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. Cortador (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (33 out of 7787 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Koli rebellion 2024-06-01 03:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare Kol uprising 2024-06-01 03:28 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Koli rebellion 2024-06-01 03:25 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Moroccanoil 2024-05-31 22:56 2025-05-31 22:56 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I ToBeFree Draft:Ranjan Bose 2024-05-31 20:31 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; not notable; promotional; copyvio Diannaa User talk:GOOD-OLD-GEORGE2 2024-05-31 18:51 2024-06-07 18:51 edit,move LTA target Antandrus User:Leonidlednev 2024-05-31 15:32 2024-12-01 06:48 edit,move Increase to extended-confirmed edit protection, as user pages are already implicitly semi-protected by a filter Sdrqaz Nemo (singer) 2024-05-31 14:50 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and GENSEX; will log at CTOPS Daniel Case Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation 2024-05-31 12:36 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Primefac List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine 2024-05-31 05:27 indefinite edit Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq Rick and Morty (franchise) 2024-05-31 02:15 2025-05-31 02:15 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate General Mayhem 2024-05-31 00:29 indefinite edit,move To keep the nonsense from before at bay Pppery Mohammad Taha (Hamas) 2024-05-30 20:44 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Dominican War of Independence 2024-05-30 17:23 2025-05-24 16:15 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Dominican Restoration War 2024-05-30 17:05 2025-05-24 16:14 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Juan Pablo Duarte 2024-05-30 12:34 2025-05-24 16:16 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Operation Golden Hand 2024-05-30 02:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Kidnapping of Naama Levy 2024-05-30 02:42 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Alex Dancyg 2024-05-30 02:36 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Al-Mawasi refugee camp attack 2024-05-30 02:19 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Palani Baba 2024-05-29 21:25 2024-11-29 21:25 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo 2024 Gaza freedom flotilla 2024-05-29 21:17 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA Ymblanter Suraj Mal 2024-05-29 20:46 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry by WP:LTA; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare History of the chair 2024-05-29 19:57 2024-08-20 04:53 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ymblanter Template:Sources exist 2024-05-29 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-29 05:35 indefinite edit Currently on the main page and the article has only just been moved; just avoiding that we'll create a redirect. Schwede66 Rakon 2024-05-29 03:34 2025-05-29 03:34 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Hamas war crimes 2024-05-28 22:07 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Irene Tracey 2024-05-28 21:23 2024-11-28 21:23 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA Ymblanter Bill Shields 2024-05-28 19:39 2024-06-28 19:39 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Rosguill Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024) 2024-05-28 13:40 2025-03-12 13:45 move Persistent disruptive editing; requested at WP:RfPP 2 weeks for RM discussion to run its course Robertsky 25 May 2024 Kharkiv missile strikes 2024-05-28 13:08 indefinite edit,move WP:RUSUKR Robertsky Draft:Palestinian civilian involvement in the October 7th attacks 2024-05-28 12:26 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C

Potentially developing BLP issue?

Notifying this noticeboard that there may be a developing BLP issue regarding a wrestling event last night and I would appreciate some watchlisting/discussion with the wrestling community about.

Background: At WWE's WrestleMania 34 last night, a wrestler, Braun Strowman, went into the audience to "find a tag team partner" and selected a child identified only as Nicholas from the audience to be a "participant" in the match; Strowman and Nicholas won the WWE Raw Tag Team Championships. I'm growing concerned on the number of edits to related articles attempting to identify the child who may or may not remain a low profile individual/may not want their real name known after this event. In the days coming after this event, several people may try to identify him improperly. In fact, Nicholas may not even be his real name (known in the wrestling world as a ring name). The child was not picked by random (it's wrestling, you know) and the child is more than likely related to someone who works at WWE. There are also several websites that the professional wrestling WikiProject considers unreliable posting about his potential identity. This isn't the most life threatening issue, but several edits I have seen already have tried to identify the minor and have also identified him as the wrong person (which may create other BLP issues posting the wrong identity of a different minor). If he becomes a more public individual, this might all be for moot, but for know I think caution should be taken.

Here is a short list of articles he will be most likely mentioned at (add as you see fit): WrestleMania 34, Braun Strowman, Cesaro and Sheamus, Cesaro (wrestler), Sheamus (wrestler), John Cone, List of WWE personnel (Template:WWE personnel), WWE, List of current champions in WWE, WWE Raw Tag Team Championship, List of WWE Raw Tag Team Champions (Template:WWE Tag Team Championship). If there could just be more eyes on these in particular, the issue will probably resolve itself soon, but it just happened a few hours ago.

Thanks. — Moe Epsilon 10:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've thrown a few of these pages on my watchlist. "A 10-year-old identified as 'Nicholas'" seems to be a BLP-compliant way to describe the situation. This situation is a reminder of the issues involved in describing Kayfabe events in a fact-based encyclopedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

HÊÚL. (talk · contribs) appears to be edit-warring over several articles related to this; I'm unsure if he's in the right, and don't believe 3RR has been violated. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not edit-warred in any article. I just revert another user edit calling the boy "Nicholas Cone" because he was never acknowledged as John Cone's son onscreen. HÊÚL. (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I hope not, because I've already given you multiple final warnings over edit warring and adding original research months back. You have no more chances left in this area. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to ban editor ProfNFLB from Noel Fitzpatrick page

This user has repeatedly injected promotional content into the page Noel Fitzpatrick, requiring extensive cleanup at first and some non-trivial cleanup after the second large instance. Additionally, the username clearly indicates that the editor is the subject of the article himself or one of his staffers. This user has also added obvious promotional content at the beginning of the articles life, and with a (Redacted) of googling is revealed to be an employee at Fitpatrick's practice.81.164.228.206 (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

One of the editors you link has not edited since 2014. ProfNFLB has not edited since 2017. The edit you link happened in 2016, and and the last one was June 2017. I have redacted your other links as WP:OUTING. — Maile (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems like the page editing activity there is quite slow-going in general, so it might make sense to do this in light of that. - Curious Sargon (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Both of the reported users are pretty dormant (and possibly retired), not to mention the article having very little activity as mentioned above, so I'm not sure anything needs to be done here. OAN: I like to assume good faith, but...how does an IP that started editing two days ago just happen to know about this forum? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

United Daughters of the Confederacy

We have an editor who's only purpose here so far is to advocate for the UDC view. Special:Contributions/Gi076011. Their latest move has been to seek deletion of the page on copyright grounds Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Daughters of the Confederacy where they helpfully disclosed they are talking with the UDC President. I just want to raise awareness of this POV pusher so more eyes are on their activities. Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've shut down the AFD under criteria 1 for a speedy keep. I've got to run, but I'd consider a NOTHERE block to be on the horizon here. Courcelles (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't this be a better topic for COIN? Primefac (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk)I clearly misunderstood the rules regarding use of trademarked logos and names. But, I am new to Wikipedia and I am still learning. My conversation with the President General was a misguided attempt to avoid legal action. However, I need to understand how I can be accused of being a POV pusher on a page where the editors are clearly trying to maintain a negative narrative of an organization. The sources that are used on the page are all about the United Daughters of the Confederacy prior to 1940, with only 1 or 2 exceptions. But, it has been stated by at least one editor that the references to the UDC as an organization that promotes white supremacy are current. I am not saying any of this to be argumentative. I am trying to understand what allows one POV based on information from 80 years ago to prevent the posting of any information that contradicts it.Gi076011 (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Gi076011 is clearly not aware of all the rules but I would cut them some slack. I agree the article has neutrality issues and Gi076011's concerns are met with wiki lawyering rather than help in fixing the problems. The article does read as if it's written to only highlight the negatives and sourced from articles hostile to the subject. Attempts to bring some level of balance are not met with constructive criticism/help. Springee (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Gi076011 so far you have been a WP:SPA Single Purpose Account who has used a dispute resolution notice board and an AfD to advance a specific agenda. Not typical new editor actions. Is this your only account? As for Springee's comments - feel free to add reliable sources to counter the ones already there. Legacypac (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Question - Can some sort of booby prize, not meant to be taken entirely seriously, be awarded to User:Gi076011 for one of the worst-ever arguments for an AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Boomerang Proposal

I propose that User:Gi076011 be topic-banned from all pages related to the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose:First off, way late, no reason to revive this by punitive action (and what boomerang, the user did not come here to complain). Also, in content, a user can clearly argue about how much WP:ABOUTSELF is allowed - also, the deletion did not go anywhere and the user says they did not understand and really this seems way drastic (see, BITE) but also see commonsense - people can be wrong and not be banned. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help sorting through pages

In about seven days there will be about 250 files that will come up for deletion. Unfortunately I think many of them are the result of improper removal from the parent article, but I have neither the time nor the patience to check through them all. In other words, please help out by checking out a handful to save some improper deletions next week. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I just did a random sample of 30 or so, and only found one problematic removal. Most of these appear to be routine logo updates (e.g. organization released new logo, updated to SVG), WP:NFCC#1 violations, etc. Also, B-bot removes di-oprhaned tags if non-free files end up back in use, so a comprehensive manual review is probably unnecessary. -FASTILY 21:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. My concern was when I sampled about 10 and found more than half to have been improperly removed.

On that subject, though, should we even be allowing svg files for "non-free" use? As vector images they don't have a "maximum" size and thus break the non-free guidelines. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Technically, it is a gray area. We have {{SVG logo}} to mark such things and that should be on every SVG image here that is under fair use. Provided our rendering is within our policies, and that template warning others about the potential issues is there, I don't see a problem with it. --Majora (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I've always felt that the limited resolution aspect of nonfree images was an important attribute so I'm troubled by the use of SVG as a nonfree image. I think we ought to prohibit it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Calan Williams

I saw the page Calan Williams when I was patrolling Special:NewPagesFeed. I noticed that it had the notability template, despite the fact that only the author had ever edited the page, and the dates of the templates were April 2017. This made me think that this was nearly directly copied and pasted from an old copy that was deleted, so I looked at the deletion log for the page, and indeed, an admin had deleted it in March 2017, per WP:Articles for deletion/Calan Williams. So, could an admin please look to see if the old Calan Williams that was deleted was nearly identical to the current page? If this is true, then I will tag the page for speedy deletion (or an admin could just go ahead and do that) per G4. --SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 15:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I took a look and was amazed to find it's actually not a copy - the new one is quite a bit shorter than the deleted version, but more updated, and they were created by different editors. Don't know why this one added the notability tag. ansh666 19:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The notability (or any top of the page maintenance tag fo that matter) are usually copied when copying infobox template from similar page and new users are not savvy enough to remove them. They even copy deletion tags sometimes. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. Based off of this, I think it's very likely that the user who recreated the page didn't mean to cause any harm or do anything that would be unconstructive. I guess I'll just leave it as is for now.--SkyGazer 512 ^{talk / contributions / subpages} 21:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's always the option of renominating it for AfD, if the notability is still suspect. ansh666 01:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

For instance, see this article recreation today with speedy template Special:Diff/836506538. After I tagged the original page, the user copied everything, and moment after deletion, he pasted it a such. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Sorry to bother you guys, but could an administrator please take a look at UAA? A bot has listed ~21 and there are 7 other user made requests. Thanks! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I have to say it: I still can't understand why we have to wait for a user to edit before an obvious username violation can be dealt with. It make absolutely no sense to me: if it's a violation, it's a violation, whether or not the user has edited yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

If it's an obvious violation, such as an offensive username, then yes, it should be taken care of right away. The problem I see (and of course, I could be wrong) is with usernames reported as promotional; most of the time, we cannot know if a username is meant to be promotional unless the editor is making promotional edits. For all we know, you could be promoting Beyond My Ken Productions. –FlyingAce^✈hello 16:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No, that would be Beyond His Ken  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Whaddya mean? It's the event of the century, folks!! Bring your kids, bring your grandkids, bring your grandparents, everyone will be oooo-ing and ahhh-ing at the majesty, the magnificence, the mesmerizing melodiousness of this show!!!! Beyond My Ken Productions presents Beyond My Ken in The Life and Loves of Beyond My Ken, directed by Beyond My Ken, music & lyrics by Beyond My Ken, production designed by Beyond My Ken, with costumes by Mrs. Beyond My Ken. It's the Ken-iest Ken-vent since Ken came to Ken-town!!!!! Coming soon, to a Ken-vention Center near you!!!!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

True story, Green Means Go is the name of a band from Delaware, a band from London, and a band from Belfast. I'm not affiliated with any of them, and you can tell because I write mostly about parks and dead people. GMG^talk 17:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't usually do username blocks unless it is in combination with spamming (and I've never once checked UAA, so I just come across them in the course of regular editing). On the promo side, I actually think not blocking until they edit makes sense: otherwise it'd be a soft block, which we are supposed to lift upon changing, except most admins ask questions i.r.t. whether they understand the COI guideline/spamming policy before unblocking, so its not actually a soft block. Either this, or we should simply get rid of soft promo-name blocks as we rarely follow what we tell the blocked users on that anyway (my preferred solution). If we were to do this, then yes, waiting to block until they edit makes sense. Thus ends my rant. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion the "user must edit" rule should be changed. I spent a hour going through 5 hours of new users getting all those people. Bobherry Talk Edits 13:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You could have probably saved some of that time if you had focused on the blue "contribs" links only. Mz7 (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

To add to FlyingAce's reasoning, blocks are also to prevent continuous and imminent disruption. Obvious hate speech and vandalism is something that can and should be dealt with immediately (without necessarily waiting for an edit), but especially for more milder cases, the disruption isn't usually "continuous and imminent", in my experience. Many usernames that could be inappropriate simply never edit. Since noticeboards like UAA easily get backlogged, we want admins to focus only on the most urgent issues, and asking people to wait until a user edits is one way we do that. Mz7 (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Stewart Lake & Veronica Lake

*Note: The below discussion has been moved here from my talk page. The background on this is on the article's talk page. In July 2017, I took the hoax to Oversight because of the legal threat. The IP was blocked for that reason, and the talk page was protected temporarily by Ks0stm. The alleged supporting document was originally accepted at Commons, and also deleted from Commons. As it turns out, Commons has no authentication process for something like this. It's so easy to fake documentation, that anybody could allege anything with nothing more than the will to use a computer. Not knocking Commons, because they do their job with tools they are given. However, lacking any other verification that Wikipedia considers necessary, Veronica Lake was given the name Lake when she became an actress, the alleged marriage much later has no verification Wikipedia uses. Somebody else please handle this. — Maile (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

From my talk page

I know you were involved in the Stewart Lake/Veronica Lake OTRS. I agree entirely with your comments on the Veronical Lake talk page that Stewart Lake's claims appear to be false. At the very least they are entirely unsubstantiated by secondary sources. Nevertheless, Stewart Lake now appears on the Veronica Lake page as a spouse. The edit that put him on the page is by User:Anachronist. Here is my brief exchange about the edit: [1].

I do not feel comfortable editing the page myself because I run a wiki for Historic Saranac Lake that has a page on Veronica Lake, and I am being harassed by Stewart there: "I am not afraid to have my attornies [sic] to file a case to remove all references to my wife. I will win... I strongly suggest that you read the Wikipedia main article. And you will see it was corrected under court order and protected from editing. Are you a millionaire Mr. Wanner?" Etc., etc.

I would hate to see this guy prevail. He has violated Wikipedia's prohibitions on legal harassment several times. Would you look into this again?

Thanks, -- User:Mwanner

Mwanner Please post your concerns at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Anachronist is an administrator. For me to revert an admin is considered WP:WHEEL and could get me blocked. You need to take this to a wider community, so please take this to the Admin board. — Maile (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Huh? The page is ECP (so Mwanner can edit it) and OTRS isn't an admin action, which is where WHEEL would apply. Anachronist provided a clear course of action to take on their talk page. What is the point of bringing it here? In any case, I've removed the marriage claim, as it's completely unsourced and I can't find any for it. ansh666 17:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, Anachronist is the admin who made the article ECP. Not that I mind the protection level, but probably not required since the only problem was caused by an IP. But he seems to have not read the background. I just don't want to get into a hassle with another admin over this, which is why I asked for involvement of another. Sometimes it's just good to get another set of eyes on a situation. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

There are several OTRS tickets here and, frankly, sorting this out has ended up a bit of a mess. I'm not going to get involved any further on-wiki unless required, however I can be emailed about this if people want to contact me. While I don't like making decisions based on off-wiki evidence, this seemed to be an appropriate thing to do here. Mdann52 (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

TBAN for Shiftchange

• Shiftchange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• edit count
• contribs to Bitcoin Cash

I think we need to topicban User:Shiftchange from cryptocurrency topics. The person edits with pure advocacy and seems incapable of rational discussion much less editing in a NPOV manner.

• 11 March first edit using three crappy blogs to add content with people endorsing Bitcoin Cash.
• 14 March diff more of same
• 27 March diff re-added content from prior edits that had been removed by others
• 30 March diff adds source from another blog and unsourced content which is described in the edit note as deological difference to original Bitcoin
• 31 March diff a set of edits with endorsements, etc. some of it reverted
• 2 April diff, promotional language added, reverted here and here as such
• 2 April dif again promo content added, reverted here

• After the person reverting (not me) opened a section on talk in this diff, the section is non-neutral edits by Shiftchange.

• Shiftchange came right back with promo editing, with this diff series the next day which included adding a quote box (!) saying “Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin and will have the bigger market cap, trade volume and user base in the future.”.

On it went.

April 5: Their editing was so promotional and aggressive that I gave them an edit war warning diff and opened a discussion with them at their talk page about COI or advocacy issues in this diff. Both removed by them in this diff with edit note, remove nonsense, no edit-warring, only constructive contributions. and left this note at my talk page. I re-opened the discussion with them at their talk page which is here. They were kind of rationalish but included diff I am just explaining how BCH is better at payments than BTC. Its why BCH is so accepted after 8 months and eventually why most people will support BCH over BTC. Its why this article will be improving in the ways I want. Your attempt to discredit, trivialise or delegitimize my additions will fail. Have you made any related disclosures?

Some choice bits by them at Talk

• 06:13, 13 April 2018 diff: How is the statement "Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin and will have the bigger market cap, trade volume and user base in the future." promoting something?
• 08:49, 13 April 2018 diff section called Bitcoin Cash will not be denied on Wikipedia and yes, the rest of the section is what you expect.
• 08:54, 13 April 2018 diff section called Because Bitcoin Cash is so much more useful than BTC and yes, the rest of the section is what you expect.

I don't think this person is capable of editing neutrally on this topic; they are edit warring and bludgeoning the talk page with SOAP. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog seems to be under the impression that the things we write about must not be judged in any way. We have thousands of articles in which objects are reviewed, characterised, described by third parties and their support (or not) is outlined. User:Jytdog wants to pretend that BCH exists in a vacuum. User:Jytdog doesn't seem to understand that we are supposed to be comprehensive. They don't understand that all majority and significant minority views should be covered. They don't seem to understand we can use self-published sources when the statements they support are about that person who self-publishes. androidauthority doesn't appear to be a blog to me. Explaining how useful the coin is seems to be a basic fact because that is why this fork was created. BTC was failing to be useful because of fees and delays. Here is an example of what led to the development of BCH. As the content I added in the application section explained, BCH is more useful for micropayments than BTC. Editors removing my content have been doing so with invalid reasons as I have touched upon here, instead of requesting better sources or adding a citation needed template. I am simply describing the subject as I see fit. My contributions have been succinct and for the most part sourced. I would not know how to promote something as I have never attempted to do that with anything. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Leaning support for TBAN. Sticking to the provided diffs, I find the latter two of the "choice bits at Talk" (diff,diff) very worrying. And I am just explaining how BCH is better at payments than BTC. Its why BCH is so accepted after 8 months and eventually why most people will support BCH over BTC. Its why this article will be improving in the ways I want.? Bluntly, someone with that attitude can not be trusted to edit related articles in a neutral and reliable manner. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is this worrying you? Have any of my edits on the topic been proven false or misleading? Has anyone explained how I am promoting something or is just that I seem to be doing that? Have I exaggerated, used puffery, used words of encouragement or misconstrued words of others? I have a determined attitude. I am keen to improve a start class article. That is all. - Shiftchange (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Clearly this editor is here to edit with a POV (see initial response above to Jytdog). I would also support a topic ban, from all crytocurrency topics, broadly construed. --Izno (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The edit warring message was placed prematurely which I why I removed it. I don't edit war; as you can see I started to discuss things in detail on the talk page. Also note another editor has pointed to some of the bias on the article I have been countering. Has anyone got a source that explains how BCH is not more useful than BTC. Has anyone disproved anything I have claimed on the talk pages? Has anyone else removing my content made disclosures about BTC ownership? - Shiftchange (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• I haven't fully read all the linked entries but this edit Bitcoin Cash will not be denied on Wikipedia. Its not going to happen. This is what is going to happen. I am going to write the definitive article for Bitcoin Cash. is quite troubling.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support proposed permanent TBAN on cryptocurreny broadly construed Legacypac (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - clear POV-pushing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Clear issues with promotion and Not Getting It. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support based on the obvious POV pushing. Blackmane (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Just checking in here/updating. After their comments above, Shiftchange's next edit was adding an image to the Bitcoin Cash article. They had uploaded the image to the commons and the source for the image cited there is this forum, where people are complaining bitterly about the "lies" in the WP Bitcoin Cash article. I've tagged the talk page for recruiting. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Passing of User:Lankiveil

I'm sad to report that Lankiveil (talk · contribs) has passed away. The normal procedures for deceased Wikipedians have already been followed as much as possible by now, but deaths of admins/prominent editors are usually announced here, so ... here I am. Graham87 08:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

And may I say for the record that he was a good one - both on wiki and off JarrahTree 08:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• That is truly awful news. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• So sorry to hear the news.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• There are more comments on User talk:Lankiveil Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

When a good editor passes, we should try to finish up their drafts projects. I have checked his userspace subpages, and found the following:

• User:Lankiveil/Anzac Avenue (we appear to have this, but worth making sure all information is reflected)
• User:Lankiveil/Brisbane (he seems to have been writing a new lede, but this was a long time ago)
• User:Lankiveil/Bert Roberts (we do not have this photographer; mainspace title redirects to a different person)
• User:Lankiveil/Greg Jericho (no mainspace article)
• User:Lankiveil/John Crase (userspace draft is substantially more complete than the mainspace article, John Crase)
• User:Lankiveil/List of Moreton Bay Regional Council suburbs (no mainspace article, probably best merged somewhere, if not reflected anywhere)
• User:Lankiveil/One People of Australia League (no mainspace article)

There is also User:Lankiveil/EWL Article List, apparently a project to complete entries contained in a source described on the page. There were a few others that I have already address. If someone could address the rest of these drafts, that would be most appreciated. bd2412 T 20:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I will take a look as he was my friend and we both contributed on Queensland topics, so I am probably best placed to see what can be done with the drafts. Having taken a quick look, I suspect these are draft articles developed at edit training sessions around Queensland with local history groups (he was doing that kind of outreach in that time frame). If he didn't push them into mainspace at the time, it was probably because he was concerned about lack of citations/notability. But I will do what I can. Kerry (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I have rescued what I could do quickly

• Bert Roberts is now Bert Roberts (photographer)
• Greg Jericho is now Greg Jericho
• John Crase is now merged into John Crase
• One People of Australia League is now One People of Australia League
• EWL List is now moved to my user page where I have other lists of prominent Australian women without articles which I can share with others organising women's editathons.
• I don't think there's anything to be recovered from the Brisbane draft nor List of Moreton Bay Regional Council suburbs given existing articles Brisbane and Moreton Bay Region and Template:Moreton Bay Region
• I will work on the Anzac Avenue merge later today (can't do that quickly and I have to be elsewhere to go to in the meantime)
• I'll look through anything else later today as I have to do some real-world things now Kerry (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks - very good work! bd2412 T 18:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Current events

User:SoWhy tagged this page as being proposed for deletion even though no one is proposing to delete it. [2] Could some admin remove this POINTY tag please as it is already bringing in votes from confused readers. Legacypac (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The proposal currently discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals asks "Should the system of portals be ended? This would include the deletion of all portal pages and the removal of the portal namespace." (emphasis added). Logically, all portals potentially affected by the proposal should carry the notice. I merely added it because The Transhumanist could not do it themselves because of the permanent protection. None of it was intended to disrupt or prove a point. Regards SoWhy 17:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Except that the proposer very clearly said that Portal:Current events was not included in the broad wording and no other user (that I know of) as advocated deleting this high traffic page. Moving it yes, but not deleting it. Legacypac (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This RFC has already taken over the village pump and is now starting to spill onto other areas. How about creating a new portal where everybody can discuss portals while leaving the rest of Wikipedia in peace? Someone remove those templates, and quick. Isa (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

If in Portal space no one would notice the proposal. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As it stands, the proposal is to remove all portals, including this one, so it would actually be a violation of WP:CANVASS to exclude certain portals from notification. An elaboration of the proposer's intent is nowhere to be found in the section that actually asks the question. Regards SoWhy 18:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The worst that'll happen to Portal:Current events is that it'll be moved out of the Portal: namespace (probably to Wikipedia:Current events, which is a redirect there anyways). It's not really even a Portal in the normal sense. That being said, I do agree with the need for notification. ansh666 18:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I've proposed the move already Wikipedia:Current events. The worst that happens is a bunch of votes to keep one page no one wants to delete prevents the deletion of 1500 pages a whole bunch of people want to delete. It's a misleading tag. Legacypac (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

A yes or no question to delete 1500 pages does not have to end in consensus to delete 1500 pages or 0 pages, it can also end in deleting 500 or 1499 pages or anywhere in between. That does not make the tag misleading though because, again, the question explicitly includes all portals. Regards SoWhy 18:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I have a sinking feeling that this section will soon be overwhelmed. Can we expedite the move so we can close this? Isa (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The tag is clearly correct, it's not SoWhy's fault that the RfC is constructed the way it is - and it is exceedingly odd that anyone wants to keep the RfC deletion notices off the pages - the process is what the process is, and it must be kept clear - and none of that is SoWhy's fault. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

SoWhy has a history of extremely narrow reading of things ignoring common sense. There have been suggestions in the discussion that the mainpage is a Portal - will it be tagged for deletion too? I've requested the move via a CSD of Wikipedia:Current events. Any Admin can accept this, exchanging Wikipedia:Current events for Portal:Current events which would would become a redirect. This plan has wide support in the Portals RfC and should not be controversial. Legacypac (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: it's not that simple. Portal:Current events transcludes subpages - thousands, maybe tens of thousands of them - which would all need to be moved and updated to match the new namespace to avoid breaking anything. There's also automation involved in creating the daily pages, so we'd need Cyberpower678 to fix that first as well. ansh666 19:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

(e/c)It's actually that your actions are the ones that are messing with process - the RfC, says what it says, if the RfC is poorly constructed, it's poorly constructed or it actually means exactly what it says, but that is not SoWhy's fault - an RfC does not magically change in midstream, and for the future the process must be kept clear. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• (some irrelevant commentary) TBH, not that it is going to happen, but you could close the rfc now as no consensus and the result and even the closing statement wouldn't largely be different than if it were left for another 20 or so days - but you'd save a lot of time and dramah (like this) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Restore access to account from 2001 without set password

I have a very old account User:SwPawel~enwiki (User ID 878) which was setup without an e-mail and for which I lost password years ago. Therefore I was using an account User:SwPawel2 as a redirect to that account and a separate SwPawel account on Polish Wikipedia. May I regain the access to such old account (it is great to be among the oldest wikipedians) eg. by password reset or setting to that User:SwPawel~enwiki account the same e-mail address as is set to User:SwPawel2? —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I've only ever seen such requests refused for a variety of reasons. However, you should probably be able to usurp that account name. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that you will be able to prove that is your account, which is the first bar to clear. (Do not provide personal information on wiki.) --Izno (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That plwiki account is (imo) not eligible for usurp even if proof of ~enwiki is cleared. — regards, Revi 05:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrator wants out (of Requested Move). Seeking replacement

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

---

Administrator A (full username redacted to avoid any embarrassment) was managing a Requested Move. It started to get into a long discussion so I awarded that administrator a barnstar for administrating the RM. Administrator A was not amused. The barnstar was removed with the edit summary of "I do not wish to be involved in this matter any more."

I am coming here on advice of an administrator N. N wrote that he voted so he cannot act to close (or keep open) the RM. He suggested AN. If nobody is notified, the RM might seem like Administrator A is still managing it but A is not.

I am making a request for another administrator to manage and eventually close the Requested Move. It seems to me like there is widespread support for a move but not a unanimous new name, although there does seem to be a slight favourite. In any case, you can decide if there is support or not. Good luck!

The article is Talk:2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs.

Vanguard10 (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Nobody "manages" a RM. Someone will come by and close it when there's a consensus, after at least a week, and carry out any move that's been decided on. That particular discussion (which I opened, for the record) hasn't even been open for two days. ansh666 04:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

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

This has been closed as a nac citing "out of process". I was merely following the instructions of an administrator. Please do not remove these comments. These comments are not part of the discussion but only comment about the nac, not the original issue.Vanguard10 (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

the first answer was the correct answer. I've been asked to revert my close but I've declined as this request is out of process. There is nothing to do here. Legacypac (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Vanguard10, if you need further outside opinions, a good place to start would probably be related wikiprojects, which can usually be found in the banner at the top of the article talk page, including links. Administrators don't "manage" discussions, and just because someone is an admin, doesn't mean they're necessarily highly skilled at mediation. Administrators aren't even required to close a requested move, or for that matter, that discussions on Wikipedia be formally closed at all if those involved reach an obvious agreement and the discussion has reached a natural conclusion. As was alluded to above, these discussions normally run for at least a week, and this one has been open only a few days. So the correct course of action is to continue to discuss calmly, seek outside interested opinions as appropriate, and then simply wait for someone who is uninvolved to assess the consensus once one is reached, assuming you cannot reach an agreement that satisfies all parties. No management necessary. GMG^talk 10:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I've also taken the liberty of dropping a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, which is a particularly active project, and hopefully will attract input from others with experience in these non-obvious types of event titles. You may want to notify additional projects with a similarly brief and neutral message. GMG^talk 11:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The page has been move protected so the result of the discussion will need to be implemented by an admin, whoever closes it. Hut 8.5 17:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The move protection expires on the same day the RM hits one week. I presume that was by design. GMG^talk 17:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

67.217.155.129

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

---

Please revoke talk page access for 67.217.155.129 for persistent vandalism and misuse of talk page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Just curious

In checking usernames on the Username for attention page, I came across This project page. I'm not so sure this doesn't fail WP:Promotion. It's setup to run a writing contest, with prizes (in Rupees, ofcourse) with Indian Wikipedias benefiting. I haven't touched anything on that page, it just look a bit unusual from the usual stuff on Wikiepdia, and like I said, appears to be running afoul of WP:promotion. Just though I'd give a heads up ! ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 20:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

What you linked goes to "bad title". But it seems to be part of Category:Project Tiger Editathon 2018 and Wikipedia:Project Tiger Writing Contest/Topics a Wikimedia project. — Maile (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Off wiki abuse again

Many socks of the Jack Gaines (talk · contribs) "Alan Jackson killed country" vandal have been threatening me on English, Spanish, and Simple Wikipedia, as well as Facebook and Twitter.

What WMF e-mail should I use to report him? The emergency one turned me down because they didn't think it was serious enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer: cawikimedia.org TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Just making sure. I e-mailed that a week ago and got no response whatsoever. Sent another. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Jack Gaines seems to be pretty consistently in the United States (specifically Virginia) so escalating this to ISP or law enforcement could actually work. Though I have nothing useful to recommend as to whom in Wikimedia you should contact. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Jalexander-WMF is the manager for support and safety. His email is listed on his user page if you want to follow up directly. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I have e-mailed CA and Jalexander as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Fault with link to Wikimedia

• For the last few days, when in Wikipedia, I have a marker along my top line saying that I have a message in Wikimedia; but whenever I click on it, to read the message, I get this fault message: "WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION / Wikimedia Error / Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem. Please try again in a few minutes. / See the error message at the bottom of this page for more information.". What is happening? (From Wikipedia I can access https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Anthony_Appleyard as usual, and from that, I can read my Wikimedia messages.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• This bug is stopping me from being told when someone pings me or leaves a message in my user talk page. Please attend to it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard: I think you may misunderstand. This noticeboard is for those with admin rights on Wikipedia, not for developers. If there is a bug, please report it on Phabricator, as detailed at WP:Bugs. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal creating an event coordinator user right

There is currently a proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Event coordinator proposal about creating a new user right for event coordinators. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Motion: Misuse of Administrator Tools

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee reminds administrators that they should generally not use administrative tools in situations where good-faith editors disagree about how a content policy should be applied and the administrator holds a strong opinion on the dispute. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) is admonished for edit-warring in support of their preferred version of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/April 2018 ([3][4][5]). He is advised that future similar conduct may result in sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Misuse of Administrator Tools

Talk:Cantor's diagonal argument/Arguments

This talk subpage was created back in 2008. It states it is to be used for the following purpose:

This page is for arguments over the validity of Cantor's diagonal argument. This is not an archive; you may feel free to edit this page. Please use this page for comments not directly relevant to improving the article Cantor's diagonal argument.

This seems to be a forum for discussing the validity of Cantor's diagonal argument, but does not have anything to do with Wikipedia article or improving it. Not sure how this is not considered a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST or WP:FORUM. Shouldn't these discussion take place on some other website? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It was considered a convenient place that these arguments could be sent to die, and similar subpages were made back then for a lot of articles on the random scientific/mathematical subjects that for whatever reason attract lots of crackpots. But you're right, the Wikipedia-appropriate response to anyone who comes to a talk page looking to debate the subject of an article is to remind them this is not the place and hear no more of it. Maybe send them to the reference desk if they would like to be educated. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)