Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:55, 4 April 2020

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

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

Open tasks

• 11 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 7 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 14 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 6 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 70 sockpuppet investigations
• 18 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 3 requests for RD1 redaction
• 100 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 22 requested closures
• 33 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 22 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Termination of IBAN

As listed at WP:EDRC, I am currently under an IBAN originally established almost two years ago and extended more than 18 months ago. I think that it is clear that the IBAN has served its purpose. I have scrupulously avoided any interaction with the other editor since the IBAN was extended and seen little editing by the other editor in question in articles on my watchlist, which has made it that much less likely that any issue would arise in the future. I think that the time is past to end the IBAN and ask community support for its termination. Alansohn (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've notified the other editor with whom Alansohn is ibanned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppoose- As the editor who Alansohn is banned from interacting with, I believe the ban serves a purpose and is the only thing keeping Alansohn from causing further disruption. Alan is arrogant, even now he refuses to recognize it was his poor behavior that led to the restriction and the request is misleading for several reasons. Yes it is true that the original iban was put in place roughly two years ago, but it was to only last 6 months. It was extended indefinitely with unanimous support just one month before it was set to expire because Alansohn blatantly violated it. And to show that the issue is still ongoing, just five months ago Alan accused me of stalking him. Nothing has changed.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• The last "infraction" on Alansohn's part was 18 months ago (the question on Swarm's page Rusf10 links to does not count as a violation). But based on Rusf10's unnecessary personalized attack (to which Alansohn cannot reply), the unsubstantiated claim that "the request is misleading for several reasons" (followed by a simple rewording of the info presented in the request), and the likelihood that Rusf10 *was* stalking Alansohn's edits back in September, it seems the issue is still ongoing. I'd think a better idea would be to convert this to an indef 2-way iban. Following the edits of someone who is ibanned from you is not on, and it doesn't matter to me that it happened 6 months ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Just for the record (as sometimes people take comments from admins here as guidance), while I'm decidedly not saying that this is what's going on here, there are legitimate reasons for checking the edits of someone who's i-banned from you; keeping an eye on what they're editing so you don't edit the same page and put them in an awkward position where they disagree with you but can't discuss it would be an obvious example. That does not mean it's OK to follow people around for the purposes of annoying them or to send an "I'm watching you" signal. ‑ Iridescent 23:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Also, for the record, I was not saying that AlanSohn violated his IBAN again when he complained about me several months ago. Rather, I was using it as an example of why he is misleading everyone when he says that it is "less likely that any issue would arise in the future."--Rusf10 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Assuming you meant Rusf10's comments in this thread, I don't think it's accurate to say Alansohn cannot reply. The iban specifically says it is subject to the usual exceptions WP:BANEX, which of course includes appealing a ban. If someone is trying to appeal an iban, and one of the other parties replies, it's accepted that the the person appealing can reply back. (And of course, if the other party is also subject to the iban, them replying to an appeal of the iban is not an iban violation. In fact most commonly people want to hear what they have to say.) This doesn't mean it's a good idea, while it may not be an iban violation, most commonly it doesn't help the appeal. This is especially the case when people ibanned start to engage in length back and forths during an appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• I generally think Misplaced Pages’s tendency to take a sanction working at preventing disruption as proof that we should stop it from working at preventing disruption to be counterintuitive. People don’t usually start getting along by not talking to each other for 18 months. I see no reason any lifting the IBAN would be beneficial, especially with the other interested party opposed. Oppose from me. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @TonyBallioni:, I am not sure if you have seen Alansohn's comment below regarding the onerous steps he has taken over 18 months, but I felt he was sincere. That comment, in addition to Rusf10's initial reply to this appeal, suggests to me that if the interaction ban should remain, it should at least be converted to a 2-way restriction so that both editors are treated evenly to prevent any disruption. Would you support that conversion an alternative? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I have. I still oppose lifting a sanction that's working, especially when the other party opposes lifting the sanction. Also, no, I don't support expanding it. People are allowed to comment opposing someone being allowed to interact with them again. That's not an issue. If anything, I'm more convinced by Alansohn's reply that this should stay in place. An IBAN is simple: don't reply to or post on the talk page of someone who you are banned from interacting with. It's extremely simple. Their comment reads disingenuous and like it's designed to get sympathy for a sanction that's not a big deal. That's not a good sign. This should not be lifted. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I think what you've said is fair except for the way in which you've described the iBan as 'extremely simple'; this is not just about talk page edits as the content of the other party's opposition demonstrates. Merely opposing the appeal is reasonable, but that is not the issue I am referring to. (1) Rusf10 made this edit ("Edit") a few hours after Alansohn edited the article (which you can see in that diff) - if the iBan was mutual, I don't think the Edit would have occurred. (2) Rusf10's first reply to this appeal brought attention to the Edit; "evidence of the ongoing issue" consists of this query about Edits to the admin who imposed the sanction. There was a pattern which might reasonably raise concerns of wikihounding by the other party. Whether or not that was the other party's intention, the talk page query and the Edit would not exist if the restriction was mutual. To the extent there is disruption, it is not sufficiently prevented through a 1 way restriction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
        • IBANs are really simple. You don't reply to another person. You don't revert them. You don't post on their talk page or comment about them. There's absolutely nothing about editing the same pages in there, except the revert rule. Neither of the edits you point out would have been banned under a two-way IBAN, so I don't see how that's the solution here, unless you're proposing a more extreme IBAN that prohibits editing the same page. We've tried those before. They don't work precisely because they're too complex. I'm not neccesarily opposed to making it 2-way for simplicities sake, but I'm not overtly in favour of it either. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Floquenbeam whole-heartedly. Oppose lifting sanction, but convert to 2-way I-ban. That, hopefully, will sort out the entire problem. Black Kite (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• @Alansohn: Why do you need to interact w/ Rusf10? Are you simply trying to have a black mark removed from your name? If so, what guarantees can you give that you will not have any reason to be dragged back here for even stricter sanctions against you? Status quo may be your in your best interests. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Good question by Bison X. While TB is accurate that an IBAN working doesn't/can't show the issue is being resolved, that does set up sanctions with no generally viable way to show they should end. I want to hear Alansohn's extended reasoning, before I give a support/oppose/2-way thought. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - To be honest, if the other user doesn't want the interaction ban to be removed, then it probably shouldn't. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• See below. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose and convert to 2-way per Floq and TB, and I also agree that Bison X's question is a good one. Waggie (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Convert to two-way IBAN per Floq and others. Miniapolis 22:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Waggie and Miniapolis:Why are you supporting a 2 way IBAN when the current ban is working? What have I done to deserve this? Alan has been falsely accusing me of stalking him for years. I already defended myself against his false allegation when it was brought to my attention here. Alan believes that he has WP:OWNERSHIP of all New Jersey-related[REDACTED] pages and that's the core of the problem. Putting me under an IBAN would give him an advantage because of the sheer amount of pages he has edited in that topic area. He could simply claim he edited the article first (which in almost all cases he has) and then go to the noticeboard and claim that I'm stalking him like he has done countless times in the past. I encourage you to read the ANI discussion that imposed the IBAN and understand it was Alansohn's repeated false allegations and personal attacks that brought on the IBAN in the first place.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

My reasoning? I'm sorry, but there is non-trivial evidence in the previous ANI discussions that, to paraphrase Icarosaurvus in the first discussion, leaves neither of you smelling like roses. Alansohn is clearly a sore spot for you (as you are for them) and is continuing to be so. An IBAN doesn't prevent you from editing the same articles, provided there isn't interaction (ie: you're not editing their content, reverting their edits, a insufficient amount of time has passed between edits, etc.). Simply having edited the article at some distant point in the past doesn't give them ownership of the article. That's my understanding of consensus regarding IBANs (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Waggie (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is you don't agree with the previous consensus, so now you want to overturn it despite the fact that nothing has happened since then to warrant a two-way extension. If we're trying to overturn a previous consensus then I think its only appropriate to notify everyone who was involved in the two discussions that imposed and extended the IBAN. @SarekOfVulcan, Reyk, TonyBallioni, Jbhunley, Power~enwiki, Nyttend, Icarosaurvus, Gatoclass, Swarm, Dennis Brown, Calton, Nil Einne, Spartaz, Beyond My Ken, Softlavender, Jacona, Only in death, Robert McClenon, Lugnuts, Davey2010, Abequinn14, John from Idegon, JzG, Byteflush, and Jayron32:--Rusf10 (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Floquenbeam, Iridescent, Nil Einne, Black Kite, Bison X, Nosebagbear, Miniapolis, Foxnpichu, Waggie and all those who have participated in this thread. Eighteen months ago, in this edit, User:Swarm extended the IBAN with the other editor indefinitely. Since then, to avoid any further blocks, I have scrupulously avoided any potential interaction of any kind. I have checked the edit history of every single article I edit, both before and after each and every edit, to make sure that I am not inadvertently violating the terms of the IBAN. For every single one of the more than ten thousand edits in the past eighteen months, I have had to obsessively monitor to make certain that the IBAN is not violated. I have demonstrated over those 18 months and ten thousand edits that I have no interest in interacting with the other editor.

My goal here is to end the time wasted in double-checking, triple-checking or quadruple-checking every single edit out of fear that there might be an inadvertent violation. I have *ZERO* interest in beginning interaction after the IBAN is ended. I have *ZERO* interest in seeing this turned into a two-way IBAN.

The extension of the IBAN came with an offer of reconsideration of the provisions after six months. I have complied for six months, then another six months and then a third period of six months. In these nearly eighteen months there have been *ZERO* violations; there have been no potential violations If anyone has any evidence of any violations, please bring them forward. But in the absence of any evidence violations I ask for a good faith elimination of the terms of the IBAN to save me from the anxiety and wasted time of dealing with the risk of blocks of increasing length. That's all I'm asking for. Alansohn (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, also oppose conversion to 2-way, i.e. leave as is - There is no indication that a change is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken, is there any evidence that you can provide that the standard offer of reconsideration after six months should not be available? What would you need to see to satisfy you that the IBAN should be ended, particularly as eighteen months have elapsed? Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm not BMK, but I'll reply: first, the standard offer only applies to blocks. Second, the standard offer is the single most self-destructive essay on Misplaced Pages, followed closely by WP:ROPE, and any reasoning based on them rather than how this would actually improve Misplaced Pages is flawed reasoning. You haven't actually showed how removing this would improve Misplaced Pages. Until you do that, it shouldn't be lifted. At this point, I'm fairly convinced you won't be able to show it since I can't find a good argument for it improving Misplaced Pages, even under the most sympathetic of circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Huh. I could be persuaded that lifting the ban is OK, since it can be rapidly reimposed if Alansohn resumes the problematic behaviour. If it remains in place, then it should be two-way. Guy (help!) 09:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• 1st choice remove, 2nd, 2-way. I do get the reasoning made against removing IBANs and such, however they are a sanction and they do hinder the editor - and so unless an alternate, viable, route to measuring when IBANs should cease can be offered by the opposers, then I'm inclined to back its removal. Please insert the usual threats about rope and all that jazz. In the event that a majority for that opinion can't be gathered, then a change to 2-way is preferable. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting IBAN if both editors will promise to leave each other alone. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting per Nosebagbear. Puddleglum_{(How's my driving?)} 15:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Not a fan of one way bans, nor two way bans, although rarely they are helpful. It's been long enough to test the waters, and blocks can be used if either party harasses the other. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose leave things as they are. If Rusf10 has not been interacting with Alanson to this point and is not causing disruption then it is against policy to place an IBAN 'just to be fair'. As I remember the thread that placed the IBAN on Alansohn only it was because he did not accept that he was contributing to the disruption. If there is some indication that some degree of CLUE has been gained ie understanding why the earlier behavior patterns were disruptive, I can be persuaded to reconsider my opinion. Jbh 15:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Note: I was pinged to this thread by Rusf10 above. Ping me on reply. I am not checking in here regularly but I have email notification for pings turned on.
• In light of Alansohn's recent comment, I will change to Support. I don't think the editors ignoring each other is necessary (they may have to at some point), just to not continue what caused the IBAN to be implemented in the first place. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support removal or convert to 2-way interaction ban per Nosebagbear, Goodday and Dennis Brown. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose simple removal. My comment when the ban was imposed was a recommendation that Arbitration Enforcement fashion a remedy if the community was unable to reach consensus on a remedy, but the community imposed a one-way interaction ban. I see no reason to remove the remedy. My long-term observation has been that User:Alansohn has a long-term pattern of ownership of articles about New Jersey including politicians in New Jersey. An alternative to an interaction ban would be a topic-ban, and I am sure that Alansohn would find a topic-ban more problematic than the current interaction ban. No opinion on whether to make the IBAN two-way, but in the absence of evidence that a two-way ban is needed, it can be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and oppose extending to Rusf. Nobody who has supported the latter has bothered to show any diffs or what the extension should prevent, therefore widening is purely punitive. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• From the discussion that extended it to indefinite: "Rusf10 will be, of course, expected to not engage in any behavior that could be construed as "baiting" and is strongly encouraged to continue to avoid any interaction with Alansohn unless absolutely necessary." - diffs linked by Ncmvocalist are examples of why this shouldn't be one-way. Probably better to remove the restriction now; if disruptive behavior resumes, it will lead to reinstatement of the restriction, or a block. Peter James (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That definitely sounds the most fair. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and convert to 2-way per Floq - Given Rus's PA/comment above I see no reason why that should be allowed to continue, Perfect example of how to shoot yourself in the foot. –Davey2010 18:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting per the other supporters, oppose 2-way as moving in the wrong direction. Two years is too long. Partial sanctions should always be a temporary measure; they can address acute problems but not chronic ones. There is no such thing as an editor who is here to build an encyclopedia, an asset to the project, a net positive as long as they are subject to an IBAN, but if you remove the IBAN, then–poof!–they suddenly become disruptive and a net negative. No matter what the disruption is, every case of disruption comes down to this: either an editor can control themselves, or they can't. Either they modulate their behavior to conform to community norms, or they don't. If Alansohn has abided by an IBAN for 18 months, it's enough to convince me that they are in the former category and not the latter. Levivich  03:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting as first choice. Alansohn seems to have complied reasonably well for a long time and their comments make lead me to believe they understand the problems they caused, and will do their best to avoid them. And they have a point that an iban does place a burden an editor especially when they often edit the same areas. If Alansohn doesn't take sufficient care after the lifting, I feel that some sanction can be reimposed. support 2 way as second choice. The comments by Rusf10 here do give enough concern that I feel a 2 way is justified if the iban is to continue. Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: This IBAN is still serving its purpose well, and one side doesn't want it lifted. Rusf10 proved very well that there is solid reason for it to exist. Furthermore, an IBAN is barely a sanction. It's just intended to prevent real sanctions from being necessary. Having said that, I'd also be fine with conversion to a two-way IBAN. Ames86 (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Ames86, no evidence of any kind has been offered by any editor of any issue whatsoever that "there is a solid reason for it to exist". The IBAN forces me to obsessively and needlessly monitor every single edit -- before, during and after each edit -- to ensure that there is no inadvertent contact with the other editor, as any such inadvertent edit would place me at risk of imposition of additional "real sanctions". The offer made by User:Swarm in August 2019 here in extending this IBAN indefinitely made an offer of reconsideration in six months. In the meantime, 18 months have passed with zero interactions on my part. How many months would provide evidence to you (and to any other doubters) that the time to end the IBAN has been reached? If 10,000 edits in 18 months with no issues whatsoever is not enough to provide evidence that the IBAN should be lifted, than what will be necessary to convince you that it's no longer needed? Alansohn (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• I would support lifting the 1-way, with the condition that any future disputes would swiftly result in the appropriate sanction: either a block or blocks, a reinstatement of the 1-way, or a new 2-way. Can an uninvolved editor judge the consensus and close this now? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting the IBAN. We can always reapply later if needed. --Darth Mike 13:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Appealing Topic Ban on Sports Articles

Revisiting a long term case that was related to my disruptive editing on NHL Players Statistics back in the 2018-19 season since I like to have my topic ban appealed because I understand that when it was first issued, it was to educate me in what reliable source means when I update NHL Teams and why other editors want the correct procedure. When I first started to update statistics within NHL Team articles, I assumed the information I get comes from the recap games they played.

• All things being equal, NicholasHui, in the world of Tban appeals—or any other—brevity is your friend  :) ——SN54129 16:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• No one is going to read all of this (which you just deleted in a subsequent edit). Consider shortening your appeal to a more concise summary. See WP:NICETRY.--WaltCip (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Please simplify to 1) what you did wrong before and 2) what you will do to correct it. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment on redaction @NicholasHui: You really should have followed WP:REDACT on your deletion, or just started a new request, since now it makes everyone's response look out of context.—Bagumba (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

1. What I did wrong before was I thought I add in the information properly but editors disagree because they believe I was adding it in my own knowledge

2. What I will do to correct it is to use most reliable source whenever I update NHL Hockey player stats articles or other articles in different topics NicholasHui (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are some examples that I will show you that I did before

(Carolina Hurricanes Player stats updated according to the official team stat source)

(Minnesota Wilds Player stats updated according to the official team stat source)

These sources I used didn't provide me a full list of stats on nhl teams because they trade away their players. In previous years when I updated the stats since the 2016-17 NHL season, I thought updating the stats was only adding all the stats from recap only games stats from each game the team played without knowing I could have just simply refer it to NHL.com stats NicholasHui (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Maple Leafs game 2 2018 playoffs stats For this edit here, some of my information did not matched to the official source because I thought that is the way NHL updates its stats.

for the Winnipeg Jets 2017-18 regular season stats here, the information I put in was not all correct because at the time, I disregarded reliable sources, its later fixed by another editor here. NicholasHui (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC) (Keep in mind that even without an account I used, it still counts as my editing regardless whether I edited while logged out.)

I'll let other decide, concerning your topic ban. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I was notified of this discussion by NicholasHui on my userpage, who I think took an overly broad view of the notification requirement. I was part of the discussions that implemented the TBan. For y'alls convenience: here is The ANI that ended in a TBan, whose wording included Lifting of the topic ban will be contingent on NicholasHui's edits and behavior showing that they fully understand WP:V and WP:OR. The TBan was an alternative to an indeff at the time, and seen as a last chance. I currently have no opinion on lifting the topic ban. I do have some questions however about NicholasHui's logged out editing. Nicholas, have you made any logged out edits in the last year? CaptainEek ⚓ 21:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying I made edits while logged out last year? I used edit while logging out when making edits to my archieve page on my Userpage most recent. Another thing interesting was that I had the same habits before back a long time ago before I even used this account when I was editing NHL 2018 playoffs while under the IP address 24.84.228.210 by editing the NHL stats by not most points to least and using only recap game stats. You think its odd that 24.84.228.210 is inactive when I started using an account to continue edit player stats on NHL Canadian teams that time but it clearly had been me editing NHL 2018 playoffs stats before. When I got topic banned from editing Hockey Articles, their was no point for me editing under IP accounts to edit NHL Hockey stats that I was banned from unless you think their was something different about my edit logout habbit NicholasHui (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

According to those 2 IP accounts, you were commenting on the very topic you were barred from. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have zero interest in being involved with the final decision on NicholasHui's topic ban. To comment on NicholasHui's usage of IP accounts, I have noticed multiple Vancouver based IP's interact with my account over the last several months that I could tell that they were used by him. Yowashi (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Well I was too obsessed in looking at your contributions. My apologies. Its just that my mind has been too fixated with your editing. Should have known better next time NicholasHui (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Any other comments to say about my appeal? NicholasHui (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• I would have to say, with your behavior here alone, I have no confidence whatsoever that you would not return to your old ways. You seem to just make a mess of things that others have to clean up. Sorry. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to make a mess of things that others had to clean up. Its just that when I updated NHL player stats, I did not realized that using recap game only stats was not the most reliable source. NicholasHui (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@NicholasHui: I would suggest that you withdraw this nomination and perhaps try again after some time when 1) you can succinctly explain what you did wrong before and why the community should no longer be concerned 2) have stopped editing while logged out, which only raises more questions (right or wrong). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: 1) Why the community should no longer be concerned about my topic ban on Sports stats articles is because I finally understood that I should have established consensus at the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey because editors could not agree with the content on player stats. Prior before the dispute when I wondered was I doing the stats hockey update properly? I expect myself to figure out whether or not I done it properly. Even though I realized my own mistake once I was notified by the editors who watched me do it. I corrected. Unfortunately, they disagreed still.

2) I have been editing while logged out with stuff with my userpage archive. The problem is that my mind in the last several months has been too fixated with certain user contributions. I just couldn't help it.

3) I will agree that even though my appeal is accepted, I will try to follow the community's advise that I should try to establish consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey.

4) I am here to make productive contributions understanding that I should cite the sources especially if I add in a lot of details of events or other topics in articles and I will try to stay calm if others disagree with what I edit. Does that sound fair? NicholasHui (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Why did you chose to edit logged out? GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: It was because for one good reason was that I was editing my User archive page. NicholasHui (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Why would you need to edit your own archive page, logged out? GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

To save some flooded information on my user account contributions. Also, you know hockey is really not my only thing I edit on, take a look on my user page of why I have those IP accounts listed on my userpage NicholasHui (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

License washing

Lennox Theodore Anderson looks to be using en:wikipedia as platform for license washing, as he/she is cropping files (images) en masse with a restrictive attribution/share alike license from Wikimedia Commons and releasing them here with a wrong "PD-Self" license. He/she has been reported here before, to no answer.--Asqueladd (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

pinging @GoodDay:, the former user reporting this, in case he/she can shed more light onto this.--Asqueladd (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I left a blunt message at User talk:Lennox Theodore Anderson#Stop requesting that they engage here before continuing. Please notify me if further problems occur before a consensus is reached here. A recent upload to enwiki is File:Michael Lord 2019.jpg. That looks incredibly like the Commons File:Official portrait of Lord Framlingham.jpg particularly (cropped), except the image is flipped and has glasses. Surely they haven't added the glasses!? Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I did a check and yes, there is a very slight rotation, the addition of glasses, and some odd cropping, but otherwise it's the same image (and has been deleted). Primefac (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I've tried getting LTA to stop, but he/she simply ignored me. This has been going on for months & so I figured either LTA's having WP:CIR issues or he/she just needs a blunt reaction from the community, to get the message. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Those are some unfortunate initials for a Misplaced Pages contributor... --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Now, he's just finished page moving (back & forth) the John A. Macdonald article, apparently to create a new re-direct for that article. This is looking like an example of WP:CIR. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Not the first time they've moved pages like this before. I remember a few months ago spending way too much time cleaning up another similar mess. Connormah (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the editor has stopped since the warning earlier today. I agree that this is disruptive along the lines of CIR (and/or communication is required) and would be willing to block accordingly if the behavior continues. (It looks like Johnuniq is at that point also, though apparently only regarding the image uploads.) --Izno (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Newbie mistakes can be fixed and forgiven, and we should try education before enforcement. But LTA needs to engage with the concerns about their editing and understand the problems, preferably before doing anything else but certainly before uploading any more files or moving any more pages. If they don't, then unfortunately an indef block may be necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

LTA's refusal to communicate here or at his talpage, is quite vexing. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I've left them a message requiring them to communicate before they make any more edits. If they carry on regardless, they should be indef'd by the first passing admin but hopefully they'll take heed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

He's currently working in his sandbox. Past experience, tells me he's laying low, hoping for this to blow over. Then he can continue is disruptive pattern. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

But just look at the bizarre content of his sandbox, which he has been editing since receiving the latest message. Please just block now. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that if he's banned, he'll resort to socking (ip or new account). I personally believe he's deliberately ignoring all of us, because he damn well knows how to respond here & at his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Any admin is free to lift the block without discussing it with me if they believe the issues are resolved. Given the history, though, this will be a high bar to reach. --Yamla (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't know if it's him, but an IP has just shown up on John A. Macdonald to blanket replace all "Macdonalds"s with "MacDonald"s. And can we delete the hoax article at User:Lennox Theodore Anderson/Sandbox? Meters (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the sandbox. I took no action on the IP, but have no objection to someone else taking action on that. --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a while for obvious block evasion. Hopefully that will calm things down for a bit. --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if the initials "LTA" are a coincidence. DS (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Failed login attempts

I'm getting notifications about repeated attempts to log into my account from a new device over the past couple of hours. I'm confident my password is strong but it's probably worth being on the lookout for any accounts going rogue if whomever is behind this finds a way in. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chris: I'll keep an eye on your contributions, but if you somehow get locked out, I'm emailing you my mobile number in case you don't already have it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was mainly meaning to keep an eye out for any other accounts in case it's not just me that they're trying. The Jytdog arb case is the only vaguely controversial thing I think I've been involved with of late, so if it is targetted it's most likely related to that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Seeing the same thing, also (peripherally) involved with that case. Qwirkle (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I'm also seeing the same thing (6 failed attempts, according to the notice) and am also involved with that case. I'd appreciate it if my account could also be kept on watch for strange behaviour. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

This kind of thing happens every now and then. There's not really any way to tell if you're being targeted specifically or if it's random. As usual, the advice for anyone who doesn't want their account compromised is to to use a strong password that you don't use anywhere else, and for admins to consider enabling two-factor authentication. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly good advice to use a strong password that you don't use anywhere else, but I'd never advise anyone to use the 2FA currently in use on Misplaced Pages. Considering that "Some 314 mobile phones are stolen on London's streets every day, according to the Metropolitan Police", the sheer hassle of recovering your Misplaced Pages account following the loss an authenticator must outweigh the extra effort required to have a really strong password. As mine is presently over 30 characters in length, it would take rather longer than the heat death of the universe to crack it by brute force using current technology. Of course that's just my opinion on 2FA. YMMV. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I know at least one person who was an active admin until he lost his phone and decided he couldn't be bothered to go through the hoops needed to recover his account, so I wonder if our 2FA-required policy is truly a net positive; how many other admins suddenly went inactive because they lost their authenticator and didn't want to go to the trouble of recovering the account? rdfox 76 (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't understand why people don't back up their 2FA stuff. Even with stuff like Humble Bundle, Ubisoft etc I'd never consider not backuping up 2FA stuff no matter if it's easier to recover. Nil Einne (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

2FA is one of those areas where Misplaced Pages just feels really behind the curve compared to the rest of the tech world (captchas being another). Every other tech website implemented 2FA years ago for all users, whereas here it seems to exist only in beta form and only for a small subset of users. Sdkb (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. SMS-based 2FA is also something nice, but I doubt that will ever be enabled here. On that note, I feel these hijack attempts are random. I have a folder of those emails, and so far I've collected 154 of those. I have no idea why... Rehman 07:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: "Don't understand why people don't back up their 2FA stuff" – possibly because that means you have to secure the backup at least as strongly as its contents. Otherwise anybody who can hack the backup can "recover" your 2FA information in the same way you can. Turtles all the way down. --RexxS (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I believe this merits more complete investigation, given that the three editors reporting issues here have been in varying degrees involved in the Jytdog ArbCom case. I'd suggest outreach to determine if others in the case are experiencing similar failed login attempts, as a start. Jusdafax (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • In the past there have been massive attacks by automated systems attempting to log in to hundreds (thousands?) of accounts. Speculation was that someone had one of the large password dumps from hacked websites, and was trying those passwords against accounts here. All I can find at the moment is from May 2018. I thought there was a very large attack last year. The bottom line is that log in attempts can be ignored provided you are not using a password that has been been used at any other website (because those websites get hacked and the passwords leaked). See WP:SECURITY. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I have also participated in the Jytdog workshop and I've got 4 emails about repeated login attempts. The last notification had 12 failed attempts so there might be a brute-force attack.--Pudeo (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've just had a notification about 15 failed attempts. They only seem to be occurring in the evening and early morning UTC. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've also been involved in the case, and have been getting 50+ failed login attempts each day in recent days. Adrian J. Hunter 21:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Same here. Coretheapple (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Egads! My account as well, and it's been going on for a while now as evidenced in this discussion. If they can hack into my account, maybe they'll share the password with me because the one I used is so complex, I forgot it myself. (j/k about password) _Talk 📧 22:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I (and others) got them during the Kudpung arbcase: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_SandyGeorgia SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I've been getting the same thing. Hundreds of failed attempts each day. I can venture a guess as to who it is, based on previous M.O., but I'm not interested in giving the guy his jollies by mentioning him. ♟♙ (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Although of course it's theoretically possible that specific editors are being targetted, it's far more likely that crackers are simply working their way through the entire list of Misplaced Pages user names. isaacl (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

...and yet so far, all, or all but one, do seem to be describing connected behavior. That’s a rather large trout in the milkcan. Qwirkle (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I’ve had the same thing happen to me (3 in two days, starting yesterday) and that was when I weighted in on the workshop components (and was attacked for one of my comments over on the talkpage). So add me to the metoo list for these. And I’m a very small fish in this pond, compared to Voceditenore, Coretheapple, Thryduulf... Montanabw 23:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I experienced several attempts during Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung but, after changing my password to something more complicated, none in the Jytdog one. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC).

I had more of them this morning. Incels gonna incel, I guess. ♟♙ (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

User talk:WikiIndustrialComplex

Someone is having a hard time following the instructions for writing up an unblock request. Maybe one of you can help them; I have a feeling they don't want to hear from me anymore, not even to give them a link to NPA. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• No problem, I'm happy to help. ~Swarm~ 03:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Chaos Music

Hello!

I want to create a page for an Argentinian music label, Chaos Music. But I am unable to do so. When I tried I got the following error, "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism"."Any administrator can create or move this page for you"..--Rashijain1992 (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Please create the article in the draft space and then, if it gets accepted, somebody would move it to the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rashijain1992, I see that you're unable to create the Chaos Music and Draft:Chaos Music pages because the page names are affected by the title blacklist. (This is because someone back in 2013 created a bunch of spam pages with the word "Chaos" in it.) I've prepared an empty draft page for you at Draft:Chaos Music. When you're finished with your draft, please click the blue "Submit your draft for review!" on the draft page. Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages! — Newslinger talk 22:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have started understanding the Misplaced Pages process much better now. Really appreciate your help.--Rashijain1992 (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem! Feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any other questions about editing.​ — Newslinger talk 07:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (2nd nomination) - snow close

An uninvolved administrator is requested to decide whether a snow close is appropriate here - the first AfD was closed yesterday, and the nominator of the second one does not seem to be accepting the snow close. I am personally involved, since I commented (thought not voted) on the previous AfD. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Andrew Davidson speedily kept it (NAC) but Sanmosa, the nominator, reverted that. I don't have time to deal with it right now, but it does need dealing with. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I've re-closed it and posted a question on Sanmosa's talk page. They want to discuss some issue (judging by their edit summaries in the AFD) but it's not clear what it is, and the AFD nomination statement does not clarify (it reads more like a keep argument than a deletion one). Perhaps they just need to be pointed to the correct place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Move help needed

New(-ish) user Eshaan11 attempted to "correct" the spelling of Color photography and moved it to Colour Photography without consensus. Because they did this without discussion (per WP:MOVE and MOS:ENGVAR) I went to reverse it. I noticed that they had also moved it incorrectly so that there was no talk page at the new location but I did not notice this was because of the incorrect title capitalization. I was unavoidably called away in the midst of this and the end result is that there now appear to be two separate articles: Color Photography and Color photography. Could some kind admin put this back together for me? I realize that attempting to do reverse this and stepping away in the middle is less than optimal behavior for a relatively experienced editor and I apologize but life interrupts sometimes. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

User has also done similar mayhem to Deafblindness. --jpgordon 17:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:, could you please specify what should be the final destination? Color photography?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, correct. Color photography was the previous location. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done, another one already moved by Tbhotch--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

How dare you have a life away from Misplaced Pages? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Ymblanter and Tbhotch. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC) And to Phil Bridger: I know? Right? How rude!

Copy and paste move?

I think a copy and paste move occurred here - Andrey Yuryevich Vorobyov to Andrey Vorobyov - . If so, not sure if any histmerge, clean up or other untangling is required, posting here for those more experienced to consider. Spokoyni (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Unable to undo an edit (due to Spam-blacklist)

Hello. All the edits (except this edit) by 2601:580:4200:71D0:81E0:9585:599C:BBBE have been undone, because they are dubious. The user has been warned. But I am unable to undo the remaining edit. When I try to publish my edit, it is not saved, and the following message appears "Error: Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Misplaced Pages's blacklist". The link that triggered the protection filter is moz.com. MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist contains dromoz.com.
So I think that there is no error in MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, but I still want to undo the remaining edit. Could you undo this edit? Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that \bmoz\.com\b is at meta:Spam blacklist. I guess that a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist might be needed because my attempt to hide moz.com (by making it not a clickable link) did not work. Johnuniq (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the IP's edit in two steps by editing section 0 and restoring moz.com (unclickable link), then removing the external links which is not needed. Johnuniq (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Johnuniq: I had forgotten to look at meta:Spam blacklist and I was unaware that unclickable links were OK for the filters. --NicoScribe (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports closed

An arbitration case regarding Motorsports has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Mclarenfan17 (talk · contribs) and Tvx1 (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 22:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports closed

"China virus"

There has been four weeks of discussion at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Repeated addition of "China Virus" about additions of "China virus" to the article text. The discussion appears to have exhausted itself, but is dragging on. An uninvolved closer's reading of the discussion, whether or not that involves initiation of a subsequent RfC, would be appreciated. Dekimasuよ! 02:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Psl631 unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Psl631 is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction. Maxim_(talk) 13:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Psl631 unblocked

Comment from a grumpy person re: April Fools

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

Thanks for this post TonyBallioni. The thing about a good April Fool's joke is that it is funny. I haven't seen one of those yet this year. That includes the thread just below this one. One suggestion is that people partaking of the day please post your item on your own talk page and leave all the other notice and policy boards to their regular business. That way your talk page watchers can laugh or not as the case may be. Those of us dealing with all the difficulties of this time can focus on those and regular editing. I don't expect this suggestion to be taken up but I had to make it anyway. MarnetteD|Talk 03:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thread was removed here. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with you, Tony. I was thinking about this when I saw some planning for April 1st for the Main Page. But I don't think that editors who will participate in this annual ritual are editors who read AN and will see this message. So, the only thing we can control is how we respond to the inevitable joking that will occur. I propose not encouraging it but also not stomping it down and deleting it when we see it. Joking can also act as a way to release stress so, let's AGF and try not to let ourselves be angered or too irritated when we see it should we come across it in our daily work as below. No matter lame it is (see below). JMHO. Liz 03:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

+1. Too many people at the best of times treat April Fools as an excuse for institutionalized spite or pointless disruption, and this is not the best of times. Don't be afraid to treat people who are being obnoxious as we would any other disruptive editor; it's our job as admins to protect Misplaced Pages's integrity, not to provide a safe space for a bunch of dimwits to treat as their personal sandbox. ‑ Iridescent 03:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Eh, if it bothers people so much they can take the day off. If something like that is just to much for them, it sounds like they could use a break anyhow. There is always time for foolishness especially during sad times. But if that is all just to much, they can just not participate and perhaps focus on improving the encyclopedia elsewhere. PackMecEng (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, that's "they can just not participate and perhaps focus on improving the encyclopedia". ——SN54129 04:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

See! Now that's the spirit! PackMecEng (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, there are clever jokes (like some of the AfD nominations) and then there is just plain vandalism. I've seen both tonight. We are trying to tolerate the first and prevent the latter. Liz 04:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow, look, I get folks are not in a great mood, but just quashing any humor is counter productive. Go stop the ignorant trolling on COVID articles, but Cullen328's removal of my clearly silly post that I put a modicum of effort into is frankly more disruptive than the post itself. I rather hope he regrets himself. It's disheartening to see people stomp out any joy.  EvergreenFir (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It is rather unfortunate, if they cannot have fun then no one is allowed to have fun. PackMecEng (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, EvergreenFir, I didn't think your post was funny or amusing but I wouldn't have removed it myself. You weren't getting a great response to it and I thought that was a better statement than removal. Liz 04:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

EF's post was not humorous, silly, joyous or fun. Nor was it original. Maybe edit some article for awhile. MarnetteD|Talk 04:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Made me giggle a little. Lighten up you two. PackMecEng (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

While I am generally more sympathetic to April Fools humor than some of the above editors, I don't think AN is the best place for jokes. Also, the 'ban Jimbo' meme is pretty well-played out at this point. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Most of the crap done isn't funny to a decent portion of folks. I thought it was fresh enough, but if i'm wrong ok. But deleting it and telling me to piss off wasn't remotely helpful. One up it and close it with something funnier if you didn't like it. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The question of how April Fools should be observed on Misplaced Pages is one on which reasonable people differ. The important thing is to keep mainspace free of disruption. Jokes in the Misplaced Pages namespace do not need to be policed quite so aggressively, but sometimes they are. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I get that and can see that. Was my first (poor) attempt. My feelings were hurt but no reason to get upset I guess. I'll look at memes on facebook instead and keep doing admin stuff. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, EvergreenFir, my initial post was mainly aimed at the high school aged students who do a majority of the April Fools stuff and might not realize why everyone is so stressed and that putting a template to turn AfD upside down might piss people off more than normal, but I think your post unintentionally made my point that people are more on edge than normal right now. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I saw Liz's link to the AfD for 2020, then saw this, which I thought was an April Fools prank but was apparently intended seriously, which just underscores how our current reality is much more absurd than any April Fools joke could possibly be. Perhaps this is why Mad Magazine went out of business. 28bytes (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Before I needed to protect the main april fools page for vandalism, there was a mini discussion at RFPP where someone pointed to uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid and I think that's a good summation of my problems with April Fools on Misplaced Pages. I agree that many people are worried, and I had seen that Google is forgoing its usual April 1 silliness out of respect for...*gestures at everything*. Personally, after being cooped up inside so long with minimal human contact, I appreciate the bit of levity and even took part. Unfortunately good jokes are hard to come by, and most of the stuff I've seen is just noise that gets in the way of actual work. if only there was some site that was a spoof of[REDACTED] where the whole point is to make jokes. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

My feeling is that April Fools is a success if I don't end up posting this image at some discussion. Doing good so far. And I always join in for a little, but in unconventional ways (among others, check out my account creation log); wish more people could enjoy it too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: And that "joke" account has now been globally locked as an LTA. You've duped a hard-working steward dedicated to fighting cross-wiki abuse. Funny? Not so sure. – Juliancolton |  15:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Heh! Run a CU immediately, we've already got the confession  :) ——SN54129 15:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know our stewards are so overwhelmed already that making one block on April Fools is completely going to tear apart the fabric of the WMF. And I explicitly create them for fun, so anyone who thinks they're a genuine threat isn't reading the creation summary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

...yeah, just hilarious. – Juliancolton |  15:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, someone probably had to wake them from their naps to do that. PackMecEng (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

So what amount of disruption is acceptable if it's done "for fun"? How many admins, stewards, or serious editors could I inconvenience before it's no longer tolerated? One? Five? Or is it fine being disruptive indefinitely if I'm an admin and promise that I'm having a giggle while doing it? – Juliancolton |  15:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You and I both know it's a case by case question, sort of the Miller test if you will. The day is almost over anyway. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably 42 or so. Though WP:NOTREQUIRED comes to mind. PackMecEng (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• +1 - I've joined in a few AFDs where I consider them to be creative and or funny but the majority are all what was done 5 years ago and are repeated every year to date, But I agree people should be careful and should be less-disruptive as possible. –Davey2010 15:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. idk I pretty much missed most of last year's shenanigans, so this is the year I have taken to actively participate in an April Fools Day on Misplaced Pages. I've been incredibly stressed out recently, and I have been on Wikibreak because of it. I thought that would help, but it only compounded to my feelings of loneliness and helplessness about the situation all around me. My spirit was effectively crushed to death as I realized all my plans and hopes for the year were effectively null and void by the very start of it.
  I knew if I came back to Misplaced Pages, it would just be a nightmare of anxiety about what to do and what to say first. I'd be overwhelmed with the people I needed to respond to and things I fell behind on.
  Still, today is the only day all year I felt like it was possible for me to stop doing nothing and feeling bad about things. It's a day meant for fun, and that's what I want to do because I'm tired of feeling sad all the time.
  I guess all I can say is that it is rather frustrating that the one day I see as a relief has been used to vandalize and be disruptive. There's always going to be some level of disruption, but it shouldn't be spread to pages outside of projectspace for starters.
  Those are my thoughts on the matter and such. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 17:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

BLP and illness

From another grumpy person, even without April Fools vandalism I'm seeing an increasing number of edits claiming people are sick or dead from the pandemic virus. I've blocked or strongly warned several editors for unsourced rumors and general BLP violations.This will only get worse, and April Fools won't help. Rather than an escalating series of warnings, unsourced or poorly sourced rumors of living persons' health status need a sharp warning out of the gate, followed up with protection or blocks if not heeded. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Over the past two weeks, I've already had to revert about a half dozen incidents of vandalism, saying different celebrities (usually ones I haven't heard of) had died of COVID-19. You're right, this will probably increase on April 1st. Liz 03:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

A very stern warning or an instablock should always be on the table for someone who intentionally adds false death info, whether it's coronavirus-related or not. Death hoaxes have always been a problem, and it's something I've never had any tolerance for. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly the thing that should not be tolerated. Pissing on other users' good faith, if unfunny, attempts at humor that adhere to WP:FOOLS is just backwards. EvergreenFir' (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

If I see someone pull that one, they're getting blocked. That situation is not something to create hoaxes about. Seraphimblade 04:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Filter with edit notice

@Acroterion, Liz, Bongwarrior, and Seraphimblade:

Would it be possible to whip up an edit filter for COVID, corona, Wuhan, Chinese virus, and other variations that prompts an edit notice warning of zero tolerance for "April Fools" on the topic and perhaps a chastisement tell folks this isn't a laughing matter? Might curb the problem. And might be useful to keep active beyond today. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment that Suffusion of Yellow made two tracking filters 1040 and 1041 for COVID that perhaps could be used. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I would not support that. That's a heavily edited topic right now and it would catch way too many editors who have no ill intent at all. Newer editors might be frightened off by such a warning and think they've done something wrong. Seraphimblade 05:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. Just monitoring those existing filters might help. I've found two bad edits made in the past hour. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I think any such filter should ignore April Fools, which will pass, and just provide a note on the essential need to provide reliable sourcing and to demand respect for BLPs. There are, unfortunately, plenty of genuine reasons to make such edits. We need to be vigilant and to monitor the sometimes-ghoulish race to announce sickness and deaths. Acroterion (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really adept on edit filters so I can't address that question. As someone who checks edits on COVID-19 articles, I don't think we have to worry about the top coronavirus articles as they are on a lot of Watchlists and vandalism will be caught pretty soon. Some of the lesser watched articles might be vulnerable but even countries with few cases have some editors keeping tabs on them and vandalism will be eventually reverted.

I think the greater concern are April 1st edits that cross the line into malicious vandalism and have to be rev-deleted. I think admins should be contacted directly in those cases unless it becomes a more wide-spread problem and needs more attention. Liz 13:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at edit filter 1040, where it's fairly easy to pick out possible BLP edits from the subject entry, and found a couple, some good-faith, others vandalism. For now, such a manual scan seems doable. It seems like a version of 1040 that only picks out articles tagged as BLPs could work - most biographies are coded as such on their talkpages. My concern is less about today and more about the weeks ahead, where we might need to remind some editors that we're not running a contest to see who can report someone's sickness or death the soonest, or without sources. Acroterion (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, Acroterion. I need to remember to check the edit filter logs. Liz 21:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Liz, Acroterion, and EvergreenFir: See filter 1047 (hist · log). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: many thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really helpful. One byproduct is that it's highlighting a lot of defamation and BLP vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Administrator changes Cabayi • Lee Vilenski Boing! said Zebedee Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT Money emoji → Moneytrees Bureaucrat changes SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes NativeForeigner [REDACTED] Oversight changes Someguy1221 Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news

• There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Skype number

Some smart-arse IP added a Skype number to List of Mr. Robot episodes. I reverted it, but perhaps one of you fine folks should take a look and see if more permanent removal is in order. Stay safe! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 12:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. Lectonar (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Done. Next time, please contact Oversight per email if possible instead to minimize exposure. Regards SoWhy 12:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

XInolanIX

Hello,

User:XInolanIX is an SPA account focused on "Juan Branco" page, which had reached a consensual form before his interventions started a month ago. The page, has been systematically attacked by him and a similar account for a few weeks, in a very subtle but efficient way. Basic biographical elements, coming from primary legitimate sources (Reuters, AP, The Guardian) are deleted when favorable. On the other hand, negative informations, often from French sources (therefore difficult to verify in EN wikipedia) are systematically added in a distorted way.

To be more specific: the contributor deletes without justification basic academic information, as the holding of a PhD title or university affiliations (La Sorbonne); the contributor, transforms a senior research fellow emloyment position to a "junior research fellow" (the former is a title Branco held, not a subjective qualification anyone can comment on, as the sources clearly indicate); erases public positions held at the International Criminal Court and the Foreign affairs ministry, which are publicly sourced, and so forth.

Whatever happened in the history of this page does not justify the obfuscation of verified, sourced elements, the use of speculative wording, including suggestions of criminal behaviour that have never been investigated or been qualified as such in the public space, and so forth.

Many examples can be taken, but the apperantly most insignificant are revealing, for example the use of "populist" in order to qualify "La France Insoumise", the systematically negative presentation of his political engagement, as with the quote of a "colister" of Branco's 2017 candidacy: legislative candidates in France have no "colisters". Those elements are sparsed in a widespread manner. It is difficult to presume good faith when seeing them accumulated, although I do presume that most editors, which do not master French and have not seen French version or have direct access to the French sources, do not perceive it. The individual concerned by this article has been at the heart of a huge polemic, and important attacks both from some media (heavily quoted) and individuals, which have tried to hinder his reputation, have come along. This has clearly affected this page, whatever, once again, the considerations that could be made regarding the previous versions. Having proceeded to the deletion of all informations coming from previous sources - albeit not contradicted since - does not seem to me to be compatible with[REDACTED] standards. I'll go more into details. The current version has therefore been rendered lacunary on essential points that necessarily affect the objectivity of the page.

This is a serious attack at someone's reputation. Misplaced Pages is not a place to revenge on or play with other's life. This SPA account is clearly behaving this way, whilst pretending to be neutral and avoid "manipulations" and "adding of hagiographic content", which is unpresent in all the modifications he has systematically reverted, and by doing so he's exposing Misplaced Pages's integrity.

I therefore suggest banning this contributor, and related IPs, from participating to this page, and if necessary, reverting the page to last version before his appearance, as well as the intervention of an administrator to withdraw from this last version any hagiographic element he could encounter. The French page being relatively equilibrated, a French-speaking adminsitrator would be welcome.

For more details, I suggest to go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Juan_Branco#Revision_2

Elahadji (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Elahadji (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This user seems to be the subject of the article himself. His habit of using Misplaced Pages as a PR-tool and to threaten and denigrate perceived enemies has been well documented by the press as can be seen in the article and it's French version (i.e.: he once wrote a threatening letter to the employer of another Wikipedian claiming to be a "Misplaced Pages administrator"). XInolanIX (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The opener of this thread (Elahdji) is a SPA that is currently suspected to be a sockpuppet of Brancojuan, and, at least, three other accounts and two IPs (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Brancojuan). His agressive behaviour could be the subject of an ANI, but this seems not useful if the SPI will result in a ban. D.Lazard (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

There's also some recent edits related to this matter on Gabriel Attal's article. Lugnuts 16:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Classic All Fools, outrageously poor taste, or somewhere in between?

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

Page deleted and salted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

That's certainly established clear boundaries  :) Thanks, Floquenbeam. ——SN54129 14:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Deleted this too Misplaced Pages:Questionable Cabal/COVID-19 Outbreak EvergreenFir (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not appropriate, and not really particularly funny either.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted, EvergreenFir  :) ——SN54129 14:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

+1 - Thank you Floq for getting rid of these distasteful and not at all funny templates. –Davey2010 14:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

All the pages were from an accident, apparently WP:TROUT has transclusions to the Project space article. Extra additions were not intentional whatsoever, and the category updated just a few minutes ago from a fix that happened half an hour ago. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Upsidedown Keyboard: can you now assure us all traces of this prank are gone? -- The Anome (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Anome: As far as I am aware, the templates added to all those archives were just from WP:TROUT, and have long since been removed. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Good to hear it. Given this, if Upsidedown Keyboard can make a commitment to this not recurring, I think no further action is required. -- The Anome (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Anome: Gonna one up you, I am making a commitment to never editing on Misplaced Pages again. Enjoy your April Fools, bureaucrats. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably for the best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

And good riddance. Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya. Praxidicae (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

what's up with the insult? –Aνδρέας 19:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

No, they weren't. I just cleaned up more garbage. If I find more, i'm blocking folks. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• While we're here, can someone have a word with User:Computerfan0 (user page + edit summary, also this at VPT) ——SN54129 16:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the VPT discussion, There's boundaries you don't cross and that for me is one of them. –Davey2010 16:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Davey, and NYB has removed the stuff from user page, so we're probably all done here. Happy days huh! ——SN54129 16:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

No worries SN, Looking forward to the normal day tomorrow lol, Suppose it's never normal here but you know what I mean :), Happy editing!, Thanks, –Davey2010 17:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added some stuff back and just want to check if it's OK. 17:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Computerfan0 (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Since you promptly followed the above up by claiming that you were actually referring to Corona beer, and your edit history appears to quite literally consist of nothing but disruption, is there any reason I shouldn't just indef-block your account, cookie-block your computer and hardblock your IP? ‑ Iridescent 17:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I, for one, can't see any reason why not. I look forward to hearing what areas they plan to constructively contribute to in their unblock request. creffett (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The editor made a couple useful edits prior to this rampage. I'll block indefinitely if there's any more disruption. I think the message has been sent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I read in the New York Times that April Fools Day has been postponed due to the outbreak. If only that were true! (Is "April Fools Day has been postponed" one of those oxymoron things, like "Everything I say is a lie including this"?) -- MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: It's more like "Opposite Day was cancelled." –MJL ‐Talk‐ 18:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

To avoid this in future, Donald J. Trump has signed an executive odrer removing April 1 from the calendar and replacing it with March 32. As it is unclear if this is retroactive, I will wait until tomorrow to add it to any articles. O3000 (talk) 19:56, March 32, 2020

A suggestion: would it not make better sense to mass message some thing along the lines of “Happy April Fool’s day. While we have a tradition of a little Foolery (linked instead to one of the more amusing, less controversial hoaxes), please, no medical jokes, in view of widespread concern about Covid19. Mass message it, and paste it to the top of the usual landing places. Then nuke ‘em on sight, with a non-judgemental reference to the message. The problem children will show themselves quickly, and others won’t be insulted over their variant senses of humor. Qwirkle (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Editors shouldn't have to be reminded not to make tasteless, unfunny "jokes" during a global pandemic where thousands of lives have been lost. Praxidicae (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Every day something horrible is happening, human nature being what it is, and everyone’s tolerance for gallows humor varies. I dont see this general trend ending well. Qwirkle (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Or just confine it to user space. Being able to edit outside of mainspace (and, realistically when we say "avoid articles", we're effectively directing editors to project space)—because no-one "owns" that (compared with the greater degree of autonomy each has over their own userpages)—that in turn encourages one-upmanship. Like the crap we saw today: "I'll nominate X at MfD" leads to "I'll nominate the nomination at MfD" leads to "I'll nominate MfD itself", etc. Nothing is achieved, a lot of time and energy is wasted, and all because we let it. Happy fucking days. ——SN54129 18:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: There's literally no point to that joke anymore since I jumped the shark. The game is over, and I clearly won (as shown here, the software won't even let you go further than that).
  Also, I pay things forward by by clerking a serious thread while I'm busy cracking jokes. :P –MJL ‐Talk‐ 19:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Can we please have a blanket ban on all this AFd/MFD nonsense already? It's wreaking havoc for people who are actually making real nominations and trying to patrol Misplaced Pages. This was a funny topical April Fools day gag. All the nonsense making messes is not. Praxidicae (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  Please. creffett (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

At least the AfD ones are all being lumped into "April Fools Day nominations" so we don't have to actually look at them. There are currently 89 of them! Might it not occur to some of them that this kind of "joke" has been done to death? And will they all be speedy closed after midnight wherever? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: Yes, they will be speedy closed. Invalid_talk 19:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN Unfortunately too many of them are not being tagged correctly (and many of us who track these things are tired of being pinged every time a filter is set off.) Praxidicae (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I see that some of the AfD/MfD "jokes" are being sorted into a separate section and kept (to be speedy closed a little later), while others are being CSD tagged as vandalism. Which is the preferred approach to these things? I'll be happy to speedy delete them if that is the consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would support a blanket ban/ UP/TP-only ban on this, Admittedly I participated in these years back but the jokes ran dry and it became boring (and some of my stunts felt more disruptive than funny), I've spent the majority of my day today CSD-tagging the unfunny AFDs some of which are still waiting to be deleted lol.(Thanks Black Kite!)

Seems as the years go on AFD becomes more and more unfunny, stale and just humourless really. –Davey2010 19:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• I started a RfC here for whether to blanket ban AfD/MfD. 107.77.173.1 (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I miss the good 'ol days. Arkon (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• All of these suggestions are moot as April Fools officially ends on UTC time so we are talking about 3 more hours. Any changes to custom have to be discussed in advance so we need to have these discussions prior to April 1st for the succeeding year and disperse any new guidelines. I'm hoping that we all will be in a different place psychologically and physically on April 1, 2021. Liz 21:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion request: Hungarian Spectrum

This article: Hungarian Spectrum must be deleted: self promotion, soap boxing, political activism. The creator of the page Stevan Harnad used and uses repeatedly the WP to spread his political views - just take a look at his editing history:

He edits his own wp article: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stevan_Harnad&action=history

He spreads political opinions as facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_68#Constitution_of_Hungary

etc.

It is just another attempt. Hungarian Spectrum is a closed facebook-group, the main contributor has ZERO scientific output.

Speedy deletion tag already placed, but I guess that Harnad will remove it soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.163.158 (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I have removed the speedy deletion tag. Your reason, "self promotion and soapboxing", is in line with WP:G11, but I really don't see the content of the article as "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten". I have no comment on the notability of the subject (which is not a valid speedy deletion reason anyway), or on your apparent claim of conflict of interest. If you think the article should be deleted, please use WP:AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

More than the half of the whole article consists of a quote from George Soros about his vilification in Hungary, and his appraisal (philantropist etc. - he has his own wp article, no need to repeat it here!), and his views on Viktor Orbán. It is clearly soapboxing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.163.158 (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Then nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if there is some confusion here, but AFAICT, the article is about this blog https://hungarianspectrum.org/ . It seems to just be a blog hosted as a normal website. It's not a closed Facebook group. Maybe there is a closed Facebook associated with the blog but if there is, that's not what the article is mostly about. In fact the article never seems to have mentioned the closed Facebook group AFAICT. The blog seems to mostly about politics and stuff, so I'm not entirely sure why anyone would expect people associated with it to have scientific output anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion should be closed as being in the wrong venue. The place to discuss article deletion is WP:AFD, as Boing! said Zebedee said. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Voluntary IBAN: Elizium23 / Contaldo80

• Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elizium23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For too long, I have been fighting over Catholic topics with this editor, Contaldo80. I have been rude and I have edit-warred and I have failed to assume good faith. I go to confession to a priest and tell him how angry Misplaced Pages makes me, because of Contaldo80. It's not his fault. I have a tendency to be a hothead and this relationship brings out the worst in my personality. I want out. I volunteer for an interaction ban on any articles edited by Contaldo80. It will last 6 months with an option of renewal before the expiration date. Contaldo does not need to volunteer for a 2-way IBAN, that is totally optional and not something I am requesting here. I am requesting that I be held to my word by sanctions if I violate the boundaries. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Elizium23 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't be offering myself for a voluntary ban. Having not edited[REDACTED] for a while (because of a number of unpleasant interactions with other editors) I was taken aback by your quite confrontational approach on Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church. I think your suggestion that you step back from editing is a prudent one as you've made a very personal attack on me above - about going to confession and complaining to your priest specifically about me. I'll leave to administrators to make a judgement as to whether this falls into personal harassment and should therefore result in a formal block or censure. It's disturbing to say the least.Contaldo80 (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh please. I was complaining to a priest in Confession (which is about the penitent's sins and not others) about how angry I became on Misplaced Pages, not about anything you did. Not a personal attack. The reverse. Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I find it weird and unsettling that you have gone to a priest to tell him how angry I specifically make you feel because of my editing. I really don't think this is acceptable. I actually feel harassed. I'd like an administrator to exercise judgement as to whether this is acceptable behaviour? Thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) And as someone who watched your recent inappropriate actions against Elizium at Talk:Homosexual_clergy_in_the_Catholic_Church#Today's_edits_reverted, I think it weird and inappropriate that you are calling for this. You should own up to the problems of your own behavior, not act like you're violated by someone having a reaction to it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Nat - you evidently have a problem with me. I've been respectful and polite but honestly I think you're starting to get a bit carried away. Following me to this discussion to chip in your two cents is probably over-reach for a non-administrator. Can I respectfully ask you to please back-off. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

So you come to my Talk page as part of your campaign against Elizium and specifically tell me to come see this thread, but then want to squelch me from responding? No. No, you have not been "respectful and polite", you've been attacking Elizium over their taking care of your bad edits while you've been going around boasting about how great you've been in this matter. Your complaining about me having "followed" you to a thread you told me to come see is another example of you inventing a way for you to be a victim rather than taking responsibilities for your own actions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support One-way Iban as requested. (Non-administrator comment) --Puddleglum_{(How's my driving?)} 05:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Any such one-way IBAN would be a travesty of justice. At Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church it is Contaldo80 who has been inserting names in contravention of WP:BLP and making personal attacks, and Elizium23 who has been removing the names, in accordance with that policy, and not making personal attacks. Such behaviour has continued above in this very thread. If any sanctions are taken they should be against Contaldo80, not Elizium23. Much as we might admire Elizium23's "turn the other cheek" attitude that shouldn't get in the way of our seeing who is in the wrong here. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

2 help requests: Same theme: Possibly COVID-19 or Lockdown related

Hello, on 30 March 2020, on my watchlist I found this edit (there was one more edit on its talk page). The message in Hindi, says, "My father is very sick, could you please help......" Of course this edit non-constructive, however currently like many other country there is 2020 coronavirus lockdown in India.

Today, I saw a similar edit on Mann Ki Baat, and article on a radio program by the Indian PM. The anonymous editor, in the edit, says in Hindi, "Dear PM, we are around 50 people, came from Kolkata to Mumbai, and now we are struck... ... ... we have nothing, and starving. Please help"

I don't think we have anything to do, but I am feeling a bit disturbed. I sent a message on the first editor's talk page asking them to contact local authority for support. Anything else that could be done? Kind regards. --Titodutta (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I've requested Oversight on the first and sent an email to WP:EMERGENCY on both. I am not sure if that is exactly within the scope of the latter but I figure this falls under "better safe than sorry".

If my understanding is correct, the big lockdown in India has left a lot of people (migrating workers) stranded without economic resources; some of them might now ask for help in places where one normally doesn't see such requests. Unfortunately I don't know the optimal solution either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed, some people are in trouble. Note, both the posts had more information, such as phone number, area name. I did not translate those part in the message above. I monitor only a few pages. Most possibly there are some more such edits. So far, I posted on their talk page asking to contact local police etc. If it sounds good, I can add a Government website help page on how to get help. Kind regards. --Titodutta (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would hope that the people who man WP:EMERGENCY know who to contact in such circumstances, and that anyone seeing such a request would, at least, refer it to them. Whether you do anything more is a personal matter, which uncovers a philosophical dilemma. Should I help my neighbour who can't go out and needs some shopping, or should I help someone on the other side of the world who has a greater need? There's no optimum solution here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Can any one please delete the Local copies of the files that I transferred to commons?

thanks--Hippymoose17 (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

What local files? El_C 18:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C: check my contributions on Commons. Including all the files that were originally uploaded by User:Guiding light and User:McChizzle I transferred all of them to commons--Hippymoose17 (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 18:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

creating articles

Hi please look here, There is no mention of template or category creation here But according to this reference, I am forbidden from both In this talk, However, I can't do anything And I want a little exemption So that I can have some activity. Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Come on. It's been just a little over three months since you were unblocked. You are doing ok, but it's much, much too soon to lift your restrictions. --Yamla (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

User talk:2804:18:5026:998B:2:2:E673:EDFE

I can't remember, but isn't there some speedy tag for people who copy content like this? Govvy (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

No, but technically you can tag it with G12. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Zzuuzz killed it, cheers know. Govvy (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Phew!

I just transfered an entire category to commons! So can you do a favor and delete the redundant images please? Thanks--Hippymoose17 (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) Thank you for your help with that backlog. No immediate admin action is needed though. Sometime soon, an automated program will tag the files as being exact duplicates of files on Commons, which will put them into a queue, and admins will review then review them individually for deletion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

COI editing, and now outing

I would like for someone else to have a word with User:Wallstny, not just in light of their singleminded use of Misplaced Pages to plug an investment banker, Daniel Alpert, but also because of this note. I'm about to delete that and I have nothing kind to say to this person, so it's best if I stay away from them. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, Promotional Spa account + Harassment that triggered an oversighting = Not here block. Moneytrees🌴 02:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Moneytrees, I appreciate you. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Persistent disruption at AfD

Yesterday, I came across several sockpuppet accounts disrupting AfD proceedings, either by making nonsense votes, closing the discussion as delete and placing G6 tags on the articles, or other problematic edits. Pages affected include Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Totally TV, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tampa, Colorado, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/IDonate (Pakistan), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/American Sheriff and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pauline Wilson. I hoped that it was just April Fool's shenanigans but it seems like they're back at it again today. More eyes on AfD would be appreciated. _signed, Rosguill 01:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you’re getting at here. A check on the edit histories shows something that happens at AFD all the time. In cases where the discussions were closed, the consensus was clearly delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.240.207 (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible single-purpose account/marketing account to sell a baseball card

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

I'd like for an admin to take a look at user:Generalinfosports's contributions. It appears to me based on their editing history that they might be a single-purpose account trying to promote a specific baseball card that happens to be for sale on eBay. This FfD discussion is what made me look into their editing history, and this edit to Baseball (see both the change and the edit summary) and this draft article are why I am posting here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Premature: new users should be given ample time to develop accounts and webpages and not automatically banned when others with seniority get quickly emotional, especially considering the substantial information/contributions (this draft article and deep educational discussion regarding this FfD which is being contributed to wikipedia.org for free. Please read this FfD as it contains substantial legal facts, legal discussion and analysis which has thus far sustained its ground in leaving the image posted (the Ffd is really the "sum and substance" here not User:The_Squirrel_Conspiracy thoughts of "likely" or unproven allegations.

Please reference User:Ckruschke at this edit deleting 1 space character and claiming vandalism which was not reverted by any of the 5 users involved: User:Ckruschke User:Philip_Trueman User:Jordan_1972 User:Salavat User:The_Squirrel_Conspiracy), To note, User:The_Squirrel_Conspiracy is the only user who claims to list his/her other listed[REDACTED] accounts (it is not yet known if User:Ckruschke User:Philip_Trueman User:Jordan_1972 User:Salavat are the same, connected or related; however, it is known that this is my only wikipedia.org account).

If there is a deadline for finishing this draft article kindly please advise. The image is necessary for the article unless as this FfD says, a different image is replaced from the source or zoomed in on.

Remove Thread Move to remove thread and wait till draft gets approved or submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalinfosports (talk • contribs) 05:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Does this response seem a bit WP:PRECOCIOUS to anyone else? Ian.thomson (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The edit here (linked in original post) and the draft article, with phrases like As the value of the "SIDE B" error card rose above $50,000 online, more buyers and sellers became interested in the card, Based on all the facts and the card's sheer limited print, some card collectors value the Hank Aaron "SIDE B" at $50,000 upwards of the $400,000 depending on the card's condition, and the timing with the eBay listing (which also uses some of the same description), does suggest that this may be a bit of promotion. — MarkH₂₁ 07:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

     Reply: The information is from the eCommerce link. In a non-biased fashong, "eCommerce" substitutes for saying the name "eBay" name. The original poster at the eCommerce link says "could reach the $100,000 to $400,000 range" (last checked April 3, 2020) .

• Comment As the editor who initiated the FfD (which seems to have started the whole thing), I can tell you that I have no particular interest one way or the other in the image or draft article. I simply found the image listed in the Category:Wikipedia_orphaned_files category and was unsure of the licensing and copyright issues. I know the card itself has licensing rules which are separate and apart from the licensing of the photograph of the card. Further to comments above, this account is the only active one I have (I walked away from a prior account looking for a clean start - it has not edited since 2007). If there is anything I can do or add to this noticeboard action, please feel free to post on my talk page. Thanks. Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

    Reply: Thanks for listing past account info to clarify Conflicts of Interests partially. The image is attached to the  draft article . Not sure if it still clarifies as being "orphaned" . If  this FfD discussion is based on the reason of being "orphaned" and it is no longer "orphaned", we should probably Remove Thread 

• I would have thought that this is a very easy decision, and am a bit surprised that it hasn't been taken yet. The editor in question is obviously here to promote an eBay auction rather than to build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Just because Hank Aaron might not be a favorite player, or an individual don't like the HANK AARON SIDE B card, is not grounds for taking down the image and HANK AARON SIDE B in my opinion.

Recommendation: have a "SAVE AS DRAFT OPTION" (or sandbox redirec) on the create a listing page for new posters/creators

Recommendation: have a clear small picture/emblem of who are moderators/admin are (higher level wiki people) b/c I dont know who this is https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Nil_Einne who posted on my page https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Generalinfosports warning (or indirectly threatening if not authorized) to post my name. "Admin COrps" under User:Nil_Einne is not very specific. Is this a legitimate "warning" cause this fsb board does not appear to be closed yet

'Question'Bold text: how do we determine user ranking/moderators/admins? 'Question'Bold text: how will i know if this fsb is closed? not sure if its "time sensitive" cause I have to get back to my real job as opposed to typing this free information

• Comment - can anyone decipher anything here? If all this gibberish was added by the reported editor, isn't it clear that the WP:CIR issues alone are great enough for a block? John from Idegon (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Limitation of partial block

The range 47.15.128.0/17 (contribs | filter log) is currently the subject of a partial block until mid-June. However the partial block is already at the maximum number of specified articles (10) and the vandalism is spreading out wider - their current favourite page is Forbes. The range is a wide one but I can't see a solution other than to extend the block to include all of article space which may have an undue effect on other editors. It's that or back to whack-a-mole with each IP address. Nthep (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Block extended to cover mainspace. Nthep (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

An interesting extension to partial blocks might be anonymous matching on user agent. Envision being able to say, "Block 47.15.128.0/17, but only if the user agent matches (perhaps fuzzy matches) the one used to do this specific edit". The actual agent string wouldn't need to be disclosed publicly, just stored in some lookaside table keyed by ipblocks.ipb_id, which wouldn't be visible to anybody. I'd be a lot happier about blocking a /17 if it could be narrowed down in this way. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: if phab:T100070 gets traction that suggestion could possibly be integrated, feel free to leave comments on the ticket. — xaosflux 00:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser

There's a bunch of requests here, including mine, which has been there for almost a month. This needs admin attention. Invalid_talk 12:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting speedy close of disruptive AfD

User:TenPoundHammer just nominated Peppermint Park (TV series) for deletion for a third time in less than 4 months, after the last two AfDs both ended with "no consensus" and a recommendation from the closer (User:Sandstein) to "let some time pass" before the next one (IMO a problematic statement for an unbiased closer in itself).

Had I not participated in the second AfD, I would have WP:NAC-closed this one myself immediately as it is blatantly disruptive. But doing so now would be improper, so I'm asking an uninvolved admin (or experienced editor) to do it instead. Modernponderer (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Modernponderer: @Barkeep49: So how much is "some time" anyway? I was not given a set time. I thought three months would be fine. This seems needelessly pedantic and bureaucratic. @Sandstein: only said "Some time" and did not specify how much. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, 3 months from the 2nd AfD would have been May 3 not April 3. In my speedy close of the third nomination I wrote In this case I would suggest 6 months from the close of the second nomination as a minimum time. Hopefully that gives you a sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Another close review please

Yesterday, I made this close, and an editor has indicated on my talk page that he feels my close was mistaken. Your comments are invited: should I self-revert?—S Marshall T/C 22:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• No. This is always the problem with a non-binary question and the editor on your talk page is arguing that two of the options should be regarded in the same light. The mistake they're making there is that whilst people voting for Option 1 clearly don't want Option 2, that doesn't mean they necessarily agree with Option 3. The RfC should have been "Should this be mentioned at all?" followed by a discussion and possibly a second RfC on the amount of coverage if the answer had been positive. I don't think anyone would have closed that as anything but No Consensus. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: before I looked at your talk page, I took a gander at the !votes. Option 1 had 13 supporters, Option 2 had 13 supporters, and Option 3 had 9 supporters as "first choices". When looking at the "second choices", 5 users indicated Option 3 (5 of whom chose Option 1 first, 1 of whom chose Option 2 first) and one indicated Option 2 (chose Option 3 first). Overall, I'd say there was more support for inclusion than not (23 showed some support for inclusion compared to 14 who showed support for exclusion). I would say rough consensus was more toward include.

When looking at the rationale and quality of the !votes, it seems that the issue of (UN)DUE is foremost, though the "include" side did show coverage by German sources. The exclude side, though, had a handful of dismissive comments not based in policy.

All together, I'd weakly lean toward rough consensus for include with Option 3 as the compromise just by looking at the RfC comments. But I do not think your overall assessment on your user talk was way off and I would give your German fluency some weight in your decision. If someone else assesses that "include" was the consensus, then consider self-revert. But I am neither confident nor convinced enough in my own assessment to suggest you overturn. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

And with Black Kite's comments, I would say keep as is. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards