Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ansh666 (talk | contribs) at 03:56, 23 April 2018 (→‎ErieSwiftByrd and the Hiral Tipirneni AfD: +/-). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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 seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "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.

      Shortcuts

      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.

      Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

      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 is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need 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

      Administrative discussions

      Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

      Requests for comment

      Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306#RfC:_Wen_Wei_Po

      (Initiated 1450 days ago on 22 July 2020) Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on 22 July 2020, with the last vote occurring on 12 August 2020. It was bot-archived without closure. - Amigao (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done – as said above, this has been archived, and there is obvious consensus for one of the four options, so there is no need for a formal closure. Editor Amigao, feel free to close this if you want to. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think this should be closed either, but not because I think there is an obvious consensus. Four-year-old RfCs shouldn't be closed, particularly for an RSN discussion, where relevant facts regarding a source might have changed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:1948 Palestine war#RfC: Should we mention the exodus of Jews from Arab countries in the lede?

      (Initiated 125 days ago on 7 March 2024) RfC tag expired some time ago. TarnishedPathtalk 10:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 93 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 91 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Talk:Line of Duty#Request for comment: Listing Jed Mercurio in the Infobox as a showrunner

      (Initiated 74 days ago on 28 April 2024) Discussion on the actual RfC seems to have slowed. Consensus appeared clear to me, but I was reverted attempting to implement the edits so I'm requesting a formal closure. There is additional information on this topic (overall and about the page in question specifically) at Template_talk:Infobox_television#Alternatives_to_writer_and_director_parameters that I'd request a closer reads over. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... Chrhns (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done Chrhns (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

      Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: RFE/RL

      (Initiated 64 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

      (Initiated 61 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Were notifications made to the talk pages of the affected articles and MOS:LAYOUT? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Fun in a Chinese Laundry#RfC on "Selected excerpts" section

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 23 May 2024) Would benefit from a neutral close to avoid unnecessary drama. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:FCSB#RfC about the Court Decisions

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 28 May 2024)

      Apparently badly filed RfC. Needs admin closure. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#RfC: Indian PM Counting

      (Initiated 40 days ago on 31 May 2024) Hey, please close this RfC on Indian PM counting. There have been no comments for 18 days. GrabUp - Talk 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 2 June 2024) Please close this RfC; discussion has halted for some time now. This is a persistent issue that needs final closure. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

      (Initiated 38 days ago on 3 June 2024): Expired RfC; discussion has fizzled and it's mostly just the same arguments repeated now. Also has a sub-discussion of a proposed moratorium which I think would be an easy SNOW close. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Now reopened; new closer (or closers) needed. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Still looks closed to me. In any case, we'd need the close appeal to close before a new closure is requested, so I'm marking as  Already done. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) And now reclosed pending review at the Administrators' noticeboard. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting#RfC:_Motherfuckers_or_not

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 5 June 2024) Need help with a neutral close. -- GreenC 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... TW 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Apr May Jun Jul Total
      CfD 0 0 12 5 17
      TfD 0 0 5 5 10
      MfD 0 0 0 0 0
      FfD 0 0 1 1 2
      RfD 0 0 4 0 4
      AfD 0 0 0 4 4

      Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_22#Template:Edit_semi-protected

      (Initiated 49 days ago on 22 May 2024) Hasn't had anything new for a while, templates are template-protected. mwwv converse∫edits 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#IRC +10414

      (Initiated 45 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk: 2015 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Hurricane Danny (2015) into 2015 Atlantic hurricane season

      (Initiated 166 days ago on 26 January 2024) Discussion ran its course 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      {{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I fail to see how consensus is clear, given how there is a split of support/oppose that will require weighing if their is a consensus to merge or not merge. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 21:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: 1986 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Hurricane Newton (1986) into 1986 Pacific hurricane season

      (Initiated 162 days ago on 30 January 2024) Discussion has ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: 2009 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Danny (2009) into 2009 Atlantic hurricane season

      (Initiated 138 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: 1997 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Ignacio (1997) into 1997 Pacific hurricane season

      (Initiated 138 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discusion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      {{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I fail to see how this is an obvious decision, with the sources presented by the opposer and a neutral. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: 2004 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Lester (2004) into 2004 Pacific hurricane season

      (Initiated 138 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion has run its course.166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: 2003 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003) into 2003 Atlantic hurricane season

      (Initiated 138 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Requested move 3 May 2024

      (Initiated 68 days ago on 3 May 2024) Contentious issue but I feel like basically all that's going to be said of substance has been said, and it's been plenty of time. I'm also still a bit new to being active again to feel comfortable closing myself, so I just turned my evaluation of what's been said into a !vote. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      update: I've drafted a closure at WP:DfD. I'm travelling so using a phone and cannot do the closure. It'd be good to know if more detail needed or good to go? Tom B (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      (Let me know if commenting on this is inappropriate as an involved editor, but...) Okay yeah, after reading your proposed closure, I'm glad I put in this request. Even before becoming formally "involved" I think I would've struggled to remain neutral here 😅 Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 12:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Closed by editor Joe Roe. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 44 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

      (Initiated 38 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

      (Initiated 36 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done by Anachronist. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Brighton_hotel_bombing#Requested_move_11_June_2024

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 11 June 2024) A requested move that's gone well beyond the seven days and was relisted on 19 June. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing...DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       DoneDisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Rallying#Requested move 12 June 2024

      (Initiated 28 days ago on 12 June 2024) Requested move is failing to attract new participants to the discussion despite the proposer's relistings.Rally Wonk (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Six Flags (1961–2024)#Requested move 21 June 2024

      (Initiated 19 days ago on 21 June 2024) Consensus has been reached in the conversation under heading survey 2. Just asking for this closure so we can proceed with the agreed upon move. Editors have specifically asked for neutral party to close the discussion, so thats what Im doing here.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor BilledMammal. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

      Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

      Report
      Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (36 out of 7999 total) (Purge)
      Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
      Zionism 2024-07-11 04:39 indefinite move Edit warring / content dispute: Time to stop editing the article and discuss on the talk page. Just noting that I've made this indef to prevent the article auotmatically becoming unprotected and it's a normal admin action so any admin can change it back to ECP. Callanecc
      China–Israel relations 2024-07-11 00:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
      1st Tank Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-10 22:05 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
      Death of Nex Benedict 2024-07-10 19:31 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/GG; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
      Module:WritingCredits 2024-07-10 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3656 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
      Template:Non-album single 2024-07-10 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
      Template:Fa bottom 2024-07-10 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
      Template:Film lists by country 2024-07-10 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2789 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
      Al-Awda School massacre 2024-07-10 17:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Pppery
      Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts 2024-07-10 16:44 indefinite edit Move warring Robertsky
      Channel 14 (Israel) 2024-07-10 15:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP CambridgeBayWeather
      June 2024 northern Gaza City airstrikes 2024-07-10 14:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather
      9 July 2024 Gaza attacks 2024-07-10 14:49 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather
      Tim Sheehy (American politician) 2024-07-09 23:36 indefinite edit,move Per AFD discussion Liz
      Mostafa Momeni 2024-07-09 22:40 indefinite move See Special:Permalink/1233594577#Administrator needed. Robertsky
      Mostafa Momeni (geographer) 2024-07-09 22:38 indefinite move Robertsky
      First Balkan War 2024-07-09 21:39 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/EE; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
      Operation Azm-e-Istehkam 2024-07-09 17:35 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather
      Talk:Wikilink 2024-07-09 16:58 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated SuperMarioMan
      Talk:WBD 2024-07-09 03:35 2024-07-12 03:35 edit,move Apparent (i.e., fairly obvious) IP sock puppetry BD2412
      8 July 2024 Ukraine missile strikes 2024-07-09 02:40 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Johnuniq
      3rd Assault Brigade 2024-07-08 23:45 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
      Robert Ford (outlaw) 2024-07-08 19:40 2024-07-22 19:40 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts CambridgeBayWeather
      128th Mountain Assault Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-08 07:17 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C
      47th Mechanized Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-08 06:08 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C
      59th Motorized Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-08 06:08 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C
      Noodle and Bun 2024-07-08 04:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
      Draft:Noodle and Bun 2024-07-08 04:02 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
      Felicia Fox 2024-07-08 03:56 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
      China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine 2024-07-08 03:10 indefinite edit,move General sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR.; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1233247791#China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine Red-tailed hawk
      Adnan Hussain 2024-07-08 02:03 2025-07-08 02:03 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
      Late Ottoman genocides 2024-07-07 22:50 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:GS/AA Rosguill
      July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes 2024-07-07 22:49 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:GS/AA Rosguill
      Draft:Dr shajahan basha 2024-07-07 15:02 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
      Draft:Vandals are cool superheroes 2024-07-07 14:20 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
      Soke Sam Gervasi 2024-07-07 14:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD

      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)[reply]

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

      TBAN for Shiftchange

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Could you please elaborate? - Shiftchange (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      What am I not getting? - Shiftchange (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      That you are in a minority of exactly one. Even if you are right, Wikipedia runs on consensus. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      You didn't link to an example of where I was editing that point of view into the article. Why not provide an example instead of making up an exaggeration? - Shiftchange (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Shiftchange: You continue to extol the values of Bitcoin Cash, and have made edits in the mainspace, and clobbering of talk pages, to that effect. Edits which are not supported by reliable sources. This is called POV-pushing. In a number of the statements you have made, you have also made predictions about the future, also unsupported by reliable sources. Nearly every edit in this discussion that you have made has focused on its values. It's not our job on Wikipedia to prove or disprove the value of some topic; it's our job to report what reliable, secondary, independent sources say about the topic. --Izno (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      What values are you talking about? Talk pages are for discussion on how to improve the article. I have yet to see anyone explain how the sources I have provided are unreliable. That must be demonstrated or proven by identification. We cannot take your word for it that the sources are unreliable. The reliability of a source depends on context. If you are questioning the sources I have used you must demonstrate a poor reputation for checking the facts or lacking editorial oversight. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      I have rescued what I could do quickly

      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)[reply]

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

      Administrator wants out (of Requested Move). Seeking replacement

      Out of process (nac) Legacypac (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

      Just curious

      In checking usernames on the Username for attention page, I came across [[Wikipedia:Project_Tiger_Writing_Contest|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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      And, for my own idle curiosity, who is promoting whom?!~ Winged BladesGodric 06:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      TenPoundHammer: ca@wikimedia.org TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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 ([1][2][3]). 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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

      Redacted edits

      I think that all of the edits here should be redacted as they contain threats against Alan Jackson. It's the same vandal.

      Also, should an LTA page be made on this numbskull? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      History redacted, and also talk page access removed. Also yes. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I absolutely agree it's nonsense that doesn't need to be on Wikipedia, but I didn't see any threats, unless claiming someone killed country music is a threat. Fish+Karate 14:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Fish and karate: Seems there is a long history with this particular vandal... see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Off_wiki_abuse_again a few threads up. –FlyingAce✈hello 14:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      There's a process I do not understand about asking the FOundation to intervene against such individuals. I think it is past time, but do not know how to proceed. This matter came up in an earlier, closed thread. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dlohcierekim:, @Fish and karate:, do you think I should contact his ISP or local authorities? The edis trace back to an ISP in Virginia Beach. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Feedback wanted: planned changes to rollback action

      This is what the confirmation could look like – what do you think?

      A wish from the German Technical Wishes survey 2017 asks to fix the following problem: Sometimes users accidentally click the rollback instead of the thank you link – and since no confirmation is needed for rollbacks, this can lead to very unpleasant misunderstandings. The Technical Wishes team now suggested a change to the rollback action. All users with rollback rights are invited to comment in a feedback round until May 4th if this solution works for them. -- Thank you! Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      NB that this solution isn't just the illustrated confirmation box--it also entails removing the rollback link by default from all list views (page histories, watchlists, user contributions, basically anything that isn't the shown diff page). It's significantly more disruptive than I thought at first glance. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Wot WritKepper sez.~ Winged BladesGodric 14:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Wouldn't a confirmation notice be sufficient? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The advantage of rollback is that you roll the edit back in one click. If you use undo, it is two clicks (if you are already on the page history, three clicks if you are on your watchlist). Adding a confirmation would add an extra click and make rollback useless.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      But wouldn't making it inaccessible from anywhere but the diff page increase it by the same number of clicks? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I've actually disabled rollback on my watchlist as I was prone to accidental clicks and it's not very difficult for one to do and that's a simple option for people like me to activate rather than force it on everyone. I still have it active on recent changes as well as related changes where I would only go if I were looking to do some specific activity.—SpacemanSpiff 04:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Please, no. This makes mass rollbacking edits much harder. --Rschen7754 05:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      To allow easy mass rollbacks while preventing accidental clicks from doing anything most of the time, an option might be to have rollback require confirmation iff it hasn't been used in the last 5 minutes. Κσυπ Cyp   05:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. The value is the one-click nature. No fuss, no having to switch to another tab to click something else or get rid of yet another popup window, just poof!-edit's-gone. And that I can do it when running through my watchlist (I specifically watch pages in order to easily catch and quickly undo vandalism!) or user contributions (I specifically look at a user's contribs after seeing one vandalism in order to see if there is a pattern). Using popups, it's easy to see the edit without going to an actual diff page, and again, the value is not having to go through more actiouns to be able to get to the point of getting rid of vandalism. I could see this being a gadget or other interface option, like the one we already have for rollback on mobile devices. DMacks (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Have any other admins except me never used rollback, ever? I have a script that disables the option; I got it when I passed RfA but do not need or want it, and hit the button accidentally when editing from a smartphone. So my vote would be - throw the feature out, it’s useless. If you really need to revert a whole bunch of edits, pick an earlier revision of the page, edit it, and save it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • " If you really need to revert a whole bunch of edits, pick an earlier revision of the page, edit it, and save it." is feasible (though often a waste of time) for edits to one page, not if you need to revert a whole bunch of edits to multiple pages. Then you need to be able to go to the contributions of the vandal, and hit rollback, rollback, rollback... Fram (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • OpposeMeh (see below). If you've got to rollback, say, 20 edits by a vandal on 20 different pages, you can do it in seconds with rollback. This change would be completely disruptive - making each rollback not a trivial task. This is a solution looking for a non-existent problem. Please don't do it. Black Kite (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Black Kite: "This is a solution looking for a non-existent problem." If something ends up so high in the technical wishlist of the German Wikipedia, then it clearly is a problem. You mean it's not YOUR problem. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • It certainly is my problem if a "fix" for a problem (that seems to only affect a few people who make mistakes when clicking) ends up compromising many other people's ability to do important tasks properly!! Black Kite (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Before we get dragged into is/isnt a problem, can we see why/where its so high on the DE wishlist? I cant imagine our German friends are notably more fat-fingered when it comes to rollback than ENWP users. Is this a case of the WMF picking low-hanging fruit to resolve? Is it a case of a couple of DE admins going 'I sometimes do this, is there any way to stop it?' and its been run away with? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Having said that, since (not stated here) the proposal is that there be an opt-out to this faffing about, my opinion is just "Meh" now. Black Kite (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it would not be a bad idea to have the presence of those links configurable. I wouldn't mind only being able to have them on a diff really. Wether to switch that by default for existing users is a different story however (i'd just ask each individual user to choose with a one time modal). Also it won't exactly help with the problem here that if you use Twinkle, everything still jumps around on the diff page. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Are you not all wasting your time opposing/discussing it here when the feedback page appears to be over there? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      hello

      how can i create a article for iranian singer Babak Rahnama ????? please answer me TNX To All 188.210.133.92 (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Hello anon. You should first review our tutorial on writing your first article, and create a draft using the Article Wizard. Then you can submit it for our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. If you have further questions, it's better to ask them at the The Teahouse rather than here, since that is our dedicated forum for new editors to seek advice and assistance, and this page is more for internal discussion about Wikipedia administration. GMGtalk 10:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean, I don't know what his name is in Persian, but in English he apparently has videos on YouTube with 1m+ views...with an English title, for a guy who doesn't sing in English. Seems reasonable more than one person is aware he exists. If so, then they immediately hit indef full protection, and they're two clicks away from the deletion log to AN. Worst case scenario I just wasted a few minutes assuming good faith over my morning coffee, and I'm fine with that. GMGtalk 11:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Igor Janev spammer

      Would it be worthwhile to create an edit filter for the phrases "Igor Janev" and perhaps "Janev, Igor"? besides generally being a long-term pest[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] He is now taking a personal interest in me.[15][16] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      @Guy Macon: Request for new edit filters are usually made at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I am aware of that. There is a subtle distinction between deciding that a particular edit filter would be a good thing and then going to WP:EFR to request it and going to WP:AN and asking whether a particular edit filter would be a good thing. So again I ask, would it be worthwhile to create an edit filter for the phrases "Igor Janev" and perhaps "Janev, Igor"? If the consensus is yes I will post the request at EFR.
      For what it is worth, based upon the following harassment,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] it looks like the Igor Janev spammer really dislikes the idea of an edit filter. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes... looks like you made a new friend Legacypac (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Guy Macon: User_talk:NeilN/Archive_42#Prof._dr._Igor_Janev_is_a_very_notable_person.. I just RBI'd their followups. --NeilN talk to me 02:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      If you create an edit filter, you probably want to add "Janevistan" (another of their pet phrases) to the list. ‑ Iridescent 16:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I saw this fella on JW talk; I thought it sounded familiar, but couldn't place it. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Incidentally, from d:Q1449737 the spammer has currently got managed to get their article onto 17 other language wikipedias. I have no idea whether we should—or can—notify them; I have no idea how one would even go about notifying Latin Vicipædia or Rusyn Вікіпедії. ‑ Iridescent 18:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Requesting a Block on Myself

      (Non-admin closure) User was blocked and then unblocked upon request after having second thoughts Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

      Um, OK - blocked for a period. — xaosflux Talk 18:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      (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)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      GoodDay's stalker

      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)[reply]

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

      Irregular conduct at Articles for deletion/Sharon Statement

      Nothing to see here, please move along. Mackensen (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      (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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      El Goonish Shive

      The article, El Goonish Shive has been protected from creation. However, that was a long time ago, and it has since become notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is a considerable article on the topic on Wikiquote. I am hoping an administrator will look this over. Thanks - J.A.R.N.Y.🗣 16:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      This is Wikipedia not Wikiquote, and what is and isn't included on Wikiquote has no relevance here. (Looking at the timings, it appears that contrary to your inference that the Wikiquote page provides evidence of continued interest in the topic, in reality their page has been abandoned for a decade.) Can you demonstrate that Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria is met, and in particular can you provide evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources? I'll note that the deleted article—in all its various incarnations—singularly failed to do so. ‑ Iridescent 17:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy. I was simply trying to bring this to the attention of sysops. That's why I did not write, "an administrator should unprotect it", I just requested, "I am hoping an administrator will look this over.". Furthermore, the Wikiquote page has been edited less than a year ago [27]. I'll try to find notable mentions of El Goonish Shive and post them here. Thanks- J.A.R.N.Y.🗣 17:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      You have brought it to the attention of this sysop; rather than bringing the sources here, you'll likely have better luck writing a brief draft at Special:Mypage/El Goonish Shive and once you've fleshed it out with the basics, asking someone at WP:WikiProject Comics to look it over to assess whether the sources are sufficient to warrant expanding it. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory-of-everything, and contrary to popular belief we're actually fairly strict regarding what which topics receive articles; "all material on Wikipedia must be cited to independent reliable sources" and "no original research" are both non-negotiable core policy. Basically, you can only use what other people who are authorities in the field and not connected to the subject have said about any given topic when writing about that topic. If it's any help, the only sources from the deleted article that aren't either dead links or links to the creator's own website were [28], [29], and this book (with no page number given). ‑ Iridescent 17:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the info. I'm new here, but I'll try out what you said. J.A.R.N.Y.🗣 17:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      ErieSwiftByrd and the Hiral Tipirneni AfD

      ErieSwiftByrd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

      Hiral Tipirneni is a candidate in a special election to the US House on Tuesday, April 24, 2018. The page is currently nominated for deletion by ErieSwiftByrd (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiral Tipirneni, who also canvassed some of the AfD regulars ([30], [31])

      I feel that the AfD should be closed early, per WP:IAR if nothing else. It is an NPOV violation to have a blaring "this page may be deleted" on this page immediately before an election. Furthermore, many of the votes so far have noted that it will obviously be kept if she wins the election; the current discussion is thus profoundly useless and based on speculation of the election results.

      In addition, ErieSwiftByrd also made a ridiculous closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Robles, the user NAC-ed after voting, and "Keep per TNT" makes almost no sense. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: I have no opinion on the result of the AfD; a speedy close as Redirect to Arizona's 8th congressional district special election, 2018 is a plausible result of the discussion, as well as Keep. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      User:power~enwiki actually makes a good point. I was't thinking about the NPOV aspect and should have waited until Tuesday to nominated for AFD. I think this is an issue (particularly with more special election coming up) that should have some sort of rule. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      To separately address the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Robles issue. I voted that it should be kept but rewritten, then spent a lot of time (too much TBH) completely re-writing the article. Afterwords, since the article had almost nothing left from the original article that some user's voted to dealt, and since the consensus seemed clear that the article should be kept if it could be written legible. Since the new article had nothing of the original left I closed the deletion citing Wikipedia:TNT since I had, essentially, blown it up and started over. If there was a better protocol I apologize (although I think the resulting article is pretty good). ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      • I am not sure that a speedy close is appropriate. While I do think that it makes sense to limit new AfDs about candidates running for election in a certain time period (7 or 14 days) before a national election (either an known general election or a special election), once multiple editors weigh in, the deletion discussion should run its course (recognizing that the election results may change the outcome). The canvassing issue can be addressed separately. --Enos733 (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've reverted the clearly inappropriate closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Robles. ErieSwiftByrd, please read WP:BADNAC before closing any other AfD. FWIW keep is probably right, but just let someone else do it next time. ansh666 03:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, I've read through the discussions about Hiral Tipirneni, and here's what I suggest: close the discussion temporarily until the results of the election are known. If she wins, then there's no issue and the article clearly stays. If not, reopen and relist the discussion. Does that sound good to everyone? If so, I'll go ahead and do that, and someone let me know me when the results are known. ansh666 03:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      AfD backlog

      For the first time in months, there's something resembling an actual backlog at AfD (160 old discussions open across 3 days). Some of the admins habituated to everything at AfD being closed very quickly after the 7 day mark may want to take a look. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=837803598"