Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive298

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Lieutenant of Melkor[edit]

Sorry, Geographyinitiative, but this isn't gonna happen without hearing from Sauron themself. Writ Keeper  13:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In 2018, we are supposed to focus on the under-covered subjects on Wikipedia. Since Asian Month Nov 2017, I've been working on Chinese geography stubs, and I've noticed a name in like all of the page histories for minor Chinese geography: User:Lieutenant of Melkor. If you really want to cover the under-covered topics, then I suggest undoing the block on this user. Whatever the polemical statements the user made were, the user did constructive work on Chinese geography, which is still badly needed. I request that you give the user another chance.

Back in June 2014, this user was blocked from Wikipedia for polemical statements or behavior of some sort which I have not yet personally reviewed. Further, the user seems to have been blocked more than once. It's easy to see that this user probably has an eccentric personality, but in the end, who doesn't?

It's been almost four years now: the world has changed; Wikipedia has changed. Why not unblock this user? I hope to collaborate with the user to continue the work on Chinese geography pages. Even if you unblock the user today, the user may not even realize that the unblock you do has occurred for several years time. Once the user comes back (if ever), then if the user violates policy again, you can just block the user again, no problem. BUT if the user comes back and sees the unblock, then there's a chance, however small, that the Chinese geography stubs will be greatly improved by this user. Hope this makes sense to you all. I earnestly implore you to encourage this user to come back and continue the constructive work the user was doing. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - While I believe this to be a good-faith request, I feel an unrequested unblock sets a precedent here, one I find troubling. To be brief, I suggest this idea should be rejected as opening the door to similar requests, which would undo the hard work it has taken to block a number of various types of tendentious editors who, although arguably good content providers in some areas, have repeatedly proven themselves a net negative for Wikipedia in terms of overall editor retention and wasted editor and administrator time. Jusdafax (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
My thoughts: there are some pages only the tendentious would ever edit; don't ban personality types. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I just refreshed my memory with this reading from AN/I that outlines the highly ban-worthy behavior which has me wincing. (AN/I archive 844, section 25.) This is my definition of a bad-faith editor: this highly problematic editor pulled every trick in the book. Jusdafax (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I glanced at the behaviour. I'm not saying it's not bad. I see trolling, bullying, insulting, and edit warring. But I'm saying people can change: 3 or 4 years later, maybe this person is ready to come back. If the user does something ban worthy again, then you just ban the user- simple! For every one of these examples, I can give you fifty or a hundred good edits this user made. Give peace another chance. "all kinds of trouble come to an end, when a man tells another man, "Be my friend."" Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
At least we agree on the extremely uncollegial and unethical behavior that got this editor effectively banned. But you fail to address my other major point, one of great importance in my view: the precedent that is set here. I am unaware of any previous unrequested unblocks being granted. Effectively, to begin this now means we potentially start hashing over every blocked or banned editor’s case even if they are not asking for their editing privileges back, a daunting prospect that could eat a big chunk of editor time. No thanks. Your kindly intent and desire to see Chinese coverage grow is noted, but the price is too steep. Way, way too steep. This is simply a terrible idea. Jusdafax (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose "behavior of some sort which I have not yet personally reviewed." You're asking for someone to be unblocked, and you haven't even looked at why they were blocked? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I know it seems crazy, but when I look at that block log, all I see is a relatively thorny person who even his greatest detractors admitted had "Clearly... benefited Wikipedia in one or two significant areas: Climate, China, and Taiwan." The events of 4 years ago are long gone. If the user does something heinous after being unblocked, just block the user again. The user may never even realize the unblocking. But I hope the user will be unblocked, figure it out one day, read these comments and continue the constructive work the user was doing. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose current request. As an absolute minimum we'll need an unblock request from the user himself, convincing enough for us to believe that the kind of behavior that led to the block will not reoccur. Favonian (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, that’s of course a slam dunk point, and why I couldn’t recall an unrequested unblock. Suggest a speedy close. Jusdafax (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm saying three-four years is long enough. Why would the user even want to come back at this point? For the sake of wikipedia, try to show mercy. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (since I'm the OP): An half-baked analogy for you all to ponder: 4 Teacher (You)," they said to Him (you), "this woman (user) was caught in the act of committing adultery. (breaking wikipedia policy) 5 In the law Moses (Wikipedia policy) commanded us to stone (ban) such women (user). So what do You say?" 6 They asked this to trap Him, in order that they might have evidence to accuse Him. Jesus stooped down and started writing on the ground with His finger. 7 When they persisted in questioning Him, He stood up and said to them, "The one without sin (breaking policy) among you should be the first to throw a stone (ban) at her. (the user)" 8 Then He stooped down again and continued writing on the ground. 9 When they heard this, they left one by one, starting with the older men (admins). Only He was left, with the woman in the center.
  • Oppose - The whole point of the standard offer is that the blocked editor is supposed to demonstrate that they have understanding of the reason why they were blocked, and that they will not repeat this. Handing out unblocks is a bad precedence to set. Also, we can do without the condescending sermons.--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocked user Bull-Doser is again active on a Wiki project, more potential ban evading?[edit]

Us over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles have noticed that indefinitely blocked User:Bull-Doser has been uploading images and creating pages in the Wikimedia Commons at a rapid clip. his user page there even links to his blocked userpage. I'm not knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia policies to determine whether or not this counts as ban evading (which this user is notorious for), but I thought it's worth being brought to an admin's attention. Reattacollector (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocks are local. Unless he is using Commons abusively or using it as some sort of proxy such as a using sock account here to add the images he has uploaded there then it is fine. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
It also appears that this user is active on the French Wikipedia as well. Again, this might be totally above board. Just felt it needed to be brought to light given his history of ban evasion. Reattacollector (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
As I stated above blocks are local to a Wiki, but thanks for highlighting this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I will be vigilant to see if this is indeed translating to another round of ban evasion for Bull-Doser. If it isn't, then he isn't breaking any rules and I will let this matter rest. Reattacollector (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be confused @Reattacollector: If they're abusing Commons or French language wikipedias, bring the concern up there. Short of a Community ban (or a consensus at meta that their actions are abusive) there's nothing more for us to do. Hasteur (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I believe Bull-Doser is Community blocked already. Can you better clarify the difference between a regular block and a community block? Bull-Doser is a notorious figure within Wikiproject Automobiles who, since he was indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia in 2012, has used every method possible over a period of years to circumvent his block and ban evade. Thus we are immediately on alert when we see activity from here anywhere on the platform, concerned that he could be making yet another attempt to ban evade. But if he's not breaking any rules, then we won't worry about it until we can confirm he is ban evading again. Reattacollector (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked by the community means the English Wikipedia community only. If he were acting abusively across wikis, you could request that he be globally locked by a steward. ♠PMC(talk) 06:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, ok. He doesn't appear to be acting abusive on the Commons or the French Wiki and since he is not currently breaking any rules, I guess there isn't any more action that needs to be taken unless we find that he's again active on this Wiki in another ban evading attempt. Reattacollector (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP coincidence[edit]

Earlier at AIV, we had User Hplar741 claiming to be Ralph Sampson III, and making numerous attempts to get the article deleted. Now, we have someone claiming to be Yvonne Lyon who wants her page deleted, and has placed a CSD tag on it, in addition to request on the article talk page. Is this a trend, a wandering sock, coincidence, or something that happens on a regular basis? — Maile (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It happens occasionally. Not often, but often enough its not that rare. I suspect the Lyon one is bogus (I could be wrong) only because she is a)currently touring and performing musician, b)there is nothing negative in the article, c)she is not notable for one event and is otherwise out of the public eye. Genuine requests for their biography being deleted are almost all (in my experience) due to either they are otherwise a private individual to which the article is an embarressment (often ending up deleted under 1/0E), they have a lot of negative information (depending on notability, rarely deleted). Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Can an admin check a page prot for me please?[edit]

Done. Favonian (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Admins! User MelanieN recently full-protected my old talk page here, but there appears to be a problem with the date she set when protecting it. I did ask for indef protection, however the expiry date was set to 8th April, which is 3 days ago but the protection is still there? Anyone able to modify it at all to say indef-protected at all? Thanks all Nightfury 08:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User ignoring discussion to solve edit dispute on Animax Pakistan[edit]

Blocked for 48 hours by Nyttend. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 20:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A few days ago I made a change to Animax Pakistan by redirecting the page to Animax India since it was a time-shift version of the network. Bankster (talk · contribs) reverted my edit and then I decided to start a discussion about the issue at their talk page. They ignored my message and I reinstated the redirect link because of that. That didn't stop them from reverting my edit again. So I decided to post another message to their talk page. Yesterday I posted a new message to their talk page but they deleted it. Instead they posted this to my talk page yesterday despite the fact that I have not edited the page since the 11th of April. Could I please have an administrator help me start a discussion with Bankster (talk · contribs)? I want to solve the dispute but they are ignoring my attempts at solving this issue. Instead of engaging in discussion they are sending me messages threatening to block me. I just want to solve the dispute, that's all. Also, my IP address changes all the time but I am the same user. (110.148.113.195 (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC))

I see you already placed a notice on their talk page about this discussion. I placed another one. Maybe someone reading this has a more convincing way to get Bankster (talk · contribs) engaged in a dialogue here. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Maile66: for doing that. (110.148.113.195 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC))
The user involved reverted my edits arguing that I had to reply to him first, which can be considered vandalism as he kept reverting me with no other valid argument. Secondly, the user is asking me for references that proves the existence of Sony Yay Pakistan, since the channel was just a mere timeshift feed from former Indian channel Animax due to time zones differences (which has been rebranded as Sony Yay). However, there isn't even a single source stating that Animax Pakistan actually existed, not even a single press release available on a Google search. Even more, the same user altered the page on 7 April 2018 from a redirect being created by user JSH-alive (talk · contribs) on 2 August 2017, nearly 8 months after. The last 3 IPs editing the redirect in the last couple of days appear to be Australian according to these logs. So first off, what is an Australian doing on an article related to an hoax-like Pakistani channel? And secondly, why were you persistent on messaging me during hours I wasn't even awake or active on the English Wikipedia? That's WP:STALKING as far as I'm concerned. Also, why were you aiming to delete my own messages on your talk page? You know you can't delete them, do you? Unless you archive them (which you can't, since you're not a registered user), you don't have the right to do that.
Also, could you prove to me that Animax Pakistan actually existed? If so, could you also prove to me that the channel hasn't turned merely into a timeshifted feed from Sony Yay? --Bankster (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I've restored the redirect to AMX India with further explanation in the article about the PK version (if I am in error, feel free to revert). The confusing link to Sony Yay doesn't help matters. If you feel the network is a hoax, I would take it to AfD at this point and argue your reason for deletion rather than persist in redirecting to someplace that would throw the reader off and confuse them without much explanation. Nate (chatter) 01:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Bankster: Yes I'm Australian but what does that have to do with anything? Why can't I edit pages related to international things, am I only restricted to editing things related to Australia? How does that make sense? I don't have to be of Pakistani descent to edit things related to Pakistan. By your logic, you shouldn't be editing that page either. You're Peruvian! I don't know how you come up with these things. Stalking? Are you aware of the fact that there are time differences in the world? On your user page it says you live in Peru. Eastern Australia is 15 hours ahead of Peru! It makes perfect sense why I would post messages on your talk page at different hours. I am not stalking you, that's very ignorant of you to say such a thing. Care to do a little research next time before you post things like that. I can't help the fact that you live in a different time zone and I'm not going to pander to your needs. So I'm going to post messages to whomever I want to, when I want to. I also don't think you understand what WP:STALKING is, maybe read the page before using it. Nothing I did to you can be classified as "stalking". Finally, I can remove messages from my talk page because an administrator told me that I can do that after a user was harassing me on my talk page last year.
I can't find a source about the existence of Animax Pakistan either. I think we'll have to ask the user (Munaum (talk · contribs), who created the page, about where they got that information. (110.148.113.195 (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC))

I've blocked Bankster. See explanation, which as I'm just one hour ahead of him, presumably will not be given a baseless accusation of stalking. Nyttend (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alan Jackson vandal[edit]

Sock put back in the drawer by Dlohcierekim. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can an admin please indef JacobGa31668544 (talk · contribs)? He's a blatantly obvious sock of Jack Gaines (talk · contribs), a longterm vandal with a grudge against Alan Jackson. Constant spreading of misinformation on Alan Jackson, use of "Alan Jackson Killed Country" in edit summaries. I've been dealing with this dipshit since November. Should we take also take it to Wikimedia Foundation? Make an LTA page? Inform his ISP? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Done by Dlohcierekim. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @A lad insane: This guy has been unstoppable. Even changing the edit filters hasn't stopped him, and he's stalked me on Facebook and Twitter. Should he be reported to WMF? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, definitely report him to WMF. I think I suggested that last time you posted about him on AN, not sure if you saw the reply. ♠PMC(talk) 20:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

YouTube may be sending its crazies our way[edit]

Just a quick heads up. It looks like YouTube is planning on putting links to relevant Wikipedia articles onto videos that promote obviously fringe theories and beliefs. I raised this over at WP:FTN but thought an FYI might be worth posting here as well. I'm not sure what will come of this or if there is anything we can really do about it other than to be aware. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

How appalling. And I'm not sure what you're saying about us die-hard YT fans. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Well ... thanks for the heads up ... there are already fringe theorists of one type or another on Wikipedia, and are at times seen listed at AIV. Or on the local news anywhere. Like, you know, some in elected office here and there. — Maile (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Watchlist all the things. GMGtalk 21:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I've seen another thread about this but I can't remember where at the moment. If anyone else knows adding a link here might be useful for readers who haven't seen it. MarnetteD|Talk 21:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Found it Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 58#Facebook rolling out feature which utilizes Wikipedia. I thought there had been more posts there. MarnetteD|Talk 22:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Also here: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 227#YouTube to use "a list of well-known internet conspiracies from Wikipedia" to expose conspiracy theories. ʍw 22:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
In all seriousness, I think this will be a good thing re: more (reliably sourced) knowledge, more free, for more people. Is it going to liven up FTN and ANI? Definitely. And yes, this has been in the works for about a month or more now. Everyone please generously add FTN and the first few dozen conspiracy theories you can think of to your watchlist. Please and thank you. GMGtalk 23:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
So... am I the only admin who doesn't have Jimbo Wales talk page watchlisted, who has never posted there and who has probably spent less than 2 minutes of my life there? Just wondering... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I dunno. I hear it's a popular place. I'm not much for parties. GMGtalk 23:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The "ha ha only serious" Wikipedia:WikiSpeak puts it aptly : "Walls of text from self-centered windbags on uninteresting topics, interspersed with Jimbo's barnstars for being a demigod. Reading all 230 archives must be like a trip to Hades. Jimbo wisely stays out of most of it, possibly from being on TV too much, or jetsetting to exotic locales." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • And more coverage of this [1]. How did I not here about this until last night? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • NYT says: "Susan Wojcicki, announced that the company would enlist Wikipedia’s help to deal with the proliferation of conspiracy theories and misinformation on its platform." Sounds very nice, laudable even. Did she ask Jimbo at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Ad Orientem I am glad that this thread is getting attention. I posted about this here a while back but don't think anyone saw it. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I hope someone works out how to get a heads up that this traffic is being sent to one of our obscure(?) articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • So apparently I've been living in a cave for the past month as I've only found out thanks to this thread, I say we restrict viewing content to those who A) Have signed up, and B) paid donated a tenner ..... Coooor that'd piss a lot of people off... –Davey2010Talk 23:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Damnit, Davey..always stirring the pot. Tiderolls 16:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I know I know .... I just can't help it, I just love drama-whoring Face-grin.svgDavey2010Talk 21:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Fiat currency is the way of the past ... we should require users to contribute 1 mBTC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Davey2010, why not just stay in your cave? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC) [2]

Proposal to ban editor ProfNFLB from Noel Fitzpatrick page[edit]

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)

67.217.155.129[edit]

IP blocked & TPA revoked. –Davey2010Talk 13:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fault with link to Wikimedia[edit]

And that is that. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • 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)
  • Thanks. I have found what I was doing wrong. Matter resolved. Sorry. Thanks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potentially developing BLP issue?[edit]

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)

United Daughters of the Confederacy[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Calan Williams[edit]

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)

Good Morning[edit]

BOOMERANG
OP has since been globally blocked. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 17:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My name is Junior Oliveira Costa, I'm Brazilian, I'm an economist.

I humbly ask you for your help, made several mistakes to try to make a page about the brazilian investor Israel Lucas Gois,I did it because I didn't know what I was doing.

I would like to ask for your help so that there is nothing wrong, I would like to have some relevant facts that happened recently on the aforementioned. The 3 days that the Brazilian press announced the purchase of the company BEX by the investor, this was news in all the newspapers of Brazil and Europe,This only shows a notoriety of the aforementioned.

Please unlock the name of Israel lucas You can create a page about it.Below is a list of references that confirm the concept of notoriety about the aforementioned.

“O aprendiz de Banqueiro”: mas Afinal Quem é Israel Lucas Góis? O investidor por trás do sucesso da Equity Brazil Capital The São paulo Times

De “trader” falido, a investidor Milionário: empreendedor de sucesso dá a volta por cima após perder tudo na Bolsa de Valores Atanews

Milionário Paranaense vai investir R$ 10 milhões em startups do agronegócio | ABVCAP - Associação Brasileira de Private Equity e Venture Capital

Empreender: um sonho possível. | Infomoney

dono do br brazilian investors anuncia a compra de 37% da plataforma financeira bex


Dono da Equity Brasil Capital compra 37% da plataforma financeira BEX Jornal Europeu.

Please unlock so I can create a page.

não assinado de Historiador Brasileiro economico (discussão • contrib) 20 de abril de 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing that English isn't your first language. From what I can figure out, it appears that you want to create a new article; if that is indeed the case, WP:RA is the place to get a jump start on that. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 15:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Erpert tl;dr they're globally blocked (Grupo Calima Diesel). CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stewart Lake & Veronica Lake[edit]

*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: [3].

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)

Standard Offer appeal by User:Just A Regular New Yorker[edit]

(non-admin closure) Appeal granted, editor unblocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Posting this unblock appeal for community discussion.

I would like to begin by saying that I deserved to be blocked. I was vandalizing Wikipedia articles, which I now know is unacceptable. Additionally, an administrator had the courtesy to warn me that my actions will result in a block. Not only did I not listen to the administrator, I responded rudely in a matter that proved that I did not intend to edit helpfully. However, I have changed my childish immature ways. To prove that I intend to edit constructively, I have taken up the Standard offer. I have gone six months without any sockpuppetry and block evasion. During this time I have been editing Wikiquote. My edits include the creation the following articles; Fridtjof Nansen, Christina Stead, Nicolas Steno, Philo Farnsworth, Aaron Judge, Bill de Blasio, David Dinkins, Adam Steltzner, Juan Lagares, Zumwalt-class destroyer, Jacob deGrom, James Franck, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, Manhattan Project, Clair Cameron Patterson, William H. McRaven, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Gmail, Charles R. Drew, Bigfoot, Portugal. The Man, and Vaccine controversies. Additionally, I have edited other articles including; Mein Kampf, William Henry Harrison, Holes, Martin Van Buren, David Wright, Derek Jeter, John Adams, Andrew Jackson, Elon Musk, Berlin Wall, Alex Rodriguez, Barack Obama, Clyfford Still, Paul Sweezy, Incorrect predictions, The Establishment, Conversion to Judaism, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Tobbaco industry, and Billy the kid. I have spent much time on Wikiquote welcoming new users, and fighting vandalism. I hope to be able to edit constructively to Wikipedia as well. I believe I have provided sufficient evidence as to the legitimacy of my motives. You may choose to decline this request, but please keep in mind that you have my word that I have truly changed my immature ways. Thank you for taking the time to read my request. (Administrators that I would like my request to be shown to, @Vsmith: @Jimbo Wales:) Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Dynamic IP means that CU isn't terrifically useful, but it doesn't show any recent socking. User has been a productive member of the Wikiquote community during their block here (see Wikiquote contribs). Please post support or opposition to unblocking below. Yunshui  14:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support unblock. Generally positive contributions to Wikiquote, no sign of socking, willingness to change behaviour - I see this as a good example of what the SO should be used for. Yunshui  14:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Yunshui, and the original vandalism wasn't that bad. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Worth giving a 2nd chance to. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Had I got to this unblock request before Yunshui, I'd have pinged the blocking admin with the intention of unblocking the account unless they disagreed. I don't think this needs a community discussion (but don't object to one). --Yamla (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Unblocked per above request and consensus here. Vsmith (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need help sorting through pages[edit]

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)

Portal:Current events[edit]

User:SoWhy tagged this page as being proposed for deletion even though no one is proposing to delete it. [4] 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[edit]

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)

Requesting a Block on Myself[edit]

(Non-admin closure) User was blocked and then unblocked upon request after having second thoughts Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello! I have retired from Wikipedia, and I would like to request a block on my account for a set period of time out of my concern that I will not be able to stay away on my own. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Um, OK - blocked for a period. — xaosflux Talk 18:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Uh oh. I think we crossed the streams xaos. I was coming here to say if you want to be unblocked in the future, you can always request an unblock at that time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Looks like RickinBaltimore beat me to it, you know what to do if you change your mind in the future. — xaosflux Talk 19:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Irregular conduct at Articles for deletion/Sharon Statement[edit]

Nothing to see here, please move along. Mackensen (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The nominator User:DrFleischman of this deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Statement has changed the reason for deletion in the middle of the discussion with this edit. I submit the following:

  1. Participants before the change offered arguments based on WP:STANDALONE.
  2. Participants after the change offered arguments based on WP:PAGEDECIDE.
  3. The nominator has hopelessly polluted and compromised the process.
  4. This is prejudicial to participants who constructed arguments based on WP:STANDALONE since closing admin will evaluate the discussion based on WP:PAGEDECIDE.
  5. To close this convoluted discussion would place an unfair burden on closing admin.

Therefore I request that this discussion be closed forthwith as Keep with prejudice. – Lionel(talk) 13:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Meh, I've seen lots of noms change their arguments mid-stream. Voters are supposed to decide whether the article is notable, not whether the nom is correct in every particular. There's nothing prejudicial here and no basis for a procedural close. Voters, including you, should spend more time evaluating notability and less time sniping.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
It's one thing to change or massage deletion rationale in the body of the discussion i.e. in the thread. But to change the very top of the discussion? After half of the editors have already commented? Not acceptable. We can do and we need to do better than that.– Lionel(talk) 13:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I see nothing irregular about this. The change in view is clearly indicated with a strikethrough; whomever closes the discussion will evaluate the arguments appropriately. The nomination isn't a binding contract on the participants. Mackensen (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Am I the only one who sees how moving the goalposts after everyone has commented opens the floodgates to gaming the system? If this is allowed to stand nominators will have a field day playing hide the sausage with deletion rationales. (I won't get blocked for using 2 sports metaphors in one post, will I?) – Lionel(talk) 13:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
What you suggest is possible in theory, but the conduct in this nomination doesn't resemble it. The nominator struck out one word in favor of another. The substance of the nomination didn't change. Given the responses, everyone understood the argument the nominator was making, despite linking to the wrong policy. No one thought he was arguing that Wikipedia's guideline on stand-alone lists was in play. Mackensen (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
(e/c)? If the closer thinks there needs to be a relist, they can relist for further addressing the points raised. The issue is still the same, does policy support/guideline support deletion or not. Raise whatever point you have, by comment in the discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The principle of my request is here:

WP:REDACT "But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." Emph. mine.

Lionel(talk) 13:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Fine, but whatever the valiance of that advice, it's not at all a rationale for Keep, with prejudice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrator wants out (of Requested Move). Seeking replacement[edit]

Out of process (nac) Legacypac (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. GMGtalk 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. GMGtalk 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. GMGtalk 17:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Request removal of permissions[edit]

Closing as done by Jo-Jo Eumerus. –Davey2010Talk 19:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can an admin please remove reviewer and rollbacker permissions from my account? I don't need/deserve these roles at present. As I'm coming back from a block, I'm going to be focusing on article creation/improvement, so the autopatrolled right is useful, but reviewer & rollbacker are not. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GoodDay's stalker[edit]

(Non-admin closure) IP address has been blocked Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Would an administrator please block 103.23.18.158, before he undoes all my edits going back to November 2005? GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Would that be so bad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.18.158 (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Blocked. --NeilN talk to me 04:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal creating an event coordinator user right[edit]

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[edit]

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 ([5][6][7]). 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

Passing of User:Lankiveil[edit]

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)

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

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)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention[edit]

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. Face-wink.svgFlyingAce✈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. GMGtalk 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)

Topic ban appeal of User:Jojhnjoy[edit]

Unsuccessful. Closing before the WP:SNOW gets any thicker. ansh666 02:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good evening,

I am here to appeal my topic ban. Since I have retired, I won't ever edit Wikipedia in a disruptive manner again and, therefore, the topic ban is no longer required. However, a topic ban has a negative effect upon my work in other Wikipedias, especially in the German language Wikipedia, where other authors have expressed distrust, resentment and disapproval because I am topic banned in the English language Wikipdia. It starts preventing me from being able to contribute in a "pleasant" way. To make this clear: I don't want to return; please, don't assume that I will.

Due to mostly being native speakers of German, which, like English, is a West-Germanic language, many German language Wikipedia authors are capable of understanding English at a medium/advanced level with very little effort, which means, that they "see" that I have "done something wrong" however, getting into the "process" of "English language Wikipedia", is still considerably difficult for many German language Wikipedia authors. In the German language Wikipedia, topic-banning an author is usually never an option and I have never seen this happening. Also, only the arbitration committee may impose topic bans. This means that a lot of German language Wikipdia authors are unaware of the topic-banning process in the English language Wikipedia. They would expect that I have done something "very bad", but it's hard to understand "what exactly" I have done wrong. I have encountered many authors who don't know what topic bans are and that they may be community-imposed if there is "consensus". I am tired of explaining this over and over again.

Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Jojhnjoy was banned indefinitely from automotive subjects per this ANI thread from July 2017. He was subsequently blocked six months for failing to adhere to the topic ban. His last block expired on 8 April 2018. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Jojhnjoy, you affirmed multiple times that you have no respect whatsoever for the collaborative editing process and for consensus. Collaborative editing is fundamental to what Wikipedia is, and you reject it. That is "very bad", in the sense that it's an attitude that is incompatible with doing anything at all on Wikipedia. In one case, you had more than a dozen different native speakers of English explain to you the meaning of an English text, and you rejected every single one of them, insisting that your own singular interpretation was the only correct one. Not one other editor agreed with you, but you still insisted you were right, and you insisted that you were right to carry on disputing the issue even after you had gained no support whatsoever after days and days of extremely tedious discussion.

Your behavior, which you do not regret, was bad enough to be blocked indefinitely. A topic ban was suggested as an intermediate step, in the hopes that it would be the minimum necessary to stop the disruption. You want the German editors to think the topic ban was some trivial procedural penalty for a minor issue, when in fact it was a reprieve from much more serious and permanent consequences. You want them to think you were railroaded by a kangaroo court, but that is false. If you're over there telling the Germans that, you're lying to them.

So if there are German editors who perceive that you have "done something wrong", they are correct. You have. If they perceive that you are obstinate, uncompromising, do not negotiate in good faith, do not respect others' points of view, and do not consider other editors to be your equals, then they are also correct. You're here asking for a bell to be unrung, and that is not possible. All these things really did happen, and the one who caused them was you.

From my point of view, this all looks like a ploy to come back and start wreaking havoc on automotive articles on en.wikipedia. You've pretended to retire how many times now? You always come back. I don't want to have to go through all of that again. I don't think any others who edit in that space want to either. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Notwithstanding my critique of a critique of the OP at ANI, Dennis Bratland sums up the situation here perfectly; we are not in the business of lifting topic bans or any other sanction just to improve an editor's image on another project. If, for example, the German WP does think that you are tendentious, uncollaborative, etc., then what you need to be doing is demonstrating to them that they are wrong, and that whatever has happened here won't happen over there. As with all things here, however, there are no shortcurts to a good reputation: you need to spend time at the coal-face to convince others that you have changed—an object lesson. That will not be achieved with the dropping of a TB on another wiki; and in the unlikely event that your wish here is granted, you will find out that any reputation you have on the German WP will certainly not magically disappear into the ether just because something has happened on the English-speaking one. Imho. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - You have made only 4 edits since you came off from a block this month and none of them were made in article spaces. You have to prove that you can edit outside automotive subjects. Consider withdrawing your topic ban appeal as quickly as you can. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The TBAN is about whether you are permitted to edit in this topic on the English Wikipedia, and you are not. Topic bans are not lifted when it becomes evident they are bad PR on other projects. Topic bans are lifted when you demonstrate that you can edit without being disruptive, and you have not. GMGtalk 18:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the social ramifications should have been considered before you decided to be disruptive at en.wikipedia. If your reputation were important, you would not have behaved as you did beforehand. If your reputation has started to become important, perhaps you should put in the extra work needed to recover it. Per D4iNa4, you need more article work at en.wikipedia to show that you have learned from your prior mistakes and have grown as an editor past them. --Jayron32 18:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We don't lift topic bans just because "Explaining to German editors why I was is a bit tricky" .... You became disruptive in that topic area and so was forcibly excluded from it ..... As you've not addressed anything I see no valid reason to lift it. –Davey2010Talk 18:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There should be sufficient post-block edits to ensure that you understand the reason of the initial TBan and subsequent block after you breached the TBan. That will also give people's cue about the kind of edit you are willing to do in the future. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Serious question, D4iNa4: Have you read the appeal? I do not want to come back. I do not want to edit in the article name space. I do not have to prove anything. I have retired. That is why I have said: „To make this clear: I don't want to return; please, don't assume that I will.“

Question for everyone: Why do you even start voting? This is not a vote on xyz, I hope only administrators will decide here (at least the pages's name is "Administrators' noticeboard"; I have no clue though, how an appeal works here.)

Dennis Bratland has said: I have no more patience left for this disingenuous time wasting bullshit. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. This is blatant trolling, or what we call 'disruptive editing'. I hope you are blocked from editing indefinitely, and soon. I think I speak for everyone when I say further replies from you on this subject are not welcome. Surprisingly, he appeared immediately on this page to comment. Interesting, if he does not have any more patience left for this "disingenuous time wasting bullshit".

I don't care about consensus, I care about proper sources. I am a well known and respected author of several vehicle and engine articles in the German language Wikipedia, several of them being featured articles. I was naive since I thought that strict source rules would apply here; I found out though that sources are only subject of the "collaboartive editing process" (=debatable/invalid whenever the "consensus" says so) and not used as sources for the article text. I disagree with discussing whether a proper source (=books published by Springer for instance) is good/bad, I disagree with accepting bad internet links as sources and I disagree with original research. I don't want to deal with proving unreferenced text wrong (which should be forbidden to add in the first place but somehow isn't) as well as authors who add text because they think it's correct without citing any sources and don't allow well-sourced changes because they dislike them. User:Alex Shih has said: The process of English Wikipedia is highly flawed, and has become increasingly hostile (which is one of the reasons why I haven't actually been active for most parts in the past 10 years). There are so many unwritten mutual understandings. When it comes to the noticeboards, "consensus" is really about the people that hang out in these places. "Experienced editors" can get away with almost anything, and "admins" are almost untouchable (you probably saw the current AN/I discussion). Standards for articles are only applied when it is being closely scrutinized, but they are usually inconsistent and subjective. "Rules" can be easily interpreted/bend, since there are no firm rules supposedly in the first place. (...) Therefore, I have decided to retire. And I don't want to come back. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. This is called consensus. You know, that thing you don't care about. You are under no obligation to do anything, and neither is the community. An administrator didn't topic ban you. The community did. GMGtalk 19:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, as User:GreenMeansGo says, your topic ban was imposed by the community, and can only be lifted by a community consensus - admins do not have the power to override community consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
"disingenuous time wasting bullshit" was a good way of putting it. Kudos me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The previous consensus was sound. The responses here indicate that J is not WP:NOTGETTINGIT. MarnetteD|Talk 19:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jojhnjoy: You want the editorial community to overturn your topic ban, so that it will be easier to edit the German Wikipedia. But you say that you "don't care about consensus", a fundamental Wikipedia principal. So why should the community want to make it easier for you to edit the German Wikipedia? Paul August 19:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Paul August: Thank you for this question. In general: The German language Wikipedia is completely different from the English language Wikipedia. In the German language Wikipedia, the principal "consensus" does not exist for non-trivial editing. Consensus there means, that, for instance, authors discuss whether a certain photo should be used to illustrate an article or not, and agree on either of the two options. If you want to delete an unreferenced section, you can just go ahead and say "this is unreferenced". You don't have to prove anything wrong, you don't need consensus. If you add something with good sources, just go ahead, it does not matter, whether there is consensus or not. Sourced is sourced. It does not matter whether I like it or not. Several authors I use to work with prefer "something" over "something else" – they would still not start using "something", since, by law, "something else" is to be preferred. Also, there are no discussions whether things in articles are right or not. If there is a source saying xyz, then we write xyz. Even if we think that xyz is wrong, we still write that. If something which is sourced is obviously wrong, you would go to the talk page, but even if there is consensus "this is wrong", you would not delete it. There must be serious reasons for not accepting a source. Nobody says: This source is bad/I don't accept this source because it is German/English/Russian/whatever language, like it has happened here before. Here, I have also encountered a user who would want to ignore "something", because they considered it "evil German lies". I am not a native speaker of German and I don't live in Germany, still, I have been accused of elevating German conventions over xyz conventions while I was just trying to express that many readers do not understand certain things since these things are only common for a small group of people. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose I just went and read the ANI that lead to the TBAN. Jojhnjoy is a style warrior (an essay we should have!) akin to the dreaded WP:Genre warrior. No sign of their understanding that style is a convention determined by consensus nor that they are amenable to following that consensus. So no. And although there have been strange rumblings around to treat block/ban histories like they are something cosmetic and we should accordingly scrub them for people, we don't actually do that. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see no reason to overturn a sanction on someone who admits they don't care about our core policies simply to make life easier for them. Rather, I'd suggest that editors from German Wikipedia might profitably read this discussion to get a better sense of Jojhnjoy's approach toward editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Jojhnjoy's topic ban stemmed from an inability to grasp that they neither the expert they think they are nor that their edits were disruptive. Every post they've made here only confirms that inability. Whatever obligation they appear to think this project owes them doesn't exist and both projects are probably better served by this editor's absence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Off wiki abuse again[edit]

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: ca@wikimedia.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)
  • But that Gaines account is linked to User:Angela Criss, who has been making talk page overtures at a return? Drmies (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Cantor's diagonal argument/Arguments[edit]

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)
Thanks for the background on this Someguy1221. Still not sure why this needs page should be kept. It's seems like a candidate for deletion either per WP:CSD or WP:MFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not certainly not in support of keeping it, at least not in its current state. The only reason I can think to not delete it is the general rule against deleting talk pages of articles that still exist, and this may or may not count as a talk page. At the very least it should be marked as an archive and never used again. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
To my understanding, part of the reasons why such pages are created is because sometimes you just cannot stop people, no matter how many policies you throw in their faces. They are "sacrificial" pages so to speak. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with deletion, and have !voted to Keep at the MFD. Sometimes it is useful or necessary to keep a record of the fringe arguments that have been brought up on a particular scientific or mathematical topic. I think that the talk page should be kept for the record, among other things in case discretionary sanctions are requested. (Cantor's diagonal argument is sufficiently widely accepted by mainstream mathematicians that arguments against it in Wikipedia are pseudo-science.) I agree that marking it as closed is a good idea, but archived talk pages are usually treated as closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think all contributors here really understand the idea of the page. Marking it as "closed" would defeat the purpose. Please see my explanation here. --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)