User talk:Joshkapiti

Your submission at Articles for creation: Whats On Kapiti (March 2)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Whats On Kapiti and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Whats On Kapiti, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and save.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Whats_On_Kapiti Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MatthewVanitas&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Whats_On_Kapiti reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy or request a change of username. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. Thank you. Alexf(talk) 10:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Globally renamed 'Kapitinz' to 'Joshkapiti'. Just Chilling (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Given your inappropriate edits which appear to be in violation of WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO, I'm unwilling to lift the block. Perhaps it would help if you clarified. What's your relationship to Whats On Kapiti? If unblocked, how would your future edits be different in order to abide by those policies? --Yamla (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - this is a soft block and, according to consensus, he is therefore entitled to an unblock after the rename (he was entitled to create a new account according to the block template). I empathise with your reluctance to unblock but the way forward looks to be to reblock with a hard block. Just Chilling (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * True, though I'm (I believe) not obligated to lift the block myself if I have concerns. Any other admin is free to do so, and I very specifically don't want to stop anyone else from doing so. --Yamla (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He is entitled. I did a softblock because even though it was COI it was not blatant advertising. As I am involved, I should not be the one to unblock. An uninvolved admin should review the request. -- Alexf(talk) 23:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a good example of why I scarcely ever bother to even look at so-called "soft blocks" when I am reviewing unblock requests. At a rough guess about 99% of them are cases where an editor has clearly been editing for promotional purposes. For some reason the blocking administrator has chosen to ignore that and give a block which gives only the user name as a reason. That means that I have just three choices. (1) I can unblock the editor, in the full knowledge that he or she will be given the impression that the user name was the only problem, will continue to edit in unsuitable ways, and will be blocked again. That is totally unfair to the editor, who has been led by two different administrators to believe that what he or she is doing is acceptable, and then been blocked for doing it. I am sure that administrators who place these so-called "soft blocks" do so in good faith, believing that they are being kinder to the editor they block than if they gave a different kind of block, but in fact they are being unfair by misleading the editor. Note: This is not a hypothetical problem. Time and time again I have seen good faith editors in this situation in a state of shock at being indefinitely blocked in this situation. (2) I can decline the unblock request. Then I run the risk of people insisting that I had no right to do so, because a previous administrator who made what I think was the wrong decision has tied my hands, and I have no right to make an independent assessment of the situation and come to my own conclusion. (3) I can walk away and leave it for someone else to deal with. Which of those three is not an unhelpful way of dealing with the situation?
 * OK, so what about the 1% of cases where the user name really is the only problem? Well, in that case why would anyone even consider placing a block? The only reasonable and decent way to deal with that situation is to explain to the editor in a friendly way that the user name is unacceptable, and give them a chance to change it. Why on earth bite a good faith inexperienced editor by throwing a block at them in that situation?
 * One more thing. Just Chilling, you say that the editor is "entitled" to an unblock, in a context which seems to imply criticism of Yamla for commenting without unblocking. So why have you not unblocked? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * JamesBWatson - I think that you make very valid points and arguments here when it comes to soft blocking user accounts. One thing I'll add to your response here is to share my experience and talk about how much WP:ACTRIAL has played an impact on soft blocking accounts and enforcing edits that are promotional. As you may know, I have a live feed script of the user creation logs that I run pretty much all day - and I'll apply soft blocks to user accounts that are promotional pretty much as soon as they're created and before they have a chance to edit here. It sends the message that, while you're welcome to be user here - you cannot represent anyone other than yourself as an individual, and using Wikipedia for advertising and promotion isn't going to fly here. One thing I'll add to this is to also say that I typically always use the to notify the user and even with usernames that aren't "promotional" - it just does a better job at explaining the problem to the user (and honestly, I'd really like to modify that notice to be much much different...). I only use  for accounts that are borderline inappropriate but probably not enough for me to hard block based on it alone. I think that both templates do a somewhat-marginal job at explaining the situation as a whole to the user at best. Those templates are something I really want to change significantly, as well as possibly create another one that does a complete job with breaking things down for the user beyond that of just a "username issue" .... but let's not get ahead of ourselves here.... haha.


 * The point is that I use them before the editor has a chance to make edits, so that there's no room for any kind of confusion over inconsistent messages being given from different admins to exist (the choice you discussed as "option #1"). Being able to patrol the new user logs proficiently allows me to quickly notice when they create their user and user talk pages and view them. I'll also go through and look for draft creations, but I feel that since we started ACTRIAL that most of the new users will add the promotional stuff they want to add by doing so within their user space. I rarely see user accounts return with a new username and add promotional content that matched a promotional account they created (and I soft blocked earlier). Most users that I soft block don't usually create another account and add promotional content right afterwards (at least from what I've been observing with the new user and page patrols that I perform). And if they do, I see and catch it quickly and handle things from there.


 * Now... I'm absolutely not trying to say that I believe my experience reflects the true reality here, or that what I've been doing is proficient enough to resolve the matter completely, or even that what I'm doing is truly the right thing to do (though I really really hope that I am...). I'm just trying to share what I've observed from the soft blocks that I apply to new user accounts (as well as explain when and why I do so). A big thing to note (as I brought up at the beginning of this response) is that WP:ACTRIAL will be ending in just a few days, and users will soon be able to create pages in the mainspace as they could before. When discussing the application of soft blocks for promotional user accounts, I believe that WP:ACTRIAL has played a role here too, and that this can (and has) changed how we apply blocks to accounts as well as review new page creations and stay on top of enforcing violations of WP:SOAP or the use of Wikipedia for advertising or promotion.


 * JamesBWatson - You make very very good point in your response above and I completely see how applying a soft block even just a minute too late will significantly impact how things are handled from there forward. Being inconsistent and sending mixed and confusing messages to new users is not acceptable and shouldn't be something that we see happen here, and I agree that the application of soft blocks in bad situations absolutely contribute to this problem..... I don't know how to feel right now.... I feel that soft blocks (if done right and when followed up with notice that's clear, complete, and understandable being given to the user) can be a good option to choose to apply.... I'm just not sure what I should do or how I can start fixing the things I see that are wrong (like those templates)... I just have that feeling right now where you think you're doing something unique and that it's making a positive impact on the project, just to realize that you've actually been making it worse.... I don't know what to do.... :-/  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Whats On Kapiti


Hello, Joshkapiti. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Whats On Kapiti".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Sam Sailor 16:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)