Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J. Johnson (talk | contribs) at 00:43, 2 July 2019 (→Linkspamming of Warming stripes by User:RCraig09: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lua error in Module:Navbox at line 535: attempt to get length of local 'arg' (a number value).

• 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

• 7 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 59 sockpuppet investigations
• 15 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 3 requests for RD1 redaction
• 98 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 20 requested closures
• 22 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 21 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

SPA adding links to articles

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

I am not really sure what to make of this. In the Game of Thrones (Season 8) article, a critical review was added from an odd source, the World Socialist Web Site. The anon IP adding this reference has been adding other WSWS links to articles (link here. I'm not sure if the source meets the criteria of a RS, but it just seems damned odd that an avowed political action site would suddenly a good source of GoT entertainment reviews. It would be if Mother Jones started writing articles about Magic the Gathering trading cards. The anon appears to be an SPA, in that all of their edits are adding WSWS links or opinion from the socialist standpoint (sans sources).
Not sure what to make of this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I have notified the IP editor of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Ed. So, what happens when they don't respond to the notice of discussion? I'm betting dollars to donuts that, as an SPA, they won't be making an appearance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: I also do parties and bar mitzvahs, where my renown for predicting the future is known (it is known, khaleesi) - the anon could not give a hoot about us; they are pushing a specific dialog and view. I am updating this so it doesn't stale date amidst the rest of the wackiness ensuing here.

All sources opt for a view, but is it not disingenuous to push a socialist view regarding a review of GoT? Even Sam got smacked down in the series for suggesting something akin to socialism. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

This IP has made no more edits since 22 June so there is not much reason for admin action. Let me know if it continues. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Any issues with the edits the SPA has already made? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Appropriate responses to FRAMBAN

Let’s have a meta vote to see which of the following would be useful responses:

1. We all take a holiday and redirect any issues to ArbCom and T&S.
2. We all add naughty words to our signatures.
3. We community ban one random ArbCom member.
4. We all request to vanish.
5. We remain calm and wait for WMF to address our concerns. After all, they can’t write this encyclopedia without us. We are the ultimate power.

Thanks. Vote below. Jehochman 02:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• 6. Wait until Doc James, Jimbo Wales and ArbCom report back to us, and make a community decision at that time. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• 5. We're here for the readers. Internal governance matters, but the service we provide to the world is more important. I also support Cullen's suggestion, but at the end of the day, my service here, while mainly behind the scenes at this time is a part of the greater reason we're here: I volunteer my time dealing primarily with privacy issues and abuse. That enables editors who shouldn't have to face harassment, vandals, and LTAs to contribute better and in some cases to feel safer in real life. While there are plenty in the community who may not like me, I think one thing the FRAMBAN thing has shown is that the community wants and needs people who are actively engaged in it to have a role in privacy and harassment issues.This is why I will continue to serve as an editor, a sysop, and a functionary: I think my service helps the people who write the content that our readers read. I'm sure everyone commenting here can find their own reason to stay, because ultimately, whatever happens at the WMF, we created the product and the product is bigger than either the foundation or us. It is truly a gift to the world, and I don't think we should harm that because of an issue of internal governance. Questions should be raised and answered, and the WMF has not done a great job in responding to this, but that does not impact our product, which is ultimately the output of our editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I was reading up on that, and wow, that seems a pretty over-the-top response. And there is no appeal or word as to why from on high. How, very disappointing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Amen to that. If/when the project dies, the text, under a reusable license, will also not be lost. While it's alive, it's worth keeping up. —PaleoNeonate – 08:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Two thoughts. 1, I learned a long time ago in a RL work situation that I might be irreplacable, but I wasn't indispensible (when I quit they couldn't find anyone willing to do what I did, so they eliminated the position). In other words, Misplaced Pages would survive without me if I left. 2, If you do not enjoy what you are doing, find something else to do. - Donald Albury 08:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Edited 09:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'd like to think that a petition signed by lots of admins would have some impact. As I've suggested elsewhere, I'd suggest that the focus be on complaining about the WMF roaming into Arbcom's turf and not providing any advice on why it didn't trust it or the admins to fix the issue, or what we can do to fix the issues which generated this lack of trust. As for direct action, no I'm not going to either disrupt Misplaced Pages or allow vandals to disrupt it because the WMF messed up the procedure here. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• I support #6, although I must say, I'm getting antsy.S Philbrick(Talk) 12:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• With every day that passes, I'm more convinced that the WMF is just waiting for us to dry up and blow away. I haven't made an administrative action since the shit hit the fan, FWIW, and my enthusiasm for this place is lower than it's ever been. Miniapolis 21:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Sphilbrick at this time. The WMF Board should not, however, get the idea that the community is going to hold off on taking action forever. Their time is getting short. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• We each have to follow our conscience. I handed in my bit because I answer to the community and served at their pleasure. I'm not willing to simply be a free janitor under the control of the WMF. What happens next will depend on whether the current lull is only a stalling tactic, or if the WMF finally understands that we are supposed to be a partnership. But each person has to do what they feel is right for them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I think the circle on this issue needs to widen; it started with an WMF action against an administrator, yes - but the response to that cannot remain with the administrators. This affects all of us from admins on down to the occasional contributor. If WMF can arbitrarily (and without recourse or protocol for a proper, transparent handling), they can do it to anyone. Not to get all Niemöller-y, but there is no way that this cannot be seen as a slippery slope into something like Misplaced Pages byut is not-Misplaced Pages.
  

I don't know Fram and have never interacted with him. I don't know what he is accused of. But this is Misplaced Pages, and transparency is our currency of note. This grievance needs a public airing, or the image of Misplaced Pages as a self-analyzing source of information dies - and I do not believe I am being over-dramatic in saying so.

So, stop surrendering the mops and go to work letting everyone know about this. Write an article about the controversy (like was done about Essjay). Link it through DAB pages so that folk don't think Fram was just the name of a Norwegian boat. Add the Fram story to the list of Misplaced Pages Controversies.

Transparency is the best disinfectant against back room decisions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you know any independent reliable sources reporting on FRAMBAN? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

<delurk>This is all i could find so far. It's a start, I suppose.<lurk> Baffle☿gab 21:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah....I handed in my bit too; somehow I can feel a change in the wind....community seems to matter less and less. Lectonar (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That is exactly why I handed mine in. It isn't about Fram, it's about the condescending way the WMF is acting towards the community, and this has been a growing thing for several years. My user page says more. And now WJBscribe has handed in his admin bit, crat bit, and retired over this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    • After a sidewards look at BN...we're not the only ones leaving/handing in our bits...Lectonar (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• I would never criticize any admin choosing to resign if they feel they can no longer make a contribution here or if they just no longer want to. But the project will continue, in some shape or form. Articles are still being edited, self-promotional pages are being tagged and deleted, noticeboard conversations go on, life continues.

One editor said that 421 editors & admins had commented on the FRAM page. That means that hundreds, thousands (tens of thousands?) of editors are either unaware, indifferent or are choosing not becoming involved and are instead focusing on the work. Different choices. I feel like the issues, involving the relationships between the admins/bureaucrats, English Misplaced Pages, ArbCom and WMF are seriously important for our future as a project. But please keep in mind that while the voices protesting WMF's actions are some of the most senior, experienced and trusted editors, they are a minority of the active editors. Most editors are still focused on the work, not the politics. I consider all of them, "our community", those who care about WMF and those who couldn't care less. We serve all of them. Liz 03:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I reiterate, that is why the larger community needs to learn about this. No one is suggesting that WMF be taken out behind the barn for a whipping; we need them almost as much as they need us. But they need to learn their place. We are the reason they have jobs, not the other way around.

Either we get some fuller explanation behind Fram's banning, or shit gets worse. When admins - the folk who support good editor and shoe the bad ones the door - start quitting because WMF is imperiously banning senior editors - there is a problem. And it won't get better.

As for the idea that "the Project will continue, in some shape or form", I imagine the good folk at Friendster and MySpace felt pretty much the same way. Until it was too late.

Maybe the Arbs and assembled admins need to write up a notice to WMF stating that this lack of transparency is unacceptable. They are just waiting for us to get bored and accept it because, you know, it only happened to one guy. It will only embolden them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Is there a list somewhere of admins who have resigned and those considering resignation over FRAMGATE? I have only recently become aware of this situation but everything I have read thus far is shocking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Ad Orientem: Misplaced Pages:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram/Summary#Resignations. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks BK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

More generally, I've found Misplaced Pages:Former administrators/chronological/2019 (and the other years) perennially depressing pages to keep on my watchlist. —Cryptic 19:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Admin input solicited - Indian Society of Cinematographers

Hi fellow admins, here's my issue:

A variety of IPs (who are probably sockpuppets of now blocked user Roastedcocoa) keep spamming Indian cinematographer and Indian film articles with postnomial "ISC" every time a member of the Indian Society of Cinematographers is mentioned. This has been going on for several months. In biographical articles they add it after the subject's name in the infobox, in the lead, and they also continuously misuse |title=. I say misuse, because we have an |organization= parameter, and ISC (being an organization) is not an honorific or a degree, so "title" is wrong. I've asked about this at WikiProject Film and while not many people commented, the general feeling is that the postnomials probably don't belong in the |title= of the infobox and they shouldn't be used at individual film articles. In some cases I've left them after the person's name in the lead of a biography.

However, there is a serious marketing campaign going on. Here is an example of Roastedcocoa insanely adding 10 of these in a general article about Indian cinematographers. (Note that all the links are circular, too.) There was even an effort to hijack the general Indian cinematographers article. In 2017 it was a basic article with some mention of the ISC. In these edits an IP changed the entire focus of that article to the Indian Society of Cinematographers.

Some (but not all) IPs involved:

• 49.207.63.117
• 106.51.107.188
• 106.51.109.159
• 106.51.109.35

Tl;dr, at what point would it be fair game to add "Indian Society of Cinematographers" to our keyword blacklist? Also I'm open to other options, but that seems like it could be the most impactful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Consider posting at WT:WPSPAM to get some advice, and find out if this justifies adding a blacklist entry. If you are hoping to get admin feedback on your actions so far, they look justified to me. I have semiprotected Indian Society of Cinematographers for 3 months due to spam. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@MER-C: Hi there, since you have loads of experience in anti-spam, what do you think should be done in this situation? There conceivably could be a legitimate reason for people to add this information to articles, but so far the only people doing this seem to have marketing/promotional intentions. A keyword blacklist entry might actually get one of these people to engage in discussion. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The only option is the Misplaced Pages:Edit filter to prevent the addition of "\bindian\bsociety\bof\bcinematographers" by non-autoconfirmed editors. Trying to stop the addition of "\bisc\b" has too many false positives. MER-C 10:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

TFD > 3 months_3_months-2019-06-24T18:24:00.000Z">

Hi. Please could someone take a look at this TfD, which has been open for more than 3 months? Just a note that I was active in the discussion, but would appreciate if this could be closed one way or the other. Thanks. Lugnuts 18:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)_3_months"> _3_months">

Working on it. Primefac (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: thank you for looking at this. Lugnuts 06:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Close review - Village Pump discussion on spelling of category names

• Discussion: WP:Village pump (policy)#RFC: spelling of "organisation"/"organization" in descriptive category names
• Close:
• Closer: Cinderella157
• Discussion of the close: WP:Village pump (policy)#Post closure discussion
• Closer notified of this review:

I have not been involved in this issue, other than responding to the RFC. I rarely touch categories, and I don't much care what the final outcome is here. However I strongly object to canvassing, and I very much dislike bad closures.

Grounds for overturn:

• A closer's job is to assess community consensus and apply policies and guidelines. The closer acknowledges that they did not even attempt to do so in their closing statement and in the post closure discussion. The simply disregarded WP:Canvassing, and they blindly assessed consensus of the canvassed participants in front of them. I believe a reasonable closer could have accounted for the canvassing. If a closer finds that canvassing has irredeemably corrupted the process, they can void the discussion. They can direct that the RFC restart from scratch. It is within reasonable discretion for a closer to be unable to resolve a case of gross canvassing, however it is not within discretion to willfully ignore gross canvassing.
• I fully agree that a closer can disregard votecount and close on the basis of policy, or close on the basis of weight of argument. I have personally closed a 20 vs 10 RFC in favor of the 10. However a policy based close needs to cite a solid policy basis, and a "weight of argument" close needs to cite a solid and respectable explanation. One of my main goals when closing is to ensure that the "losing side" receives a rationale which they can (unhappily) respect. We do not have that here. The closer declared an overriding "weight of argument" for "The most compelling arguments are to embrace our differences". Huh? I don't recall ever seeing such a strange or hollow basis for closure. I am also puzzled how that has clear overriding weight against concerns of disruption-of-work.
• (edit: This is a supporting/explanatory factor, not a fundamental basis for overturn:) The closer has an unusually strong personal minority-bias on the language issue. A causal inspection of their usertalk reveals an exceptional personal inclination towards 's' over 'z'. In fact Google reports that "winterised" (with an s) is a borderline-fringe usage by 6.8% of the world. This evident personal bias, combined with a disregard for the blatant canvassing issue, combined with the fluffy-puffy "embrace our differences" rationale, creates an overriding impression of a Supervote.

I'm fine with however this ends up. But this close erodes confidence in our system of closures. Can we please get something respectable? A respectable outcome if possible, or a costly repeat-RFC if necessary. Alsee (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Supplementary information: This is the state of the RFC at the time of canvassing. It had been closed as The proposal has gained consensus to pass. The RFC was reopened and hit with a surge of opposes after the canvassing. Alsee (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the merits of the debate itself (fwiw, I supported standardisation) but I am really uncomfortable with the last objection here. When the question is a binary "do A or do B", everyone is going to look like a partisan if you approach it with this mindset. If you're going to challenge the closer for their use of a language variant, when they've expressed no opinion on the matter, who would be allowed to close the next one? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Gray I wouldn't have looked at their personal inclination, if not for the first two points. The first two points establish the problem with the close. I said that the third point combined with the first two create an overriding impression of a supervote. I consider it a supportive/explanatory factor. Alsee (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a rather strange closing statement but from a brief look I'm not seeing a consensus for much in that discussion. The discussion did establish that the relevant policies/guidelines can be read as supporting either option, and that opinion on the subject is pretty divided. That largely takes care of the main reasons for closing either way. Given that all English speakers use one of the two variants exclusively, every single possible closer would have the "bias" that's being claimed here. Hut 8.5 21:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The close needs to be re-done--it was an atrocious, wandering, closing statement that didn't actually summarize the discussion. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have rarely seen a clearer case of no consensus than that discussion. Opinions are hopelessly split, everyone is talking across each other, no solid arguments made to persuade anyone. Seems like a solid close to me,and one that needed to be made because it looks like the whole thing was a huge time drain. Misplaced Pages's ENGVAR split is always going to be a somewhat tricky issue, but by and large we get through it without dispute. Suggest people drop the stick and move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Amakuru, 3-to-1 support isn't usually considered a clear case of no consensus. Especially when opposes give no rationale that their position is in any way superior.
    (For those who missed my point, my reference to 3-to-1 support is before the RFC was re-opened and one disruptive individual selectively canvassed 11 wikiprojects to manufacture a surge of opposes.) Alsee (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    • If you're going to make accusations of disruption, at least have the decency to notify me. As for the accusation of "selective canvassing", this was a proposal to mandate that an English word had to be spelt in a way different to that used in several countries or regions. Therefore it seems eminently reasonable that editors from those countries or regions should be alerted to a discussion that would specifically affect them with a neutral notification (there was little or no point in posting it to American/Canadian etc WikiProjects as the proposal would not affect their categories. I really don't understand why anyone has a problem with this, unless they have a case of sour grapes over the fact that a large numebr of editors from said countries were opposed to the change. Number 57 13:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I have responded in part to Alsee (the OP of this thread) in the post-close discussion here.

• I have not "ignored" the matter of VOTESTACKING.
• I have found "no consensus" (as distinct from "consensus against"). I am happy to amend if this needs to be made clearer. It is similar to the outcome of directing that the RfC start from scratch - an outcome acceptable to Alsee? If this represents the substantive reason for contesting the close, then I suggest there is "no reason".
• The most compelling arguments are to embrace our differences ≠ The closer declared an overriding "weight of argument" for ... - particularly in the context of a "no consensus" close. WP:5P5 identifies "principles and spirit matter more than literal wording". I am not invoking WP:IAR. The principle of ENGVAR etc is to "embrace our differences", rather than argue about them when they are if little consequence (to understanding). COMMONALITY applies where understanding may be compromised. The former is therefore more compelling, since this here, is not a matter of "understanding". This is a matter of identifying the underpinning principles of policy and guidelines (as I believe the OP has implored me to do) since the guidelines cited do not specifically address the issue. However, in the circumstances, this was an observation of the discussion and not a finding of "consensus".
• If I was brief in my close, and subsequently unclear, I apologise to the extent that the close template is a restriction. I believe it is reasonable to seek clarification of a close. I have responded to clarify. However, it is not appropriate to assume "bad faith", to misrepresent matters or to be uncivil in the process (see post close comments).
• I think that Amakuru's comments are particularly pertinent.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't recommend starting the RFC from scratch, at least not now. No consensus is a valid close of any discussion, and it means that at this time there is no agreement, and often a fair bit of dispute too. The result of such a discussion is to retain the status quo, whatever that is, and move on. Restarting is likely to just see the same participants come back and make the same points. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - the views of the proposer @BrownHairedGirl: would be of interest. Oculi (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn. The close was exceptionally poor and fluffy, and gives no appearance of even attempting to actually weight the discsussion in light of the votestacking.

It is utterly disgraceful that Number 57 continues to deny that they engaged in votestacking. After numerous expalanations by numerous editors at several venues, Number 57 still has the gall to say I really don't understand why anyone has a problem with this, unless they have a case of sour grapes over the fact that a large numebr of editors from said countries were opposed to the change.

It's very simple:

1. Number 57 engaged in blatant votestacking by notifying only sets of editors who he considered most likely to agree with his view. Categories relating to neatly all countries may be renamed by this proposal, and editors from all countries may have views on this, but Number 57 chose to notify only those who he believed would support his view.
2. This was done stealthily, without any notification to the RFC that the notifications have been made.

Number 57 has been admin for nearly 12 years, and a prolific contributor (over 190K edits). He has participated in enough discussions over the years to know exactly what he was doing here, so the despicable manipulativeness of his conduct has no defence of ignorance or error. Any remaining shred of good faith I might assume in N57's conduct has been destroyed by his vile attempt to claim that objections are a case of sour grapes. This doubling-down on his highly disruptive misconduct makes Number 57 completely fit to be an editor, let alone an admin. If I have the time and energy to pursue the case for a desysopping of Number 57, I will do so ... and i will do it with great sadness, because I previously had high regard for Number 57's work.

The whole process of consensus-formation breaks if an editor (and esp a highly-experienced admin) betrays the community's trust in this way. Regardless of whether the community proceeds to give Number 57 a well-deserved desysopping and/or CBAN, the result of that duplicity should not stand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Marchjuly on Arsenal W.F.C.

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

User:Marchjuly has repeatedly reverted my attempts to update the Arsenal W.F.C. article with a correct version of the club badge. The badge that is currently on the page is not only outdated (it uses the wrong name), it was never actually used by the club. It was a Twitter profile photo that was apparently chosen as a "solution" when a bot deleted the correct badge file (Arsenal FC.svg) for not having multiple NFCC templates (one for Arsenal FC, another for Arsenal WFC). I have fixed this by adding a second NFCC template, as we do for all other women's clubs that share a badge with corresponding men's clubs. And yet he still refuses to let me fix the page because he seems to think this three year old flawed compromise is law, and is holding out for one specific admin (User:Explicit) to "figure out what to do," even though obviously nothing needs to be figured out - one logo is correct and the other is wrong. Eightball (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to explain why the file was removed on my user talk page at User talk:Marchjuly#Arsenal Women, at User talk:Explicit#Arsenal Women and in edit summaries here. There've been a few edit conflict while posting which might have caused confusion, but despite what Eightball posts here, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is not some "made up hoop" that I've created. All he needs to do is discuss things with Explicit and explain why the close should be re-considered. File:Arsenal FC.svg was removed by Explicit when he closed the FFD discussion (see here and here; the file wasn't deleted at that time because it was still be used in another article. File:ArsenalLFC Twitter logo.png was deleted per WP:F5 because someone removed the file from the article and it became orphaned non-free use; this was discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 124#Arsenal W.F.C., Explicit commented in that discussion, and then restored that the Twitter logo file and re-added it to the article last month per this edit. Eightball re-added the other file with this edit and I removed it per Explicit. Eightball posted on my user talk about this here and I explained why I removed the file here, but we had an edit conflict. Eightball also posted about this at Explicit's user talk here and I responded here and here. At no point have I been trying to avoid discussion; I've been actually suggesting to Eightball how this might be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

There would be nothing to resolve were it not for your involvement and insistence on reverting an obvious and necessary correction. The page was wrong, I fixed it, and now I'm spending hours of my day dealing with the fallout solely because of you. Eightball (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

And you to have the self-awareness to understand that what you are demanding I do in order to make this change (which, again, is obvious and necessary) is absolutely absurd and indefensible. Eightball (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly is correct. Per the result of Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg, File:Arsenal FC.svg should not be added to any other pages, except for the one it is already used in. @Eightball: Please drop the stick; if you re-add File:Arsenal FC.svg to Arsenal W.F.C., I'll be happy to block you for disruption. If you have a problem with the result of Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg, then please make your case at WP:DRV. -FASTILY 01:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion at DRV would likely just result in relisting the file for further discussion at WP:FFD, which would be a waste of a week. I suggest going straight to FFD, an editor did at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2019 June 20#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg. ƏXPLICIT 07:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I found a mistake on Misplaced Pages and it took me ten seconds to fix, and that should've been that. Now it's going to take me literal days to make that fix permanent because you insist on forcing me to lie to our readers until I jump through your hoops. This website is broken. Eightball (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I would have to think WP:IAR is relevant here. The admins and Wiki rules are only serving to stop me from improving Misplaced Pages. I have a very hard time accepting this. Eightball (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm missing something here (and that's a good possibility, since I rarely if ever disagree with Marchjuly), but the FFD restricted use on sub-groups of Arsenal FC. The WFC is a separate entity. We have plenty of company logos that are used in more than one location, provided they have the non-free notice for each one. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Yup, I was right, I missed something (see below). Primefac (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: Some editors do consider the women's teams to be "sub-groups" of the men's teams, but I don't think that debate even matters - as you say, there's nothing wrong with using logos in multiple locations so long as there are non-free notices for each one. I made this change but the admin involved in the discussion removed it, for reasons I can't possibly understand. The whole thing is immensely frustrating. Can you please chime in on the FFD discussion? They forced me to do this little dance and yet no one has even participated in the discussion. Such an incredible waste of time. Eightball (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Non-free files are only required to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7, and they can be used in more than one article as long as each use satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. Providing a separate, specific non-free use rationale, however, is only one (actually it's just one part WP:NFCC#10) of these criteria and doing so doesn't (as explained in WP:JUSTONE) automatically mean all of the other criterion are being met. The file had a non-free use rationale for the women's team article when it was first discussed at WP:FFD and this rationale was removed by the closing admin Explicit when he removed the file from the article. The file wasn't originally removed from the article for not having a rationale, but for other NFCCP issues; so, you recently re-adding a non-free use rationale to the file's page for the women's team didn't change anything from that FFD discussion. This is why you were asked to discuss things with the closing admin Explicit and this is why Fastily removed the rationale you added. What needed to be done is for you to establish a new consensus for the file's non-free use based upon the women's team re-branding in 2017; this is why Fastily suggested DRV and Explicit suggested FFD. A consensus can change over time, especially when there's some new relevant information to be considered per item 3 of "Deletion review may be used" in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but you just don't unilaterally decide such a thing yourself, particularly when it involves an administrator's decision, and you don't just claim IAR to justify ignoring an administrator's close because you think it was made in error. Now, that you've started a new FFD discussion about the file's non-free use, it's possible that a new consensus will be established in favor of adding the file to the article, which means that anyone who disagrees with that close will be expected to do exactly the same thing you were asked to do (i.e. follow CLOSECHALLENGE). -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I would strongly request that you stop interacting with me on this website. I will do what I need to in order to fix the article; I don't need any further harassment from you. Eightball (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:AOHA and WP:HA#NOT. You start a discussion on my user talk page here and here. You ping me in your post here at user talk Explicit. You start this AN discussion about me. You come to my user talk page and post this and this in a discussion started by a different editor about something completely different. You ping me in your responses above and below (the one to Primefac). You've argued that I am making you do all kinds of things which are making you waste time, and then you accuse me of harassing you for simply responding in a entirely civil manner. If you're going to make such an accusation against me, then please provide diffs showing where I've done this so that others can assess and take action if necessary. We're not here because I or anyone else has made you do anything, where here because you seem to have gotten really angry really quickly because someone else has disagreed with you. My guess is that this isn't the probably isn't the first time you've responded in such a way to someone doing so, and it probably won't be the last. What happens with the file at this point will be determined through consensus at FFD, not by any one single editor doing what they need to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Might I suggest, to both of you, that whether the logo on this page says "Ladies ®" or not is not a hill worth dying on. —Cryptic 16:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I would agree; until other editors have commented on the situation there's nothing really more to add. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cryptic: Why is it that so many uninvolved editors try to cut down disputes in this way? It's important to me that Misplaced Pages displays correct information. Is that not important to you too? If not, why are you even here? Eightball (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Eightball, I don't think that Cryptic is trying to shut down the conversation, but rather mentioning that the two logos being used are nearly identical and this level of apparent vitriol and anger is a tad unnecessary. My comment was in a similar vein, in that if it's just two editors arguing there will never be a consensus, so stepping back to let other (uninvolved) editors comment is a good idea. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, I don't disagree, necessarily. The two logos are nearly identical EXCEPT one includes the word "Ladies," and seeing as the team is no longer called "Arsenal Ladies," it seems like common sense to change the logo to the newer, correct version. The level of "vitriol and anger" I may be displaying has nothing to do with the logos themselves, it has to do with Marchjuly refusing to allow me to make a clear, obvious, common sense correction, and instead demanding that I spend literal days of my life navigating the banalities of Misplaced Pages bureaucracy in order to overturn a flawed, outdated consensus. WP:IAR exists for precisely this reason - perhaps it is good to have a structured method for reaching consensus, and perhaps it is also good for utilizing that same method to reverse said consensus, but when the time comes to fix an obvious error, we should be able to ignore those rules for the sake of improving and maintaining the wiki. This dispute is ultimately not about the logos, it is about the fact that I am being prevented from improving and maintaining Misplaced Pages.

If you think this is a waste of time, or that it's getting too heated, or that this hill is not worth dying on, I would strongly agree - we should not be here. This dispute should not have ever happened. I should have simply been allowed to fix the page, it'd be correct and up to date, and we'd have one less error on Misplaced Pages. It was not my choice to make it so difficult. Eightball (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, I too think that Cryptic has a worthy point here, but the problem is though that we're discussing the usage of copyrighted content here. We're limited to which of that we can use under a fair use claim and thus the difference between the files does matter. We can only justify the fair use of one of them and Eightball has given sufficient evidence that it should be the one also used in the men's team's article. Therefor Eightball's edit should have been uncontroversial and the last thing Marchjuly should have done is repeatedly reinstate a copyrighted file the fair use of which is clearly questionable. At the very least they should have removed the logo's altogether pending outcome of the discussions. They could have decided to use common sense and accept Eightball's edit based on the evidence they provided instead forcing this proposed change through the bureaucratic chains despite Misplaced Pages itself telling us it is not a bureaucracy. Is is their actions and not Eightball's which has created all this drama (and unfortunately Eightball reacted badly to that) and what's worrying is that it is not an isolated incident. Marchjuly has repeatedly gotten involved in multiple such disputes over football team's logos with multiple different users. I appreciate that they want to get the right thing done, but these are just cases of being overconcerned.Tvx1 00:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't restore and re-add the Twitter file to the article. I also didn't originally remove the file used in the men's file from the women's article or the rationale from the file's page. All of this (including diffs) has been explained above. Eightball was only being asked to follow CLOSECHALLENGE and discuss things with the closing admin, which is the same thing which was asked of you here. The fact that neither you nor Eightball think such a thing is necessary does not mean it's not necessary. Explicit seems to disagree with your approach as previously posted a little over a week ago here and here and then re-affirmed once again today here. Other administrators like JJMC89 and Ivanvector also seems to disagree with that approach per here and here made a few weeks back. Add to that what another administrator Fastily posted above here, then that seems to make at least four administrators who don't agree with that approach. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no possible justification for changing the logo here other than that one of them is actively incorrect. (I don't see you arguing anywhere that the one you're reverting from is, though it's late here and my head hurts and I'm pretty unmotivated in general.) There is exactly zero difference between the copyrightable parts of the logo you're reverting to and the logo you're reverting from. Hosting the same copyrighted content in multiple files, one for each article, makes us less compliant with WP:NFCC#3, not more.If, arguing in the alternative, your primary objection is the FFD itself rather than following NFCC, then your reversions aren't correct either: the version of the logo with text should be G4'd and the article should have no logo at all. Maybe that meets WP:UUI#17 better, I've got no position either way on that, but using it as a justification to revert to the same image is insupportable. If the FFD legitimately forbids the textless version from being on this particular article, then it forbids the with-text one just as much. —Cryptic 07:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cryptic: I did actually ask about the Twitter logo in the FFD discussion and then asked Explicit about the difference at User talk:Explicit/Archive 23#Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg shortly after the FFD discussion was closed. The logo with the text was only uploaded and added to the article after that user talk page exchange. It was used in the article until someone removed it a few months later in August 2017 and was subsequently deleted per WP:F5. It came up again as part of a WT:FOOTY discussion about the badge about a month ago, and was restored and re-added to the article by Explicit. It was then removed by Eightball and I re-added it per Explicit's edit. If the text file needs to go, then that's not a problem with me. If the FFD consensus about the other file is reviewed and a new consensus is established, then I've got no problem with that as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a stupid question

I'm curious as to whether my fellow admins are aware that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout states "Talk pages of indefinitely blocked users should be cleared of all content except the block notice. This block notice should explain the block reason, or link to the block log which does so" . I can think of instances where this very much is not the case and could impede block reviews, SPI cases etc. I only noticed when I saw edits such as this. Am I out of the loop on standard protocol?-- Jezebel's Ponyo 23:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless the editor has also lost talk page access, they would be fully entitled to remove all content. Including the block notice for that matter. Only declined unblock requests of the current block couldn't be removed. Per WP:BLANKING and WP:OWNTALK. So IMO it would be a mistake for admins to assume such material has not been cleared out. Of course the fact they could be cleared out doesn't mean admins need to do so although I think it can be common especially when it's not expected the editor will ever be back. E.g. non master sock accounts. Nil Einne (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

That was my thinking as well. As long as talk page access is available the blocked editor is free to blank the majority of the content on the page themselves, but I don't understand why others should do so on their behalf.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 15:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've fixed the project page. I removed the subsection. It's absurd advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure how it even ended up there in the first place as it doesn't align with the blocking policy.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 15:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ponyo: It was added by Bellerophon (here) in 2011. It is an excellent thing that it has been removed, as such gravedancing is much favoured by wannabe admins and wikicops. ——SerialNumber54129 10:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Gumswick55

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

User_talk:ViperSnake151#Strange_IP

In my opinion Gumswick55 doesn't understand that amateur boxing, and Olympic boxing in particular, is not about national things, it's about the level of competion which one or another national Olympic team could have brought to the game, especially in such sensitive issue as in case of the boycotted Olympics (1980, 1984, 1988,) therefore articles on athletes and events that they've participated in should be free of any nationalistic agenda regardless of who was boycotting whom, the political things are of least importance in the sports-related articles (in my opinion, Gumswick55 with his ad hominem approach, and edits like these , has trouble complying with the WP:Politeness either, but that is not an issue of main importance.) 93.73.36.17 (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

User:SaskatchewanSenator ; Senatorsfansask

Please check

• SaskatchewanSenator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Senatorsfansask (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5.16.13.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 188.93.243.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.249.188.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

in connection to aforementioned User:Max Arosev, for the same reason: an edit war already in progress over the same article of little or no interest within two hours since previous account was blocked, (with another edit war in a bunch of related articles,) along with constant deleting related thread from my talk page, and from the article's talk page. (It seems that somehow the topic is sensitive to Max.) Thank you in advance. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I reported your IP. Hope that finally puts your destructive activity to an end. Senatorsfansask (talk • contribs) 09:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be a sockpuppet report? Why the strong wording? I think this should be moved to the bottom section. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If you can help by moving it to the bottom section, I'll appreciate it very much (for I don't know how exactly to move it.) Thank you. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I meant that you should have said something like this at the bottom, but let's just leave it here.

Those users seem pretty familiar with Misplaced Pages even though they are very new users. How would they be able to know about the {{uw-unsourced2}} templates after being 1 hour on Misplaced Pages? It is possible, but only if you click on random links in the Misplaced Pages namespace. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I can easily answer that question. I’ve been using Misplaced Pages for a long time without being involved in editing. Now I saw an anonymous IP vandalizing this platform, and decided that it’s time to act. First, I undid some of his edits from my IP (188.93.243.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)), then I decided to create an account (Senatorsfansask (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). SaskatchewanSenator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)’s name (I noticed him fighting an anonymous vandal yesterday, he has been editing since 2007) served as an inspiration. 5.16.13.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is unrelated to me. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Editing since 2007? 93.73.36.17's earliest edit was in 2016. Besides, you should be replying using your account, not your IP. How was 93.73.36.17 vandalising? Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about SaskatchewanSenator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who was reported by 93.73.36.17). Read it again. How was 93.73.36.17 vandalizing? He added SPECULATIVE, UNNECESSARY and CONTROVERSIAL content. SaskatchewanSenator has been editing since 2007, as he’a somehow a sock, according to 93.73.36.17. And, again, I forgot my account’s password (I told that, too). Yes, I have some memory problems, so I’ll stick with my IP. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Then it should have been talked about in the talk page. It isn't vandalism. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Look at that edit. He added a personal opinion in contravention to Misplaced Pages’s policies. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

But that's not vandalism. That's close to WP:COMMENTARY. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

In a number of instances the user is employing the same offensive expressions (cf. "dipshit IP", for example: 1, 2, 3, 4,) so I suggest edit histories should be checked also for the same connection to the aforementioned master account if that is technically possible. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It's because 188.93.243.189 and Senatorsfansask are the same person. Apparently they forgot the password for Senatorsfansask. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that to an editor who doesn’t read the comments. Speaking of my rvts with “offensive remarks”, that’s my bad, I was too impulsive. Promise not to use that language again. I also suggest focusing instead on the contents of his edits. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Let’s be civil and assume good faith. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The subject is constantly replacing old threads at my talk page, and specifically the one thread that is somehow related to the mentioned sockpuppetry case, with nonsense warnings (, , , , etc.) I don't know whether it is in accordance with the rules or not to do such things. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School

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

I'd apprentice it if someone versed in copyright issues would take a look at the above article with an eye to removing the huge template in the history section. This school is in the midst of a controversy right now and it would be nice to have that template gone. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears Archer1234 took care of it. All that's left is to reconstruct something that isn't a copyvio out of it. John from Idegon (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a lot of copy removed. Please make sure a {{revdel}} request is placed. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Potential COI and Sock Puppet

Hello,

I have two users who work for the same company and edit in very similar ways. You can see at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Richard Appiah Akoto their actions. Pambelle12 has had a huge history with deletions and seems to know quite a bit about the person who is being Nominated for deletion. Benebiankie Works for the same company as Pambelle and edited in a similar style. Note how they both used a bullet point with out a "Keep" or "Delete" comment. They made the same mistake. It seems suspicious and there is no COI tag either. Could someone please assist me in investigating?

Thank you AmericanAir88 19:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it proper for an admin to censor a page of an unblocked user?

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

User:Bbb23 has reverted my talk page messages at the talk page of User:Cirt twice now, in his last edit summary saying this is an administrative action, the user is a sockmaster who hasn't (and can't) edited in over 3 years, leave the talk page alone. Looking at the edit history of that page I see he has been removing similar messages of other users under a similar rationale. This seems problematic to me on two levels:

• first, and of less importance: there is no indication that User:Cirt has been blocked (ever). If he was a sock or a sockmaster, isn't it customary to block them indefinitely in either case, regardless of whether they retired or not? There is no indication on Cirt's user or talk page he has been declared a sock(master) by the community, ArbCom or such. Without a proof of his wrongdoing, calling him a sockmaster seems like a WP:NPA. I did find Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Cirt/Archive, but the only person who confirmed that Cirt was a sockmaster is... Bbb23. I do not find it comforting that a single user, without community discussion or even so much as a second opinion by another admin, gets to decide by themselves whether someone is a sock(master) or not. (But, to keep it short, and per WP:AGF, I am not challenging Bbb23's call here, particularly since Cirt is inactive, so - who cares, eh; I am not posting here to defend his good name, or such; in fact I have no particualr reason to doubt's Bbb23's judgement here since he clearly has more experience with SPI cases that I do).
• second, here is the main reason I am posting here. Regardless of whether an editor is blocked, or is a sockmaster, I see nothing in Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines justifying removal of other editors messages to their talkpages; on the contrary, the guidelines are clear: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.". Wikietiquette dictates that only the owner can remove messages from their talkpage, unless they are uncontroversial vandalism type of an edits. What policy gives Bbb23 the right to apoint himself a custodian of Cirt's talk page and decide what posts stay there and what posts do not? Particularly after I asked him not to remove my comment?

I think I and any other editors who wishes to do so should have the right to leave whatever messages they want at Cirt's talk page with no interference from others. I find in it very worrying when an admin gives himself extra rights that violate a guideline (TPG) and threatens others with their position ("this is an administrative action"). Sorry, to me this not administrative action, but administrative power abuse. I have full rights to leave comments at Cirt's pages, regardless of what his standing in the community in general, and Bbb23's views of him in particular, are. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• What the fuck? How is this a valid administrative action? It's not even explained?!? No one has the right to force-delete talk page comments outside of the purview of WP:TPO. Of course, this notion is flexible, such as if there's a good reason for a talk page to remain unedited without exception, but if that's the case, how are you just gonna revert a good faith editor with an edit summary of "no" without explaining what the hell you're doing?! Seriously?? By all face-value appearances, Cirt is a highly established WP:MISSING editor in good standing, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate otherwise. You can't just decide that no one is allowed to post on their talk page, without any policy rationale, or any rationale. That goes beyond every basic conduct standard we have. If Cirt is to be treated like a blocked LTA sock master who's not even allowed to receive messages, then at least block and tag. Don't just revert posters with no explanation. I literally have nothing against you, Bbb23, in fact, I respect what you do, but you seemingly never stop making these completely unreasonable and borderline-abusive actions that give me cause to speak out against. ~Swarm~ 07:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding "By all face-value appearances, Cirt is a highly established WP:MISSING editor in good standing, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate otherwise" et al, see Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Cirt. ‑ Iridescent 2 07:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Cirt.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

So why not just block him and end all this drama? What are we all missing? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: Regarding the possible block of Cirt, it would be good to get a community's consensus before blocking and editor who can be described, to quote Swarm, "By all face-value appearances, Cirt is a highly established WP:MISSING editor in good standing". If there is community consensus that the linked SPI and Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Cirt with its shocking contents of a single sock is sufficient for a block, so be it, but I think more than one admin should endorse such an action when dealing with an established editor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Two socks of this editor have actually been blocked. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Given the lack of direct reply by Bbb23 either here on on his talk page outside reposting a SPI link that I've already posted, and other comments here, with none disputing my right to do so or citing any policy allowing an admin to arbitrarily censor another editor's talk page, I am planning on restoring my comment on Cirt's talk page since I believe this is my right within WP:TPG. If there is any policy that I should be aware of that indeed allows an admin to remove my talk page posts to another editor as 'administrative action', please do tell me this ASAP. TIA.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to see a good reason to be posting the talk page of this account to invite them to participate in an article with controversial political aspects. Given that they were caught using a sockpuppet to evade their topic ban on political biographies last October and December, no good is likely to come from this and it looks like an invitation for them to sock some more. I'm also surprised that Cirt hasn't been blocked as a procedural matter: using two sockpuppet accounts to try to evade a topic ban is clearly not on. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 has said he would block the Cirt account if it ever returned to editing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted Bbb23, on the grounds that neither Cirt nor Piotrus are blocked, and I cannot find a policy that says posting on talk pages of retired editors in good standing is a sanctionable offence. (See User:Ritchie333/Don't template the retirees, but that is simply good advice not policy). In turn, Bbb23 should read WP:OWN and WP:TPG and particular WP:3RR. Ritchie333 11:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Cirt isn’t in good standing, he socked to evade a topic ban. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If he wasn't in good standing, he would be blocked. Ritchie333 11:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, he will be blocked by Bbb23 if he returns to editing . Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

That is not the same thing. GiantSnowman 11:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

To avoid future confusion, I’ve blocked Cirt. For more background on this, see this discussion about blocking stale accounts. Sometimes stale masters aren’t blocked since it doesn’t really matter much, but I think in this case it makes sense given that it’s a former longstanding editor. Letting Bbb23 know, and he can reverse me if he thinks it’s inappropriate as he handled much of the case. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Some thoughts - Piotrus should not have posted, but Bbb23 should not have reverted, and Cirt should be blocked for socking. GiantSnowman 11:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I partially agree - Piotrus was within his (?) rights to post, especially given what he knew. However you are right on the other two aspects Nosebagbear (talk)

• I would say that an editor who has broken the rules to a point that they warrant an indef shouldn't be told they'd be blocked if they returned - just blocked. If only to avoid individuals slipping through the net in the future (which could happen if, say, Bbb23 ever left). This at least should be the case in the case of a remotely established editor. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Page history shows that Bbb23 has been routinely removing comments and xfd notifications from Cirt's talk page for several months. It's standard practice to notify editors when their creations are up for deletion, and in my experience it can be helpful to see past xfd nominations in case there's some sort of pattern. These removals are totally uncalled for. –dlthewave ☎ 12:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with those who say BBB's removals were improper. Generally, removal of talk page comments that aren't your own shouldn't be done. pbp 13:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• @TonyBallioni: I have reblocked Cirt as, if I had done it a long time ago, as was recommended by several editors, it would have been - and now is - a CU block. I've also, as is normal, tagged the userpage. I've left in Ritchie333's misguided revert because I don't intend to edit-war over something this lame. If editors want to invite a confirmed sock to edit, what can I say?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not "misguided", it's per consensus on this thread per at least two administrators. Ritchie333 16:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I have no objections to Cirt's block if there is a consensus here. But it is worth clarifying that there is also a clear objection to Bbb23's removal of the posts - something that they still have not addressed. I would like to hear from them, at least, that they won't do it again (because expecting an apology for improper removal of my posts would be going to far, I know well Misplaced Pages isn't a community that supports the concept of apologizing). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: We are still waiting for you to comment on your talk page reverts. Do you understand that you should not have reverted me and others on that talk page, and can you promise you'll not do so again, particularly under a baseless claim (threat) of "administrative action"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Still no reply despite a ping; I've left a direct message on Bbb23's talk page asking him to reply to this issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Whether Cirt socked is irrelevant. You can't delete good faith messages without explanation, blocked or not. ~Swarm~ 05:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

As far as explanations go, don't be an idiot could probably be improved upon, particularly when again reverting another editor on a third-party's talk page. ——SerialNumber54129 08:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Abusive behavior and controversial edits by an IP

93.73.36.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has received numerous warnings on his , yet he never ceased his dubious activity, and made many controversial and speculative edits that were later reverted. Examples: , ; , . Senatorsfansask (talk • contribs) 09:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You haven't notified him about your ANI report. I've done it for you. I think this is a case of the user not having a neutral point of view. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Politically motivated user

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

I would like to report Tomcat7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). With edits like this, this, this and this (3RR violation) to Russia men's national ice hockey team he clearly demonstrates his toxic political bias. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to inform you that your actions will be examined as well; you have exceeded 3RR on Russia men's national ice hockey team yourself. Are you sure you want to proceed with this? 331dot (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Notified him. His response: even more vandalism on his part. His new edits: 1, 2. Someone, please stop him. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. He started reverting first (and violated 3RR first), you can check that. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Being correct, if you are, is not a defense to edit warring. I suggest that you stop reverting their edits. Edits are not vandalism just because you disagree with them. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Your edits are poorly sourced and you are edit warring. I've reverted your latest - take it to the talk page of the article concerned and stop wasting time here. -----Snowded 22:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Let’s make it clear. He started reverting my edits because he disagrees with them. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and once that happens, you need to go to the talk page and have a civil discussion with the other party or parties. That's how it's supposed to work here. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

188.93.243.189 has now been blocked as a checkuser-block. --Yamla (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I am requesting input I am trying to do the right thing and not get banned or start any wars . I am just trying to learn form all the good and bad that happen so I do better

I had a disagreement with a user but it was resolved on there talk page but they started to change the wording on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin&action=history. And the reason why I undid was because the page was built extensively with multiple users to come to an agreement with the material that is on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin/Archive_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin/Archive_2

So I said take it to the talk page to gain consensus and the Final things they said was, (you never objected to it in the talk page - never even said anything despite 3 days of opportunity My edit stands. Take it to the talk page.) (Actually you did not engage for three days of talk page oppertunity so you did not follow WP:BRD. My edit now stands. You have to convince me now)

I did Object to it by asking them to take it to the talk page to gain Consensus that does not seem to me like its part of the rules if nobody says anything you can make your edits that were asked to gain consensus with?

I have made edits that were asked to gain Consensus with and I did try to edit without the consensus that was requested and they were reverted.

Like I said I am not trying to start any wars https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground and I have made a lot of Mistakes on Misplaced Pages I am trying to learn from that is why I keep them in my archival.

That is why I am asking for input on thisJack90s15 (talk) 03:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

"Actually you did not engage for three days of talk page oppertunity so you did not follow WP:BRD. My edit now stands. You have to convince me now." @Ramos1990: ayfkm? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Someguy1221, I think this was meant for ANI. But I have my evidences lined up already for that in case I need to report this editor. Possibly will result in some sort of sanction - has been blocked 3 times in the past 9 months for disruptive behaviors and edit warring .

In short, User:Jack90s15 reverted me once and I took it to the talk page to prevent any edit warring on June 26, 2019. I explained my edit there and waited 3 days for him or anyone to respond to my neutral wording edit. He did not object or respond at all in those 3 days. So following WP:BRD "Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution." - I re-added my neutral wording on June 29, 2019 since no objections were there.

Then all of a sudden after 3 days of silence in the talk page discussion (June 29, 2019), he begins to edit war with me again after I followed[REDACTED] protocol. It is obvious that he was active in those 3 days by looking at his contribution history. So now it is his loss. I gave him ample time to object, but now it is too late. My edit now stands. If he objects to my wording he can continue to discuss, but now he has to convince me of his particular edit. This editor has engaged in disruptive editing before so this is not surprising.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I want you to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Edit warring, and see ... the list of exceptions to the policy. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Redacted something I should not have said. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221 - I understand your response here directing Ramos1990 to WP:EW; I just feel that it wasn't necessary to word it in the tone and manner that you did. :-/ ~Oshwah~ 05:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramos1990 My first 2 Blocks were me not knowing anything about Misplaced Pages on how it worked.and the 3 one was Reverting a Sock puppet I found out they were after being blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/User:6ullga So I am not here to disruptive edit.

Now I came up with a Solution to the problem I trimmed the opening for it to not favor one estimate like what was said on the talk page. this way its showing how prior to 1991 all the Estimates were 20 million and higher that were made by reputational historians. and it also shows now what the death toll is with the archival date. and it still shows the reader what reputable historians say about the death toll in its own section which shows how some say it higher and lower.Jack90s15 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Jack90s15 the purpose of a talk page is to discuss and sort out differences to prevent edit warring. If you did not engage in it in a reasonable amount of time then others can certainly proceed in making a contribution. The fact that you did not raise any concerns on the talk page for 3 days and then you started to edit war again before discussing on the talk page, means that you were not being serious about solving an issue. I don't agree with your attempt at innocence since you have more than 6,000 edits in the past 9 months. I am pretty sure you would have encountered similar issues before with that much on wikipedia. Use the talk page correctly or let other make their contributions. When you revert someone you have to discuss the issue not just revert over and over without discussing your thoughts.

Furthermore, why are you still editing the article when we have not resolved the issue in the talk page?!

User:Someguy1221, I don't get your comment. Look at how User:Jack90s15 operates, he does not discuss things and he just makes major edits while there is a dispute in the talk page over it now that he finally wrote something. He should resolve the issue on talk first not impose his edits. I see WP:OWN issues here.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I did engage the right way like if it did come not off that way my bad. that is why I trimmed it to resolve the Issue with the opening I am not try to act innocent I acknowledged I have messed up on the wiki.

User:Oshwah Explained to me that,

I was discussing my thoughts in the Edit summary that is why I trimmed it so the opening Explains the difference between the pre-1991 estimates and the estimates with archival data this way the opening is NPOV. and my large edits are from patrolling the recent changes and I am not WP:OWN other people have undone my edits on there and I let them and I do discuss on the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin&diff=899514906&oldid=899437161 https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin/Archive_1#Updating_the_historians_number_and_for_Simon_sebag_adding_contacts_to_it Jack90s15 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not where you discuss things! Those are edit summaries after all. The talk page is where you have to go an sort out the differences in detail. 1) Some times there are other editors in the talk page, so you can reach a consensus with others - sometimes there are no consensus with other editors by the way. 2) Sometimes no editors comment at all in the talk page - in which case you can proceed with your edit that was reverted since no one contested it further. WP:BRD states 'Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article. Read that guidline

Misplaced Pages is not an infinite waiting game. Clearly no one is interested in my neutral edit except you so you should resolve the issue on the talk page with me before making any further edits. Making bold edits like you did after you finally objected to my neutral wording on the talk page is disruptive editing because now we are discussing the issue, whereas before you were not. Follow[REDACTED] protocol. Read WP:BRD.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

previously there was a discussion on the talk page about this the wording and the recent changes fix it this was the discussion,

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin/Archive_2#Historians_assessing_the_number_of_victims_Stalin_for_about_20_million

Jack90s15 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That is why the talk page is there! They can discuss any issue on the talk page section I opened if they want - clearly none of them have contributed to it probably because they don't care. None of these editors WP:OWN the article or the content nor do their words dictate what any future editors should do or not do. Their old comments from another discussion do not determine the outcome of another talk page discussion like the one I started. Each talk page discussion stands on its own.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramos1990 this all started with wording with it ("Some scholars still assert) that is why I did a Bold edit to Fix the problem that arose from it.

now its showing a NPOV for the opening with it.

Whichever side you happen to be on, try to move the discussion towards consensus by getting pro/con points identified so that a new edit may be attempted as quickly as possible. Feel free to try a new bold edit during the discussion if the new edit reasonably reflects some aspect of the opposing editors' concerns.Jack90s15 (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Edit_warring

If you reached an agreement with me, then mention that on the talk page! My gosh, you really seem to avoid discussing things on the talk page. Instead you create such a commotion on user pages, the article, engage in a edit war, revert with no intent of discussing things, ignore talk pages discussions - all of which are meant to resolve issue like this - and make bold edits when you have made the content to be in dispute. Please stop making disruptive edits and follow wikiepdia protocol. Once you engage in the talk page, you now have to seek consensus since two editors are in dialogue over content. Resolve the issue on the talk page first.Ramos1990 (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The help you're looking for

The discussion that Jack90s15 is referring to is this one. I maybe could've worded "go back and respond to the user's message and make the user aware that you've responded to the discussion" more clearly, since it appears that Ramos1990 interpreted "respond to the user's message" to mean that he was supposed to respond using an edit summary, perhaps. Ramos1990 Jack90s15, we don't want to make or respond to discussion using edits and edit summaries. Edit summaries are supposed to be used to briefly describe exactly what you're changing on the page and why - hence 'edit summary'... a summary of your edit. ;-) If you need to communicate with another user in a dispute, you need to do so on the relevant article's talk page in a discussion, or do so with the user directly by messaging them on their user talk page. Using edits to revert content in a back-and-fourth manner between editors or even argue back-and-fourth using edit summaries constitutes edit warring, which is not allowed on Misplaced Pages and can result in being temporarily blocked for doing so. This noticeboard isn't designed to discuss the exact specifics of the content dispute that you're currently involved with. It's designed in order to report violations of policy by other users so that it can be reviewed, discussed, and the proper actions taken in order to resolve the matter. No one here is going to dive in-depth into the content dispute itself; we have noticeboards and solutions available on Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution guide and protocol if you and the other editor involved cannot resolve the matter and come to a consensus amongst yourselves. I highly recommend that you go through, read, and review that dispute resolution guide I linked you to from top to bottom, and make sure that you understand everything that's discussed in there. It will contain the information you need, the answers you're looking for, and the different methods that you can use to resolve the dispute peacefully. :-) ~Oshwah~ 18:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Oshwah, appreciate your comments, but I think you are talking to the wrong person.

1) I was reverted by User:Jack90s15 so I took it it the talk page to discuss. So I did start a talk page section on it on June 26, 2019 like I was supposed to.

2) Waited 3 days for comments. User:Jack90s15 never engaged in the discussion and no one objected to my small neutral wording edit.

3) So since no one objected to my edit in the talk page I went forward after 3 days on June 29. Per WP:BRD, it says "Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article."

4) Then User:Jack90s15 started to edit war and it was him who responded in edit summaries . I even told him to take it to the talk page . but he did not listen.

5) Finally after the 3 days of no objections and after this little edit war, he finally writes something on the talk page like he was supposed to . Notice the dates on the edits. Clearly he was on Misplaced Pages from June 26 (when I made the talk page section) to June 29 (when I re-insterd my edit) and he could have discussed the issue in that time which he clearly did not do. So I was under the impression that no one really had an issue since I explained my edit in the talk page on June 26 and no one objected for 3 days - a reasonable amout of time for at least him to discuss the issue - if there even was one.

6) So now that he finally is discussing on the talk page on June 29, he goes and makes major bold edits to the article without discussing on the talk page first in the same day!

Hope this give you context. I have been following wikpedai protocol. But his disruptive editing, lack of engaging in the talk page, and making bold edits when he has made the situation into a dispute, is very problematic. I see WP:OWN issues. Plus User:Jack90s15 has been blocked 3 times in the past 9 months for this kind of disruptive editing and edit warring .

I have never been blocked because I usually try to compromise, but how can you compromise with someone who reverts, does not engage in talk pages, and makes bold edits when they make an edit into a disputed edit?Ramos1990 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramos1990 My first 2 Blocks were me not knowing anything about Misplaced Pages on how it worked.and the 3 one was Reverting a Sock puppet I found out they were after being blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/User:6ullga So I am not here to disruptive edit. this all started with wording with it ("Some scholars still assert) that is why I did a Bold edit to Fix the problem that arose from it.

now its showing a NPOV for the opening with it.

Whichever side you happen to be on, try to move the discussion towards consensus by getting pro/con points identified so that a new edit may be attempted as quickly as possible. Feel free to try a new bold edit during the discussion if the new edit reasonably reflects some aspect of the opposing editors' concerns.Jack90s15 (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Edit_warring Can we agree on the bold change since it addresses Both of are ConcernsJack90s15 (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I did acknowledge the edits and I was on I was patrolling recent changes. and you did responded in edit summaries

(Actually you did not engage for three days of talk page oppertunity so you did not follow WP:BRD. My edit now stands. You have to convince me now)

(you never objected to it in the talk page - never even said anything despite 3 days of opportunity. My edit stands. Take it to the talk page)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I opened a talk page for you to discuss your concerns on June 26. That was the place for you to discuss your issues not on edit summaries. My edit summaries on June 29 were not a argument, they were redirecting you to the talk page discussion which you willfully neglected since June 26 (which you agree you were aware of my talk page discussion where I asked for input from editors). You made this edit war not me. I followed the protocol WP:BRD. If you would have discussed any issues on the talk page like you were supposed prior to June 29 to then I would not have re-inserted my neutral edit in the first place. I waited 3 days for any input. If you would have commented on the talk page like you were supposed to (since you never voiced an objection or reason for reverting me in the first place aside from saying that other editors worked on this article before), I would have discussed the matter until you and I had some consensus. It is very simple.Ramos1990 (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramos1990 - Crap! I meant to ping Jack90s15 in that comment I made above, not you. Sorry... this is what I get for trying to use a mobile device to edit... ~Oshwah~ 19:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Oshwah, I see. Understandable. No worries. I was beginning to think that the world had gone mad on me, when I had followed[REDACTED] protocol. Glad you clarified that your comment was not for me.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ramos1990. I was trying to make the point that if you find yourself making back-and-forth reverts with another editor, then unless your reason for doing so is one of the seven listed at WP:3RRNO, you are edit warring. Aside, @Jack90s15:, please please when you make comments in the future try to stick to a more easily followed indentation formatting. Between how the indentation in your comments pops in and out, mixed with multiple formats of copy-pasted walls of text, it is simply impossible to follow, and makes me not want to try. I'm not asking you to reformat it, by the way, because Oshwah is right that this is not the place to rehash the content dispute. But for future reference. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221 - I went through and tried my best to fix all of the indentation issues here so that the discussion makes sense. Please feel free to fix anything that I may have missed or indented incorrectly during my attempts. ~Oshwah~ 14:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk) I apologized to Ramos 1990 Since I made this in to one Big Incident. and I am Sorry everybody I am looking in to https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user So I can have help with Misplaced Pages so this does not happen again I am not ashamed to say I need help.Jack90s15 (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramos1990 - My apologies for the delayed follow-up response. I just got home from work and sat down at my desk. :-) I struck the incorrect ping to you in the comment and updated it to be directed toward Jack90s15. Sorry about the confusion earlier... ~Oshwah~ 06:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Remove email access from a sitebanned editor?

Could someone please remove email access from Catflap08 (talk · contribs)?

This should not be a controversial request, since he was sitebanned more than two years ago and has shown no interest in returning, having never attempted to appeal his ban (he seems to prefer to just evade it through IPs). He hasn't used email to harass me directly in a few months (for reference, the earlier emails date to 4 July 2017 at 22:08 JST and 18 November 2018 at 19:42 JST), but certainly someone with a history with me has been sending people a list of my "enemies" and a pretty one-sided and inaccurate account of my history. Catflap wasn't a suspect until I noticed just now that he's still following me and not even trying to hide it.

Whether or not it was him (or if he's done it all since 2015, when he definitely was doing it to get around our IBAN), there's really no reason not to remove email access at this point. If he wants to appeal his siteban he can use his talk page.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason to refuse this, but what practical effect do you see it having? Will it really make that much difference if the emails are labelled "sent by user 'Catflap-08' on the English Misplaced Pages" or "user 'Catflap09'" or "user 'Fbff986oRN4'" instead? —Cryptic 06:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

AGF forces me to assume that if that happened, Fbff986oRN4 (an account with either no edit history or no apparent reason to be following me, or an account that had already been recognized as a sock and blocked) would have less credibility with the majority of email recipients than someone who claims they were sitebanned as a result of me hoodwinking the community (or whatever). Yeah, realistically anyone who believes the latter will believe anything, but at the very least forcing Catflap to create a new account every time he wants to email someone I reported for copyvio would make it harder for him. Also, as of November 17 last year I had no reason to assume I was due for another email myself: I'mnot comfortable receiving them in the first place, and since most wikiemails I receive are helpful I don't want to turn it off and only turn it on when I need to use it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Good enough for me. —Cryptic 07:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Cryptic, I reverted Catflap's talk page to the prior state as it seems like he was using it to further harass Hijiri88, and I was about to take away TPA, but remembered I handed in my admin bit over the current Fram-Gate. Would you please look at it, and take any (or no) action you feel is justified? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Not ordinarily block-worthy in itself, but after them not otherwise editing their talk page for five months except to blank it, revoking access seems like it'll cause the least harm all around. I'd like to note for the record that I neither know the previous history here nor care to. —Cryptic 16:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Since the above appears to have prompted Catflap to do something with UTRS again, I should say here that I stated earlier this year that I wasn't opposed to Catflap's siteban being lifted under certain circumstances (primarily that the community and admin corps carry more of the burden of monitoring his edits rather than forcing me to do it and then accusing me of "hounding") and was forced to remove that statement for reasons apparently unrelated. My opinion of the matter hasn't changed a lot since February, except that the above "paranoid" thing (and the cross-wiki "Hijiri, I'm watching you!" behaviour) have made me a little more concerned that any lesser editing restrictions he were placed under would be immediately violated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Huh. It seems the UTRS thing was already closed before I wrote that. Egg on my face, I guess. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Backlogs

Since we have WP:FRAM, and Ragnarök is possibly approaching, many active administrators retired, and some others stopped contributing. This apparently increased backlogs. At WP:RFPP, I have seen in the past three days twice a backlog of over 30 requests, and over 24h delay. This possibly means those of us who are still around and doing admin work might think of expanding and clearing the understaffed admin areas. I would appreciate if we can identify these areas requiring a constant admin monitoring. RFPP might be one of them (though what I have noticed might be a fluctuation, we lost Lectonar who was active there on a regular basis recently).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but the Fram affair has me questioning whether the WMF would back me or sack me for doing my job if someone complained to them. There's a chill in the air, and the wind is blowing from San Francisco.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 05:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC).

Edit war report unattended to after a day and a half

This report I made on the edit war noticeboard regarding Larry Sanger's article has not been attended to even though it has been on the noticeboard for a day and a half and reports made after it have been dealt with. The "war" itself has abated on the article in the time since the report was filed (although that might very well be a truce while the report is still pending), but I would like some closure on it and any underlying disputes before it gets archived. (Also, please put any dispute related to the matter on the ANEW thread, not here.) Thank you, and apologies for any inconvenience! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I explained at Talk:Larry Sanger#Best known for that adding "best known for" was a bad idea. The correct response would be to revert your changes to the lead back to the old version which was based on reliable sources. There is no need for every report to have an official close. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• That's all well and good and I have come to agree with you on that particular count, but my changes to the lead involved much more than that and was an attempted overhaul that was disputed in its entirety. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

More edit warring. See previous discussion at Talk:Larry_Sanger#Failed_verification. Also see misleading content in the lede. I commented on the talk page about the problematic content. See "His relationship to Misplaced Pages has been rocky; he has attempted to found several websites to rival Misplaced Pages and controversially accused the Wikimedia Foundation of hosting child pornography in 2010, while Misplaced Pages co-founder Jimmy Wales has attempted to downplay and diminish Sanger's contributions to the early history of the site." Does anyone support adding "controversially accused the Wikimedia Foundation of hosting child pornography"? This is nonsense. Neutral wording is being replaced with the word "argued". QuackGuru (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It is continuing to happen. Mass changes mainly to the lede are being made. The lede is now is poorly written and looks like a critic of Larry Sanger is editing the article. For example, neutral wording is being replaced with the word "arguing". QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

See above thread.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 05:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The Simpsons

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

Hi, please move this page here (per others simmilar articles). Thank you! Patriccck (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done and histmerged. Nthep (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Community General Sanctions for Wikimedia Foundation drama

Clear consensus against this proposal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Main page:

• Misplaced Pages:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other related drama:

The above is just a sample of how much this drama is spreading and how toxic it is becoming. I suggest general sanctions for discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation, broadly construed. I suggest the duration last a minimum of one month. By this, I mean that the duration has a mandatory minimum of one month, and, if this continues to be a problematic timesink after that, the community authorizes an extension (say, three more months, six more months, or whatever). Please see Misplaced Pages:General sanctions for what this means. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Huge mistake. People are upset over the WMF silencing their input on community matters. Putting in place a draconian GS when it isn't needed would only add gas to the fire. I'm confident that admin can handle the situation as is. The fact that it is spilling over into ANI often enough is just because it is such a heated debate, but it's one that affects us all. GS or no GS isn't going to change that, and then all you are going to see is more ANI reports with people wanting to "punish" those that disagree with them. Good faith, but bad idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me also add that admin shouldn't be afraid to use SHORT blocks (not cool down blocks, mind you......) to deal with problems. 24-72 hours is sufficient to actually get the job done. Any thing like a topic ban is going to cause more drama than it solves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That not so easy - there are unblockable users, and in a partisan situation there always would be an admin to unblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

So you want to fill up Arb with cases where someone used GS and it is seen as excessive? If Starship.whatever had been blocked for 24 hours, and not denied TPA, no one would have blinked an eye. What he did wasn't wise. A warning might have sufficed, but a short block was also reasonable. The only reason it was unblocked without ceremony was that it was excessive. I don't think Tony was "abusive" in doing this, but he was mistaken in thinking it needed an indef block. Admin need to use a soft touch here. These are NOT articles, after all, and whatever happens in no way interrupts the experience for the reader, so some patience and moderation is due. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I actually did not support DS below, I just wanted to remark that this is a real problem which is not easy to solve.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and most of the problems have been pretty minor consider the scope of the issue. This is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support I don’t consider preventing disruption on the biggest mess Misplaced Pages has had in anyone’s memory “Draconian”, which is a word getting flung around too freely these days. Seriously, people, we’re proving the WMF right if we don’t act to deal with the toxicity here (and it exists on both sides.) GS will give us more flexibility to deal with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Where has the WMF said that their original action was due to "toxicity", and what do they mean by that term? - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  That’s my word, but I think it’s a good description of WP:FRAM, regardless of one’s views on the ban. We need options between “do nothing” and “block” to deal with this, and this proposal helps that. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per DBrown. Tony's heavy-handed actions of yesterday (and the subsequent spill-out) is a reminder to not travel into these territories. ∯WBG 14:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Question and just what sanctions are being asked for? "they are specifically detailed instructions" is what the page says, yet the proposal here contains no suggestion, detailed or otherwise, as to what they should be. "Lets sanction everyone then decide afterwards what the rules are" is not a good proposal in my eyes. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Reading between the lines of TB's response to me above, discretionary topic bans seem to be the most likely candidate. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I understand the rationale but I think DS could create scenarios that would add more oxygen to this drama; which is getting re-fueled on an almost daily basis now. Ultimately, this will pass. Hopefully, an ArbCom/WMF "clear-the-decks" statement/future process will be agreed. Editors will have to make their own peace as to whether this future reality will work for them or not. I don't think we are too far away from this. We should try and avoid any action that could amplify conflict in advance of this. Britishfinance (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• I am the starter of one of the linked threads, but I think out usual mechanisms should suffice, we should just not hesitate applying them (possibly giving a bit of leeway since the situation is overheated).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per DBrown and DHill. Yes it is toxic and the WMF seems to have not thought through their toxic action when they started this. Any blocks after such an arbitrary time limit would clearly be WP:PUNITIVE. There is also the problem of giving the WMF an out - i.e. when the month has passed and they have not responded with anything constructive they can just say "we no longer need to respond" since blocks will be handed out to anyone who questions their arbitrary action. MarnetteD|Talk 15:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Are you suggesting we close down all discussion of the WMF and their role in this ongoing incident? Not sure what is being proposed here. WaltCip (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

In short, General Sanctions would mean that if I felt you crossed the line, I could topic ban you from discussing anything relating to Fram, and I wouldn't need the input of any other editor or admin. I could indef block you if you did mention it, and take away your talk page access if you crossed that line in the sand there. GS allows unilateral action, virtually unlimited in scope. It works in article space for hot topics, but not in meta space. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Pardon my naivete, but this whole Fram business is a situation that calls for de-escalation, not the other way around. Empowering admins to hand out indef blocks and topic bans for this specific area of discussion will only further splinter the community. WaltCip (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: What an absolutely terrible idea. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dennis & Duncan - People are quite rightly pissed off and IMHO blocking everyone who moans about it will only make things 10 times worse, The only way this will all stop is if WMF get their arse in to gear and make some sort of bloody statement or atleast do something about it..... –Davey2010 15:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose.

'if we don’t act to deal with the toxicity here (and it exists on both sides.)'

I keep seeing 'toxic', 'tearing itself apart', Armageddon imagery for what has been, overwhelmingly quite a civil, and eminently intelligent debate, one almost incumbent on users given the circumstances. I've never had the impression I lived in a 'community', until an inkling that indeed we form one emerged after June 10, as I read with surprise comments by editors and admins I have been in conflict with, deliberations showing a good deal of give and take, nuancing of initial views, sometimes a complete change in opinion, among several hundred editors, most of whom I have never heard of. Where I live, it would be regarded as par for the course for any public forum. One should not feel anxiety over the existence of debates between people of widely different backgrounds, and on occasion passionately held views. It is called the democratic process, and there is nothing here to bear comparison like the 'toxicity' I see in politics, or hear off from people who waste their time on social forums.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Dennis says, GS works well in article space where there's likely to be a reasonable consensus of what constitutes disruption, and that's really what it's designed for. But in this fractured and divided meta dispute, handing individual admins further authoritative power is a recipe for escalation and could be a disaster. I can already imagine the wheelwars and desysops that are likely if this is approved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose But only because I oppose these types of overly bureaucratic processes generally, and not because I don't think that this whole mess is somehow not a completely shameful response from the community, and that the professional-opinion-havers who feel the need to interject this into every forum possible should be prevented from doing so, shamed because of it besides, and pointed to a giant neon sign that says "mainspace is this way". GMG 16:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Ha ha only serious - if enacted, I predict an admin invoking this to sanction another admin for invoking this within 24 hours. —Cryptic 16:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Today, a group of admins repeatedly closed down a discussion relating to the behaviour of one of their friends. With this mechanism in place, I would have been blocked. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose both specifically as counterproductive to any reasoned discussion and generally against it. I'd also note that 461 editors have participated. These represent a massive proportion of those who would otherwise judge over such areas. Either it'd be piled onto a few souls and/or the COI accusations would fly thick and fast Nosebagbear (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't know that I have enough Misplaced Pages standing to weigh in one way or the other, but "the beatings will continue until morale improves" strikes me as a poor way forward. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Lurk123

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

• Lurk123

vandalism-only account--Dimon2711 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for talk page access from User:Chzz

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

Chzz, who was blocked a bit over 6 months ago and lost talk page access as well, asked me by email to post this message here. (Pinging Courcelles as the blocking admin/checkuser.) I remember Chzz from many thoughtful discussions on IRC about helping newcomers, but don't know much about the context of his block.--ragesoss (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Chzz. I've been blocked from editing. I tried to ask why, but I was blocked from editing my talk page. I tried to email arbcom, but they did not answer.

So, I waited 6 months.

I have 100k edits, I've written 100s of articles inc GA/FA; I think I was respected in the community.

I think I was blocked because I posted IRC logs. There is no policy on Misplaced Pages that says that is not permitted. I think that might be why they cannot give a reason for my block.

I will not post any further logs from IRC during this discussion.

I only wish to discuss the block, - and if unblocked (now), I will only make posts that are directly related to the issue until my block is resolved.

The block was because they publicly posted IRC logs and made it clear they would continue to do so. As far as the IRC channels are concerned this is public logging, and as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned it's considered to be copyvio (same as publishing emails without the consent of all parties). —A little blue Bori v^_^v 20:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 revoked the TPA. Speaking in my capacity as an individual editor and not as a CU, I strongly oppose restoration of TPA. For a while, Chzz would come into the unblock channel of IRC and tried to bait me into violating the privacy policy in regards to his block, and I believe he tried this with other people. He would also go on rants and misinterpret things such as "I know who you are" (i.e. your IRC channel doesn't hide that I know you are Chzz) and once went into the stewards IRC channel to report that he felt unsafe. If it wasn't that, he'd be going on rants about IRC vs. Misplaced Pages, and I had to kick him from the unblock channel at least once, and I believe multiple times. This is not someone I trust with talk page access. He will abuse it and Wikilawyer and do anything he can to make the reviewing admin make a mistake and cause further drama. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• As someone who has interacted with Chzz on IRC for many months before his block I'm shocked at the information brought forth by User:TonyBallioni and would have (and was just about to before this discussion was abruptly closed) supported unblocking talk page access. I have only ever had positive interactions with Chzz on both IRC and on-wiki and they have helped me many times with technical matters. Despite the claims by TonyBallioni I vouch for this user and think we should at least let him defend himself on his talk page. -- œ 22:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • OlEnglish, let me email another CU real quick. I see some things based on log entries that would likely make this request moot as being ineligible for unblock anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

    It's quite alright. I simply wanted it to get on record that Chzz has at least one friend here. -- œ 22:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Ragesoss and OlEnglish: another CU has looked at this and  Confirmed block evasion. I left a note on Chzz's talk page to this effect. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• How unfortunate. I'll join OlEnglish in going on record as saying that Chzz was a great editor who I highly respected, so much so that he was listed at User:Swarm/recall#Users who can simply request the removal of my admin rights. @TonyBallioni: from what I'm gathering here, Chzz was posting IRC logs on-wiki? Presumably while logged out, which is what makes it a CU block? AFAIK, Jéské has it right, but most people don't understand this. To your knowledge, was the underlying copyright issue ever actually explained to him in good faith? If he indicated that he would continue to do so because "there's no rule", that's actually kind of understandable. Not trying to play devil's advocate, just wondering if there's any point trying to coach this user into turning things around. ~Swarm~ 02:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Swarm, I don’t want to comment on the specifics for respect for Chzz’ privacy, but generally I’ll say this: the reason for not posting logs isn’t just the copyright info: they’re oversightable because they can contain IP addresses of people who enter without a cloak and potentially contain more private information than people would wish to reveal on-wiki. Chzz would have known this.The other issue is that he’s been evading his block logged out pretty much ever since. I personally find it a bit disingenuous when someone sends an email requesting an unblock for a CU block when they know they’ve been evading the same block in the same week they send the email. Again, Chzz has been around the Wikimedia community long enough (whether on-wiki or otherwise) that he would know that block evasion was considered inappropriate. Also, I’ll generally say this: from what I gather, the Chzz of 5-10 years ago was a great editor. I didn’t know him then. I only know the interactions I’ve had with him since his block, which I have not found particularly pleasant. That’s not stating that the person you all knew was bad, just that his recent actions have left bad impressions in mine and a few other people’s minds. I hope that comes off as fair. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: I wasn't aware of the privacy aspect of posting logs on-wiki, obviously that's an even more serious concern that is a lot less forgivable than not understanding copyright nuances. That makes it more difficult to believe his pitch that he perhaps just got caught up in something that he didn't know was wrong. And obviously block evasion is unacceptable, rendering everything else moot. I trust your assessment that he's not 'innocent' as he claims to be. Sounds like an SO request is his only remaining path at this point. It is strange that he went off the rails like this though. Not the first case of an established editor self-destructing, of course, but still hard to understand. IIRC he really was a venerable pillar of the community. If you don't mind me asking, do you have any idea why he started IP socking and/or posting IRC logs? Was it related to any specific incident or dispute that got out of hand? Or did he just become a bad actor at some point, for reasons unknown? No specifics needed, just curious. ~Swarm~ 03:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• He posted logs because I and a few other regulars in #wikipedia-en-help called him out on giving dodgy advice to people who came into the channel for help. He then ran here and claimed we were persecuting him, and posted the logs in an effort to prove it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 04:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'd prefer not to get too detailed , but he'd been IP socking in December off-and-on for a few months when his TPA was revoked, and he's been IP socking this week. The data is fairly limited on this, so it could be larger, but it's enough to be pretty obvious that he is in fact evading his block and has never really tried to abide by it. He's aware of the ArbCom option, and I made him aware of it again when I posted on his talk a few hours ago. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Jéské Couriano: Wow! Really?! Facepalm How petty of a situation to get indeffed over. Sounds like he could have just let it go and gotten unblocked the same day, but he instead chose to self-destruct, and he is now apparently reduced to a block-evading IP socker. Unreal. ~Swarm~ 04:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Awareness

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

I wanted other admins to be aware of the discussion at User talk:Patton976. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes people threaten to create a sock puppet army. It's more work than it sounds like, and it usually just makes you easier to spot. If I find 50 sock puppets on the same IP address, I can block them all within seconds in the CU tool. It's not really a good use of one's time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I was the original blocking admin here. These posts confirm that this is yet another sock of AnnalesSchool (talk · contribs) (who also claimed to be involved in some kind of movement which appears to have comprised nothing but their sockpuppets and personal website), and I have tagged accordingly. Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

To those familiar with AnnalesSchool, it was obvious this was a duck from the get-go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. Obvious WP:DUCK. Dr. K. 01:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Just another example of why this encylopedia needs a team of competent active administrators on duty at all times. Thank you, Nick-D. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Open letter to the WMF Board

The Arbitration Committee has sent the following open letter to the WMF Board of Trustees, regarding the WMF ban of Fram.

OPEN LETTER TO THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM THE ENGLISH[REDACTED] ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

30 June 2019

On 10 June 2019, the administrator Fram was banned from the English Misplaced Pages for one year as an office action initiated by the Wikimedia Foundation’s (WMF) Trust and Safety team (T&S). In a later statement, T&S Lead Manager Jan Eissfeldt clarified that Fram was banned for harassment, citing the passage of the WMF Terms of Use prohibiting “ngaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism.” The Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) has followed with concern the English Misplaced Pages community’s reaction to this action. We have received three related arbitration case requests, and multiple editors have asked us to intervene on the community’s behalf. As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from Misplaced Pages editing in relation to this issue.

ArbCom is a group of volunteers elected by the community to adjudicate serious conduct disputes in accordance with the English Misplaced Pages’s arbitration policy. This policy also delegates matters unsuitable for public discussion to ArbCom, and all members of the committee are required to meet and agree to the WMF’s access to non-public personal data policy. Over the years, ArbCom has passed responsibility for some matters, including child protection issues, legal matters, and threats of violence, to the WMF’s Legal and T&S teams. We are grateful for T&S’ assistance on these difficult cases and for their efforts to support ArbCom’s work in general. However, despite requests, we have not seen any indication that Fram’s case falls into one of the categories of issues that T&S normally handles, otherwise lies outside of our remit, or was handled by them due to a lack of trust in our ability to handle harassment cases. Rather, we must conclude that T&S’ action is an attempt to extend the use of office actions into enforcing behavioural norms in local communities, an area conventionally left to community self-governance.

Together with a large section of the community, we have been awaiting an adequate response to these concerns from the WMF since 10 June. The Board has yet to issue a statement, and sporadic comments by individual WMF employees (including the Executive Director Katherine Maher) have been non-committal with regard to the substance of the dispute. In the last public statement by Jan Eissfeldt (21 June) and in our private meetings, T&S have reiterated that they are not willing to reconsider the ban, nor will they turn the full evidence over to the community or ArbCom for review. The ban itself was actioned using a recently-introduced T&S process for local, time-limited bans, which although announced in T&S’ 2018–2019 Annual Plan, was not adequately communicated to the English Misplaced Pages community, and not subject to any form of community consultation.

We understand that this change in policy from T&S comes in the context of efforts to tackle harassment and hostility in the Wikimedia movement. Individually and as a committee, we fully support this initiative. We also acknowledge that ArbCom has struggled to handle civility and harassment complaints in a way that adequately balances privacy against transparency, and due process to the accused against victim protection. However, if the WMF have also been concerned about ArbCom’s ability to handle harassment complaints, they have not communicated this concern with us, nor have they provided any suggestions for changing our policies or procedures. If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with harassment on the English Misplaced Pages, it is one that is fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus, and self-governance.

We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints pertaining solely to the English Misplaced Pages to established local processes. Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to harassment and hostility on the English Misplaced Pages.

We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English Misplaced Pages community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to resign.

Yours sincerely,

The undersigned members of the Arbitration Committee,

Molly White (GorillaWarfare)

Joe Roe

KrakatoaKatie

Mkdw

Opabinia regalis

Premeditated Chaos

RickinBaltimore

Steve Pereira (SilkTork)

Dave Craven (Worm That Turned)

For the Arbitration Committee, – Joe (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Open letter to the WMF Board

Block please

Someone please block Pharmboy and Farmer Brown. Those are both alts of mine. For security reasons, I ask you block them as they won't be used or monitored anymore. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, and please full protect my user page. Being a former admin, etc etc etc, vandalism and all that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I wonder if any admin could make a conclusion for this merge proposal which nominated from March 2018? Thanks! Saff V. (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Closed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Whitelisting IP

Hello! I am tutoring a course on Misplaced Pages at Polytechnic University of Milan. Could someone please whitelist this IP (131.175.147.29) for a week so to avoid throttled actions? --Jaqen (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I am co-tutoring the course and second this request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This can't be done by standard economy sized administrators; you need to ask on Phabricator. phab:T192898 is how such a request looks like; the "create new task" button is in the upper right corner. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jaqen and Pigsonthewing: I'm not sure filing a Phab request to whitelist the IP from throttling is the best option. Wouldn't it suffice to grant Misplaced Pages:Event coordinator status to Jaqen, so he can create accounts with confirmed status without being subject to the rate limit of account creations per IP? I have met Jaqen at Wikimania and am happy to give him the event coordinator flag. Deryck C. 10:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue is not about account creation (I have EC rights), but about the throttling of edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive user

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

This account was created solely to edit Athikkadai in a disruptive way. I demand a wake up call for him/her, at least. Super Ψ Dro 09:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This definitely looks like a WP:CIR-type situation, combined with WP:OWN. Ashiq has been here for three years, and made almost 200 edits, but only to that one article, which he did also create. In that time he's been in frequent edit wars, including with bots trying to remove links to deleted files (really points back to CIR), and has never once used a talk or user-talk page. He also never uses edit summaries when reverting. Honestly surprised he has a clean block log. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Bots are kind, gentle people with infinite patience who would never dream of reporting someone to AN3RR. Perhaps that's why it has flown under the radar, plus the edit warring there seems to be a low tempo warring. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Pflipper73

Pflipper73 claims to be a sockpuppet (which may be so) and an administrator (which is not). Is admin action required? Dorsetonian (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the claims of being an administrator from this editor's user page. If they want to claim they are a sockpuppet, I don't think that harms anything on its own (if they are using sockpuppets abusively, that's another story). -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible stalking

Would an administrator have a talk with @PM800:, as he's continuously reverting some of my edits with no summary given for why? He won't even discuss anything with me. @Sabbatino: is aware of this & has 'also' unsuccessfully gotten a response from PM800. Note: I did 'briefly' lose my patients with PM, but am trying to keep a level head. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Issued the last warning--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Wnt

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

Multiple editors have expressed disagreement over El_C's block of Wnt for DE consisting of criticizing WMF and a 2019-04-07 edit which introduced an extremely graphic video of an act of terrorism (without the faces shown) at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings (I'm not linking it directly). Since El_C told a critical editor And you are more than free to bring this up to any forum of review you see fit. I am bringing this up here. There was an ANI discussion about a related controversial link around the same time, but this issue has not been touched until El_C's block. wumbolo ^^^ 19:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The user not only linked to the New Zealand shooting video a month ago, but they recently also suggested that, as protest against the Foundation, we should use that video to dissuade corporate donors and the likes from donating to Misplaced Pages. The combination of which led to the indefinite block. El_C 19:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• This should not be considered as it is a third-party appeal and the normal unblock process has been used and other administrators have declined to unblock. Wnt is free to submit a new appeal through the ordinary procedures. I’d encourage another administrator to close this. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Another edgelord up for keeping this in the news, perhaps as an indignant response to their last block. cygnis insignis 20:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As Tony has noted, the unblock request was denied on the talk page, and for what it's worth I'd decline a similar request as well—Wnt's actions could be the most illustrative WP:POINT action I can think of in quite some time, and is certainly detrimental to the project. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam • Flyguy649 • Fram • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Misplaced Pages:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Misplaced Pages on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Linkspamming of Warming stripes by User:RCraig09

User:RCraig09 appears to be WP:LINKSPAMming the article Warming stripes. Perhaps someone would look into that? User has been notified. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards