Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:00, 28 February 2016

• 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

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

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

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 26 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 24 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 93 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 72 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 63 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 54 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 47 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 20 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 106 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 84 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  20:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 72 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 63 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 42 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Fangusu - indefinite talk protection request

• Fangusu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Fangusu (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an unusual request that needs some explanation so I'm making it here instead of WP:RFPP. Fangusu is a long-term sockpuppeteer (SPI page) who is indefinitely blocked. Over the last few months she has been using IPs and new accounts to edit around her ban, and to post pleas for unblocking on her talk page, as well as occasionally mine and Steel1943's. A while ago after a particularly exuberant round of appeals, I left clear instructions on her talk page about the standard offer, and then archived everything else on the page so that what I wrote was the only thing left, in hopes that if she really wants to be a productive editor she will read it and pay attention. Since, I've been removing other automatic notices because they're not relevant to her at this point, only the standard offer is, but she still occasionally uses an IP to make an unblock appeal or revert a templated message, or just randomly revert one of my edits. Her talk access is already revoked; I'd like to request that her talk page be indefinitely semiprotected so that she can't edit it from IPs either. Although it should be noted she has never tried to remove my instructions.

Furthermore, it's easy to spot Fangusu's edits when an IP or brand new account restores an edit by a previously flagged sock, or makes an innocuous edit with a ban appeal in the edit summary, always on one of a handful of her favourite targets. I don't think it's a very good solution, but in response I'd like to propose six months of semiprotection or PC-protection on those pages, which include undergarment, camisole, Teenage Mutant Leela's Hurdles and Zapp Brannigan. There are others but these seem to be the most frequent. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: Add Melissa Duck and List of recurring Futurama characters to that list. In my opinion, Teenage Mutant Leela's Hurdles shouldn't be included in this request since it was only used by Fangusu to perform one sole edit to get a logged-in account to auto confirmed status. (Per the most recent SPI report, this can be disregarded. Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)) (I may have more to say later, but I have to go through my history with this sockmaster to see what else I can add.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Example diffs? I found this edit to one of "those pages", which got reverted as "rv block evasion". Is that one of what you're talking about? Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course yes, I should have provided diffs. As far as activity, yes, you can go to the histories of any of those pages and see that the recent activity is made up primarily of revert wars with IPs and blocked accounts. What tips these edits off as Fangusu are usually the edit summaries pleading to ignore her ban and leave the edit alone (e.g. This is a good faith edit. Please lift my ban and please overlook my flaws. One cannot expect any user to be a figurative "angel"; Please let this edit stand. You have not explained its flaws to me) or if one of her socks is blocked and its edits reverted () she will turn up on an IP not long after and revert to restore (), and she seems to have given up on her attempts to get the reverting users blocked at ANI () but that was one of her hallmarks. You can also see that there's very little activity on any of those pages that isn't obviously her, or random IP vandals (which I don't think are her).

I've suggested semiprotecting her talk page specifically because of this edit in which one of her IPs restored a notice that I had removed to keep her talk page clean.

Honestly (I'm assuming she's reading this, she's obviously hanging around the site) I believe that she could be a productive editor if she would respect her ban and pay attention to the plentiful advice that other editors have given her, that's why we have the standard offer for banned users. But each new sock digs her a deeper hole. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Contrary to what it may seem, I also believe that Fangusu could be a productive editor ... but first, she has to respect their community-established site ban and not edit at all for at least six months, as well as stop socking completely. However, at this point, my belief that is going to happen is next to zero, given that Fangusu had their 7-year block lifted last July, started socking again, got site-banned in August, and has been socking since, including socking with DJ Autagirl, an account she had been using to sock since 2013. Anyways, if somehow she manages to finally respect the community's site ban, I see good things ... if that ever happens. Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Her biggest problem is constantly trying to get the community to overlook her sockpuppetry, which given time could certainly happen, but each time she uses a new IP she's throwing the sockpuppetry issues back into the limelight. She was given a chance, was told not to sock, was reminded that it would earn the ire (figuratively speaking) of the community and her indefinite block would be reinstated. If she refuses to listen to people, then there's little that can be done for her. Blackmane (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I see no chance of rehabilitation for this editor, just an apparently endless series of obvious socks. See and on Camisole over the last week. The first edit was by a now-blocked sock, and each of the next three identical edits were made by different IPs. I don't even bother warning Fangusu's IPs now. Meters (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, she can't say nobody's offered to help. I guess she just wants to keep playing the revert, block, ignore game. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Had to semi the SPI page today due to her IP socking. Geez louise. She hasn't edited the user talk page in over a week, though; sheer misplaced optimism that she won't start it back up. Katie 19:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Might it be time to rescind the standard offer, seeing as they continue the behavior that led to the ban in the first place? A good faith attempt was made, however the actions show they do not want to take it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Is that still on the table? Banned six months ago, and a very explicit message of what not to do by User: Ivanvector here three weeks ago. Still no change in bahaviour. Meters (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The standard offer is always available, that's why it's a standard offer. It's up to her to meet its requirements. So far she doesn't even seem to be trying, and yeah I think I was pretty clear with my message on her talk page. In her case if she actually managed to not sock for six months, I would see it as a remarkable improvement and seriously consider endorsing an unblock request. But I think it's going to be a long time before she gets that message, and the longer she keeps this up, the more enemies she's going to make, and the harder it's going to be to ever come back from the hole she's digging entirely on her own.

Anyway, I don't think keeping this thread open is heading toward solving anything, so why don't we close it? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

IPBE - IP block exemption removals

This post is to inform the community that an audit of IP block exemption permission holders occurred over the course of the past month. Of the 269 users who held the right, only a small amount of the users demonstrate a need to continuing editing with IPBE. The remaining users had the IPBE right removed with the overwhelming reason being the user was affected by a hard block that has since expired. Other reasons for removal include extended inactivity (which can be restored if they return and demonstrate a need for IPBE), the original reason for issuing IPBE was insufficient, and in one instance, for abuse of the IPBE privilege.

After reviewing the permission log, I believe it would be beneficial to improve the documentation provided when issuing IPBE. A handful of requests only cited “per user request”. It would be helpful to include a link to the request to discern why it was granted. I also highly encourage admins to provide further documentation on the IP block exemption page.

It’s important to remember that issuing IPBE because the individual is a “trusted user” is not sufficient. It should only be granted in situations where the the user is unintentionally affected by a hard IP block or in exceptional circumstances needs to edit via anonymous means. Exceptional circumstances have usually included situations where there is a credible concern for one’s safety or if the editor lives in a location where Misplaced Pages is censored by the government. Requests for IBPE for general privacy reasons (e.g. “I wish to hide my IP address for personal reasons.”) have been declined by the functionary team in the past.

Before issuing IPBE, it’s usually a good idea to consult a checkuser. If it’s for a range block, we can privately make note of when it will expire and how long it may be needed. If it’s for editing through anonymous means, the functionary team should be contacted to discuss the reason for editing though an anonymous method and to verify the need.

Best regards, Mike V • Talk 05:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Having participated in one or two similar audits over the years, I want to thank Mike V for his work on this. Something that is worth noting is that, as our project becomes ever more integrated with other Wikimedia projects (in particular Commons and Wikidata), IPBE on just our project may no longer really be the best solution for those users who have legitimate use for it. It may be time for us to consider routinely recommending that users apply for global IPBE if they edit any other Wikimedia site. Given that even in a busy year there aren't that many requests, this could be worthwhile.

  As an aside, when discussing the use of IPBE with some other administrators recently, I was asked what "bad" reasons I'd been given when requesting IPBE. The worst I've personally experienced is "I'm going to Cuba and want to use Tor to watch movies while I'm there." I've also been asked for IPBE by users whose usual VPN was soft-blocked; they'd become alarmed when seeing the message that the IP was blocked and missed the part about being able to log in. They didn't need IPBE, they needed to log in, and they would have had no problems - but if the user wasn't willing to reveal their IP to an administrator, the admin would have no way to verify the nature of the IP block (global, local, hard block, soft block, etc.). Administrators might want to keep this in mind, and consider reviewing with a checkuser before granting IPBE. Risker (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

  It might be worth mentioning a bit about the global flag on the IPBE page; that would be the best route for individuals who are blocked under global blocks and edit multiple projects. To make matters difficult, the global flag will not exempt users from local blocks, so in some cases both might need to be granted. On the policy side, I'll see if that can be changed, though I imagine that the original reason (don't let global rights override local restrictions) will stand and the potential for abuse would be much higher otherwise. As a note for the future, I'm not sure if global blocks were checked as part of this audit, but it would be worth doing. Especially in the past, users have been directed back to a project if they edit mainly on just one, even if they are trying to get exemption from a global block. It is one more list to check though, and I understand that this is an arduous process as-is. Ajraddatz (Talk) 09:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• In future, it would be helpful if admins removing user rights would actually tell the users directly, with an explanation, instead of hoping vaguely that they will find a thread that uses an obscure abbreviation in its header, on a message board that most editors do not watch or visit. DuncanHill (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, while I have no problem with this change, this explanation should have been posted beforehand, and the affected users pointed to it, rather than making us hunt around for it. – Smyth\ 12:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Possibly an ignorant question, but don't all admins have IPBE because it's part of the admin bundle? If so, why is "trusted user" not a sufficient reason to grant this right? And why is there a need to remove it from productive editors who aren't actively using it? We don't do that for any other userright that I know of. Jenks24 (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Misplaced Pages talk:IP block exemption is a more appropriate venue for that discussion. – Smyth\ 12:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If memory serves me, IPBE allows users to edit using Tor. An admin editing through Tor will still be subject to the block, even when logged in. Elockid  12:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Bots and Administrators are ipblock-exempt, however tor blocks require an additional override torunblocked that is only on IPBE. — xaosflux 14:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I realise this isn't the place to formally propose a change, but it seems to me that splitting the IPBE userright into two separate rights (one for editing via Tor and the other for general editing around a hardblock) could save a fair bit of effort in future. Jenks24 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Jenks24: We do have certain rights that are removed if they are not being used. The account creator right is only granted to active users in the education program or in the account creation process. Users who are no longer active in these roles may have the permission removed. The checkuser and oversight right must be used at least 5 times every 3 months to retain the permissions. A number of our editing rights are also subject to activity requirements. The bureaucrat, admin, and template editor rights are removed from editors who have been inactive for a year. Specifically for the bureaucrat role, they must meet the minimum level of bureaucrat activity in addition to the inactivity policy. Mike V • Talk 19:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V: At least with removal of admin or bureaucrat rights, people get advance notice and personal messages telling them about it. You did not bother to do either. DuncanHill (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with people saying you should be warned about removal - this is meant to be a tempory right to get you round a block, not a long-term one. I think this sort of audit should be done every 6 months or so, with the right being removed without warning. Mdann52 (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

When it comes with warning, there should be a clear message left when the right is granted indicated that all grants of IPBE are audited regularly and removed without notice if they are found to no longer be useful to the user. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, we do have that message. The IPBE template says Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked (through the use of CheckUser) periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires). Perhaps we can encourage other admins to use it more often or pass on the important bits if leaving a more informal message. Mike V • Talk 02:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like Mike cares whether it remains useful to the user. While Mike himself could continue to edit using a VPN/proxy if he desired, evidently he won't allow others to do so unless they confess a dire need to him through direct e-mail. I think that is ridiculous and yet one more example of bureaucracy for its own sake run amok. I suppose I won't be editing again unless I happen to be traveling as I am now. I've made only a small number of edits over the last couple of years and I'm sure Mike considers that to be a solid tradeoff against the serious risk posed by my account having IPBE. Nathan 04:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Nathan, I've restored it. Mike, you need to explain now why you totally ignored the statement in the policy page, However in all cases, removal should be preventative and not punitive. How are your actions preventive? Kindly heed policy instead of imposing your contrary interpretations of it. Nyttend (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V: I see that User:LouisAlain is also blocked. You say that he is using a web host, and should edit through his normal service provider. He mentioned last year that he had switched ISPs and was now with Freebox, which is actually the name of their ADSL-VDSL-FTTH modem. These modems also function as WiFi hotspots for other Freebox customers, could that be causing the problem? Prevalence 19:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I edit rarely on en.wikipedia, but I want to leave the note that I'm extremly confused and surprised about this procedure. While I currently can edit without that right obviously, I use an ISP with few IP addresses shared by many users. This means, it is not unlikely that a vandal will cause another IP range block in the near future that I will be affected by. Where is the disadvantage of trusted users being granted this right? Is there any situation when the right can be abused by a user doing good edits? Furthermore, as I'm home to de.wikipedia where we have extremely strict rules regarding usage of CheckUser, I'm even more confused that it seems normal here to regularly checkuser accounts with only constructive edits just for some clean-up purposes, to find out what ISP and what country users edit from and to find out whether they use a VPN. Why wouldn't you allow trusted users to use a VPN if they feel safer doing so, although they can't prove their life to be in danger to Mike V? Maybe it is only financial or social risks and/or someone does not want to reveal his/her situation to Mike V? I wasn't aware of these policies and I will for sure never again apply for the IPBE right. Should I ever again run into a range block here, I will simply not do my planned edit. I'm more than astonished that the en.wikipedia community endures this procedure that doesn't make any sense to me besides doing it for its own sake while condoning its disadvantages. Goodbye. Yellowcard (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"in one instance, for abuse of the IPBE"

Hi.

Quoting Mike V above, he said about the reasons of removing IPBE: "...and in one instance, for abuse of the IPBE privilege." Well, I assume I must be that case because my IPBE was removed with such an allegation. Mike V provided two reasons, but I am only here about the following. In email communication with functionaries mailing list, I receive the following responses:

While reviewing your contributions, it was found that you used the IPBE privilege to engage in an edit war on Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Computing.

...

The edit warring occurred November 25, 2015.

Any further attempt to communicate was met with silence.

On 25 November 2015, there have only been five revisions to the alleged page. Two of them were made by me: Only one is a revert. (The latter.) I have provided three reasons against the allegations of edit warring:

1. Two edits in one day in one page is by no standards edit warring, unless there is significant evidence of mens rea. Note: The dispute died then and there.
2. The editor against whom I committed the revert is 73.40.108.10: He is twice reverted by admins, once by Materialscientist and once by JamesBWatson. The block reason reads: "Disruptive editing, declared intention of defying Misplaced Pages policy, stalking, trolling, ..." He is committed to harassing me through hounding and this was one of those instances.
3. BRD is not a measure for edit warring in MOS pages because they are under discretionary ArbCom sanction. The onus of demonstrating community consensus before reinstating the change was with 73.40.108.10.

So, I am asking you guys: Do you really think I edit warred here? Or is it an accepted norm that functionaries like Mike V must simply accuse their target of edit warring as well?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: When you look up "Productive Misplaced Pages Editor in Good standing" in the dictionary, you see Codename Lisa's picture. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll reiterate what I said earlier. I can't discuss technical details on-wiki. You are welcome to discuss this with arbcom if you wish and I'll pass on my notes to them. As DoRD explained via email, edit warring was not the primary reason IPBE was revoked. Mike V • Talk 00:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Mike V, nobody asked you to do what you just said you can't. But you can very well not level unfounded heart-rending accusations like this. And please stop with this "not the only reason" flirt line; even if someone kills the entire Wikimedia Board of Trustees, you are not allow to call him an edit warrior. "F**aking murderer", yes, but "edit warrior" no.

You could also drop the edit warring charges. Then I'll heed your warning and get out of your face. —Codename Lisa (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You said that you didn't receive my email message, so here is the essence of what I wrote: You logged out and edited in violation of the sockpuppetry policy, which is more than enough to justify the removal of IPBE. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

And I wrote two reasons why that was also wrong. Plus, that still doesn't make me an edit warrior. Your sock accusation must have been too wafer-thin for you to have decided to bolster it with an outrageous edit warring claim. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Codename Lisa has given permission (See User talk:Codename Lisa#IPBE) to "allow all details regarding the allegation of edit warring on 15 November 2015 in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Computing to be revealed". May we now see some diffs showing edit warring or an apology and affirmation that there was none? It's OK to add a note saying that there were other reasons for the removal, but for the specific claim of edit warring, I want to see evidence in the form of diffs.

Misplaced Pages administrators lie in a world where many accusations of wrongdoing are made which fizzle out for lack of evidence. It is important to realize that some editors in good standing (Codename Lisa among them) strongly object to what they see as false accusations and want their name to be cleared. This is by no means a trivial desire; it may not seem important to an outsider but it is important to the person being accused, and that alone is sufficient reason to either present evidence or give a full apology that confirms that there is no evidence (not some "edit warring was not the primary reason IPBE was revoked" weasel words that let the accusation stand). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The logged-out editing I looked at was completely unrelated to, and quite a bit more recent than the November 25 edits. Mike's CU results were verified by two independent CheckUsers, once before removal of IPBE, and afterwards by me. On this point, there is no lack of evidence, but the privacy policy limits how much we can publicly say about it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@DoRD: Your refusal to get the point is disconcerting, DoRD. Understand this: The edit warring charge is one million time worse than any sock-puppetry. Sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry are alluring to any desperate contributor who hasn't tasted the sweetness of teamwork under the auspices of WP:DR, or who would feel strongly about losing. Edit warring in a MOS page? The editor who does it needs to be imprisoned. The only person who has so far accused me of edit warring in this fashion was the same stalker-troll I mentioned above. So, please throw anything you have to say about the removal of IPBE into the trash can; I am not pining for it as much as I am for being accused of edit warring by an oversighter and admin. —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you are clearly uninterested in what I have to say about the matter, I will not be commenting further. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V:, please reply here with the evidence about the use of IPBE to engage in edit warring by Codename Lisa. It seems to be totally inconsistent with the page history, and the accused editor has asked you quite reasonably to explain this further. You don't need to reveal e.g. IP addresses, just explain how it is possible that the only IP address used on that page that day (or the days before) was one that got reverted by Codename Lisa (and has since been blocked thrice, but not at that time). There were no other IP edits, the IP wasn't blocked, so how can IPBE have been misused here? The only thing I can see as possible is that she first tried to edit while logged out, and that that edit was logged as an IP blocked edit attempt; and that she then logged in to make that edit. Just supposing that this scenario is correct: that is not "misusing IPBE", that is "accidentally editing while logged out", which regularly happens to most of us. That that logged out edit came from a blocked IP address is exactly the reason why she has and needs IPBE, not a reason to remove that option. Fram (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't provide any further information because of the technical data involved and the privacy policy. Feel free to pass on any concerns to the arbitration committee and they can confirm it for you independently. Mike V • Talk 16:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Apparently, this information is so private that I myself cannot see it in private. —Codename Lisa (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I really do feel for you Codename Lisa; I've worked with you on WikiProject Microsoft for as long as I know (in fact, I was the editor that invited you), and I honestly can say that I trust you and your integrity as an editor so much that I would happily play Russian Roulette with six bullets for you, such is the level at which I think the allegations against you are false. It is so disheartening to see an editor who has undoubtably contributed so much to not just the technology articles in Misplaced Pages, but further afield too, be accused of the same heinous crimes that we might associate days old vandalising new users or school IPs with. I think it is incredible that Mike V can ignore the community's request for evidence, even to you in private, and that he can use such passive aggressive language ("You are welcome to discuss this with arbcom if you wish"? Seriously? Give me a break!) towards you just because he has the almighty power of CheckUser. I think this also draws further parallels with Yellowcard's statement and LouisAlain's situation (it's quite clear that his French host is doing something akin to BT in the UK, where customer routers also share their Wifi out to other BT customers through a login page) . The use of CheckUser on this Misplaced Pages is on par with Eastern German surveillance mechanisms; and not just the mechanisms, the system too. Where else can an editor with 70,000 edits be blocked from editing for not one, not two but four years? Where else can an confused editor be spun into a Donald Trump-esque speech line: "and in one instance, for abuse of the IPBE privilege", when what you've actually done is in defiance to every well established law system there is: "innocent until proven guilty"? Codename Lisa has not been proven guilty; what you're doing is akin to Russian style politics which even Putin would be proud of. DoRD's realised that Codename Lisa might be swaying people, then shut down the conversation: "I will not be commenting further". Mike V does the excellent tactic- "let's make this die down by refusing to give away any information, then everyone will forget about it and we can carry on as usual"- actual quote: "I can't provide any further information because of the technical data involved and the privacy policy", even to Codename Lisa herself. Yeah right. Even worse this is straight after Fram pointed out that Codename Lisa's accusation of sock puppetry was exactly why she needed IPBE- "That that logged out edit came from a blocked IP address is exactly the reason why she has and needs IPBE, not a reason to remove that option". Mike V has also, following in the same vein, failed to respond to Nyttend or Prevalence's point further up. It is clear that other Wikipedias have it done correctly- the French Misplaced Pages is a lot more flexible with their handing-out of IPBE, and the German Misplaced Pages is miles more strict with their use of CheckUser. However, despite the lack of either the French or German Misplaced Pages to cry for help because they are facing an unprecedented wave of vandalism due to their policies, Mike V and others refuse to admit they are wrong. As brilliantly put by RexxS, "the only loser if we refuse to restore IPBE is the English Misplaced Pages." I am actually genuinely feeling at the moment as if I am writing a farewell to Codename Lisa, an editor who has contributed 38,839 edits to this community project and is being accused, of all things, of sockpuppetery (which also raises the question of her non-existent motive for doing so). Thank you for your time, and I can only hope that someone decides to scream blue murder and spread the message of how a couple of excellent long-term editors are being swept away and alienated from the project by a select few who think they know it all. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jcc: I truly believe that you have a misunderstanding of the privacy policy. I'm not using it as a means to stop the questions. Rather, I've openly encourage Codename Lisa to seek a review from other checkusers or the arbitration committee. The confidentiality agreement is a legally binding contact between the functionaries and the WMF. Breaching it would undoubtably have serious legal ramifications, not to mention the loss of the trust between the community and the functionary team. The community expects us to keep this information private, even in moments where others may view it as inconvenient. Mike V • Talk 21:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V: Thank you for your quick response. But here we go again, as Codename Lisa has agreed to "allow all details regarding the allegation of edit warring on 15 November 2015 in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Computing to be revealed", but you refuse to. I am sure that her wishes have been made quite explicitly, and they should be followed; however, if that cannot be done, then Codename Lisa should at least be emailed the details in private. This is another example of what I talked about- how can we allow a long term editor to attempt to defend themselves, in front of ArbCom no less, when they have no idea what they are being accused of and what evidence they are trying to refute. You have also failed to answer my other points- you have now been told by both myself and Prevalence of a rational, logical explanation behind LouisAlan's CheckUser outcome, and not yet resolved it; and also failed to respond to Nyttend, failed to respond to Fram's point and ignored the point- the other CheckUsers can see exactly the same results as you- but it is the interpretation that matters. If you are going to accuse a well-respected editor of sockpuppetry and edit warring, then you should answer the questions raised, not just ignore them. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jcc: Codename Lisa has sent me an email stating that she is rescinding her permission to post her technical data. (See mentioned backing out of the review on her user talk page.) We usually don't provide the technical data to those who have been found to be in violation of policy because, quite frankly, it makes it easier to get away with it next time. (Nor does policy expect us to provide it in the first place.) I've already responded about LouisAlain at ANI and to Nyytend on his talk page. Fram's scenario, while made in good faith, is not consistent with the information at hand. It think it bears repeating that this has been confirmed by two other checkusers and they agree that there is a solid basis for my statements. Mike V • Talk 22:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V: For clarification, I have a pixel-perfect idea of what technical data you are talking about: MediaWiki is free and open-source; all I had to do was to download a copy of it using Microsoft WebMatrix. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V:: In the case of LouisAlain, your actions, followed by his comment saying he was banned until Feb 11, 2019, allowed me to identify with near certainty not only the IP range but also the exact (static) IP address (88...31) he was using, so there are some holes in that privacy policy (and before someone suggests it, let me say that keeping the hardblocked IP's secret is not an acceptable option). I repeat that that is almost certainly the address of a Freebox modem/router belonging to an ISP subscriber, not a web host (the modems have a built-in webserver, RAS..., and also function as WiFi hotspot for other Freebox subscribers). That range shouldn't have been blocked as webhostblock. Free SAS (proxad.net, AS12322) seems to have a reputation as spam ISP, maybe open proxies, but if any open proxies exist in that range, they should be blocked individually, since they seem to be privately owned (at least the .31 address). Prevalence 06:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I actually read the above mélange. It is clear that no edit war per se occurred - so we can basically drop that as a rationale of any worth. What we have is an accusation of sock-puppetry, which appears, on its face, and having some knowledge of what CU could and could not do on AOL/CompuServe, to be weak enough that Mike V well ought to consider the possible merits of backing down instead of insisting that his actions are right because he is able to take those actions. There are time when being able to do something is not quite the same as having it be right to do it. Collect (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• There are two points I'd like to make here:

• Some commenters here seem to misunderstand what IPBE does. It allows only logged in users to use otherwise blocked IP adresses. It cannot be used by anonymous IP users.
• I do think we are too stingy in granting IPBE. The solution to that is not to berate MikeV, but rather to work to loosen the policy. An RFC seems in order to accomplish that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What is good cause for the exemption/changing the policy

Mike V I had requested the permission, received it, and now lost it in this audit. My request was not due to privacy (wanting to hide my IP) but rather security. I travel on business relatively often, and am forced to use airport or hotel wifi for internet access. It is virtually unanimously recommended by security professionals to use a VPN in such circumstances to avoid hacking as those connections are notoriously insecure. Similar recommendations are regularly made for those editing at Starbucks, school wifi, or any non-trusted environment. All major VPN vendors are currently blocked by IP blocks.

This policy forces people either to not edit wikipedia, or to expose themselves to significant hacking risk, including risk outside of wikipedia .many people have automatically fetching emails, or other syncs. Many people need to conduct non-wikipedia business such as banking simultaneously. Even merely connecting to the WiFi and not doing any browsing or work is risky as there are numerous vulnerabilities which include the ability to infect the users computer with malware and viruses when not protected.

Although I understand the restriction being on by default for anonymous and named accounts, I am somewhat confused by the purpose of the policy for established and trusted editors. The exemption is bound to one's account. It does not allow one to sock or commit vandalism anonymously or anything. Indeed, by asking for the permission one has drawn additional attention and scrutiny to ones-self making it more difficult to get away with such actions.

Is this a community policy? a WMF policy? What would be the process for going about changing what "acceptable reasons" are? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, I note that my request to get the right was done through a request to the functionaries, and Mike's removal of that right with the reasoning that my request was insufficient seems to be weak-sauce if the functionaries evaluated it and allowed it. Mike's post reads like this was an official audit, but on further reading it seems that this is a unilateral action? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I have created an RFC on this topic Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exemption#Less_restrictive_IPBE_RFCGaijin42 (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Using a VPN or Tor or other anonymizing proxy changes the way a user's IP address is presented to Misplaced Pages servers. When you request for wikipedia.org in your browser, your computer would first connect to the VPN server, which then connects to Misplaced Pages's servers, which sends it back the VPN server, which passes it back to you. The VPN is like a middle man. You see Misplaced Pages, but the Misplaced Pages servers see the VPN's IP address, instead of yours. Thus, if a user were to create one account through a VPN and one account through a normal Internet connection, they would appear to a CheckUser to be two separate users, even though the accounts were created on the same computer. This is the reason why all of the VPN and Tor IP addresses are hard-blocked, and this is also the reason why arbitrarily giving out IP block exemption to users who aren't trusted and who don't have an exceptional need for it is against policy. It creates a risk of uncheckable sock-puppetry. Mz7 (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

How does this use of CheckUser fit within policy?

How does using CheckUser to confirm continued need for IPBE fit in with the global and local policies on CheckUser usage? It seems to me that checking accounts to confirm if they still need the flag does not fit under any of the local policy points; it isn't vandalism, there is no evidence of sock puppetry, there is no suggestion of disruption, and there don't seem to be any concerns about bad faith editing. I'm just talking about routine auditing of users with the right here - obviously, in cases where it is suspected that the flag is being abused, CU action could be warranted under policy.

As demonstrated by the responses here and on the IPBE talk page, I wonder if there is a better way to do these audits. I know that most other projects simply ask users if they still need the flag - if the user is inactive, states that they no longer need it, or there are legitimate grounds to believe that they are using the flag for disruption then it can be removed (and investigated in the last case). But this routine checking of good-faith accounts seems strange to me. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not in compliance with policy at all - the only possible jusification could be to prevent disruption but all it has done is cause disruption. User:Mike V, please restore the IPBEs you removed. Please also pledge not to use checkuser for such "audits" in future unless you have consensus from an RfC. There has been significant opposition to these actions here, at WT:IPBE, and at User talk:Mike V from users in good standing. If you don't revert, I'll ask Arbcom to remove CU from your account. Fences&Windows 10:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I've outline here and on my talk page how it falls within policy. I don't think it's fair to equate removing IPBE as "disruption" as we normally use it to describe instances of vandalism, block evasion, sockpuppetry, etc. I believe that you've missed my initial posting, where I mentioned that a vast majority of users are no longer affected by the range block for which they were issued IPBE. Our present policy encourages its removal. I disagree that there is significant opposition to this. Of the 200 users who had the right removed, only approximately 25 contacted me, with a fair amount just asking for clarification. Nevertheless, if you feel the policy should change you are welcome to start an RfC. Mike V • Talk 14:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

You have addressed how it fits into the IPBE policy; I am concerned with how it fits into the check user policy. In particular, what the justification could be for checking accounts in absence of any evidence of disruption. If this practice violates the policy on check user usage, then it should stop regardless of an RfC on the topic. I am trying to find out if there is a justification for it, not pillory you for happening to perform the audit. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The checkuser policy does not limit checks to cases where there is evidence of disruption. Mike V's review showed few problems. That was not the case in previous reviews; on more than one occasion we found sockpuppetry and significant inappropriate use. Now, it may be that because there were problems found in the past, administrators are more cautious in giving out the permission, and the current holders were much more benign. But that has not always been the case. Risker (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it isn't just disruption. It can be used for sockpuppetry investigations and preventing vandalism too, but I'm not sure how either of those would fit. If there is reasonable evidence of disruption then the checks are warranted. I'm just not sure how they are without an a priori rationale. (Also not sure about your comment on global blocks. Stewards tend to follow the CU policy pretty closely) Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The local CheckUser policy states that the tool can be used to prevent potential disruption. There is no prerequisite for evidence of already-committed disruption to conduct a CheckUser, only evidence that there is a serious concern to suspect potential disruption, and granting IP block exemption does create a significant potential for disruption. Editing through a VPN or Tor obscures a user's technical information from CheckUsers, such as their IP address, so if a user were to edit with one account through an VPN and a sockpuppet account through a normal Internet connection, there would be no way to connect the two accounts with CheckUser data. To prevent this kind of uncheckable sockpuppetry from happening, the IP addresses of VPNs and Tor exit nodes are permanently hard-blocked. IPBE allows users to circumvent the hardblock, creating a potential for disruption. Therefore, CheckUsers are jointly permitted by the IPBE and the CheckUser policies to review, at any time, IP block exemption users, and remove the flag from accounts that are abusing it or that no longer need it. Mz7 (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of the right and what it does, thanks. Your explanation of the IPBE being reason enough to suspect disruption is the best I've heard so far, though it still sounds a lot like fishing to me. Meh, maybe I just have a view of the policy that is unreasonably restrictive. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. User privacy is indeed something we must take seriously, and I'm glad you're considering it. However, IPBE is not a "no big deal" flag. It presents us with certain risks that we also have to take seriously. When users sign up for IPBE, they need to understand that it is a big deal, and CheckUser will be used (multiple times) to see if it is actually needed. Mz7 (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Administrative Actions of Nyttend

During the course of my IPBE review, I had reviewed the IPBE right of Nathan and found that he did not meet the criteria for using the IPBE right. The right was removed because it was no longer needed since the editor has access to a a non-firewalled IP address. In addition, the reason for granting IPBE ("user in good standing, request seems reasonable") was insufficient and didn't meet the expectations of the IPBE policy. Recently, Nyttend restored the right without first discussing the issue with me. I'm concerned that this falls under a misuse of his administrative tools, as administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged. I believe that the reversal was without good cause, as Nyttend is not privy to the checkuser information that would verify that Nathan does not have need of the IBPE right. In addition, I've been presently available and it seems unreasonable for Nyttend to taking any action without first discuss this with me.

I approached Nyttend on his talk page to discuss my explanation further and to ask why he reverted my action without consulting me first. I found his reasoning to be incorrect (as my actions were supported by the policy I've provided), as well as inadequate (I don't see why this was such a pressing issue that it must have been reverted, fully knowing that I would have objected on reasonable grounds.) I've requested Nyttend to permit me to revert his actions, to which he has declined. I'm bringing this to the community to discuss the misuse of administrative tools and to seek a consensus to overturn Nyttend's actions. Mike V • Talk 23:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

FTR, this belongs at WP:AN, not here (esp. if you want more Admin eyes on it...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I brought it here since the admin noticeboard suggests using ANI for specific instances. However, I would have no objection to having it moved to AN. Mike V • Talk 00:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

My thinking on AN being the better forum is that this is less an "incident", and more a disagreement over the interpretation of Administrative actions/policy. Those of us around ANI who aren't Admins (which is most of us) probably aren't going to have a lot of insight on the details of IP block exemption policy... YMMV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• From my vantage point, it seems like your actions were reasonable, informed, and within policy. (IP address exemption is a privilege given to editors who need it). By contrast, Nyttend's response seems arrogant and unyielding. Nyttend should reverse his own action restoring the IPBE or consent to allowing you to do it yourself.- MrX 00:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• The way I read the policy is IPBE should only be temporary as long as the right is needed in order to continue editing articles. I take this from two parts in the policy. First, under the conditions for granting, when the block ends, or ceases to be an issue for the editor, the exemption will be removed by any administrator and second under the removal section, relevant hard IP address block ended and not anticipated to recur; editor has access to Misplaced Pages through a non-firewalled IP address. As a CU, Mike V has access to information that Nyttend does not have and would be able to make the determination on whether or not the requirement is necessary much more easily. Assuming that Mike V did all the prerequisite work of making sure the editor can edit normally without IPBE, I believe his actions were completely correct. Nyttend's reversal of his action was hasty and not in the spirit of admin cooperation and discussion. The policy does not state that the right may be removed if it is no longer needed. It says it will be removed when it is no longer needed. Mike V was enforcing our policy. Nyttend should reverse their action, permit Mike V to do so, or provide a valid reason why Nathan needs that right (specifically why they cannot edit normally without it). --Majora (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn Mike V made a reasonable proposal about reviewing and removing IP block exempt (IPBE) permissions that no longer serve a purpose. Furthermore, if a permission was granted given a poor rationale, I'd expect an administrator to be able to revoke it, no matter what it was. Indeed, No longer needed or insufficient rationale for granting is listed as a typical reason about why IPBE is removed generally. These "no longer needed / insufficient rationale" cases seem entirely separate from cases of abuse, where the preventative vs. punitive distinction is actually relevant, which is what Nyttend has cited as a rationale for reinstating the IPBE permissions. I agree Nyttend should have discussed this concern with Mike V or pointed it out in the discussion first. What I really think is needed here is some rewriting of that section of the policy. Anyone want to help me propose a rewrite there? I, JethroBT 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  It's simple. Remove "However in all cases, removal should be preventative and not punitive.", which is little more than a platitude. It's also incompatible with the rule that the right should be removed if it's not needed. "Being needed" is not synonymous with "being preventative."- MrX 01:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Quick notes (1) I disagree with the interpretation of the policy being advanced here, but if the community either endorses the other interpretation or thinks this is a good time to ignore the rules, I have no reason to complain; my objection is that one individual mustn't unilaterally do it. (2) I endorse any reasonable proposal to rewrite the criteria. If there's a fundamental disagreement regarding what's intended, it's definitely time to clear up the meaning, one way or the other. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Would you care to explain your interpretation of the policy then? It would be helpful if we knew what rules we are allegedly "ignoring". Is there a talk page discussion you've started on said rules? Can you point us to it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'd have preferred to see more thorough discussion, though I can kind of see Nyttend's IAR basis insofar as it looked like leaving it off was going to drive away an editor. But I think that sort of matter should be built into the IPBE review policy (i.e., a "restore pending discussion" period where admins/CUs/whoever can review it as a group when the editor in question isn't a risk). I guess my point is I'd rather have seen more thorough discussion prior to restoring the IPBE. I have zero opinion on whether this editor should have IPBE or whether the IPBE policy needs revision. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 04:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn If checkuser information shows the right is not needed then it should not be there. I don't think either side has behaved poorly, just that there is a disagreement. My 2 cents is that Mike V is in a better position to make an informed decision. A discussion on the policy talk page may yield a policy that is more clear. Discussing the issue with Mike V before reversing it would have been a lot better, and policy really encourages it. HighInBC 04:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am a bit concerned about the (correct me if I am wrong) removals with no warning or discussion on the user's talk page. I have IP exempt because I often do everything through Tor because I am at a remote site where industrial espionage is a real problem (I do consulting work in the toy industry). I often end up waiting around for someone at the remote site so I edit Misplaced Pages. The thing is, I might go nine months without needing IP exempt then suddenly have to spend a couple of months in China where I need it very badly. I don't want some admin to remove the right without first discussing it with me and giving me a chance to explain my situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I am slightly more concerned that since there was no discussion with any of the editors whose rights were removed, how was it determined they no longer had a need for IPBE? Was a checkuser run on every IPBE holder to determine how/where they were editing from? While IPBE allows for review, it doesnt specify how that review will take place and the policy regarding Checkuser use on ENWP does not allow for that sort of fishing around in people's private data held by the WMF. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    • That is an interesting question. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 11:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
      • How would a checkuser have revealed that for the last few months I have had no need for IPBE but next week I might be in China working under a consulting contract that specifies that I must access the Internet is through Tails and Tor? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Well it wouldnt, that was rather the point. Since no effort was made to contact the users with the exemption, as far as I can see (and from Mike's comments on his userpage) his decision was entirely based upon the editing history. Which means he would have had to checkuser hundreds of people in order to determine that. And I am still waiting for someone to point to where in the ENWP checkuser policy that is allowed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a check was performed. A check is permitted if done for a legitimate purpose. (The IP audit check is considered a legitimate purpose per the IPBE policy. I went through all available logs and avenues of information to determine the reason that IPBE was applied. (e.g. contacting other checkusers, searching through UTRS, digging through the history of talk pages, etc.) The reason the IPBE was applied was compared to the technical data. If the reason no longer applied, it was removed. If it was still needed, it remained. For those who I needed further information, I contacted via email. Mike V • Talk 22:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Er the checkuser policy defines what is a legitimate purpose for checkuser, not IPBE. And it certainly does not give you permission to CU 200+ people because you think their IPBE needs to be removed. Neither the grounds for checking nor the 'legitimate purposes' section of checkuser give that as a reason. In fact the section you linked plainly states what is a legitimate purpose, and what you haveat given as justification is not it. The meta policy is even more explicit: The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects. What possible interpretation of your actions passes that threshold? Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: The first point of the CU privacy policy states that "Checkusers are given discretion to check an account, but must always do so for legitimate purposes. Broadly, checks must only be made in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing." (emphasis mine) That is not exactly a narrow definition of "legitimate purpose." Since reduction in potential abuse of IPBE can "prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption" to the project (per ENWP policy), and can "limit disruption" and "prevent damage" to the project (per meta policy), this appears to me to have been an appropriate use of the tool. If you believe that Mike V abused the tool, then per Misplaced Pages:CheckUser#Complaints and misuse and m:CheckUser policy#Removal of access you are free to request that it be removed if you feel this issue remains unresolved. (Non-administrator observation) — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - While I appreciate Mike V's efforts to clean up IPBE pursuant to the intent of IPBE, I understand the misgivings about users not being notified that the permissions were being removed; perhaps a new template to be substituted on the user's talk page could be created. I must, however, disagree wholeheartedly with Nyttend's restoration of a permission that is specifically designed to be temporary having neither full knowledge of why it was removed nor discussion with the removing administrator. Discussion regarding the removal of users' permissions is expected preferred before reversion takes place; the only plausible reason I see for reverting the removal of a user's permissions without discussion is a good-faith belief that the original administrator had "gone rogue," in which case I would also expect an ARBCOM case and emergency desysop. I support overturning Nyttend's reversions unless the affected user(s) can demonstrate a bona fide need for IPBE to be retained.

As for the process behind the mass removal, Mike V stated that an audit of IPBE permissions had occurred over the past month. I do not believe that users need to know the exact details and methods of the audit, save that such an audit can only be undertaken by administrators and/or bureaucrats. If a user doesn't trust an admin or 'crat to properly carry out such an audit, then that user is free to request that the bit be removed. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – FWIW, I think a discussion among Admins about this needs to be held at WT:IPEXEMPT. I don't agree with the current discussion over there that it should be handed out like candy and never be removed. I also don't think that removal of the right needs to be "pre-warned" in the same way that removal of Admin and Crat rights are pre-warned. But the creation of a template for a Talk page notice, stating that the right has been removed, why it has been removed, and what users can do if they want to re-request it, would be a good idea. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages talk:IP block exemption#Removal without warning or discussion --Guy Macon (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Appeal to a third. Hi. Mike V, this is not much different from standard dispute resolution in the articles, only it is far more serious. (You two should avoid wheel warring instead of edit warring, right? And the issue is the integrity of Misplaced Pages, right?) Arrange for you and Nyttend to have another checkuser (or several) review the evidence that only checkusers can see and let him appeal the removal. The advantage of this solution is that it is impervious to the faults of verdicts that arise out of us not having checkuser rights and therefore not having sufficient data to make an informed decision. And skip the issue of Nyttend not have communicated with you first. Consider this: What difference would it have made if he had briefly communicated with you and did it anyway? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• This will happen on Monday. See User talk:Codename Lisa# IPBE (2). More on Monday; let's give this a rest until then. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

BLP violations and sockpuppetry by User:Lane99

This report concerns persistent BLP violations, topic-ban evasion, and sockpuppetry by editor User:Lane99. The most recent episode appears to have been at User talk: Jimbo Wales: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&type=revision&diff=705484463&oldid=705484198

As some of you already know, the topic is Murder of Anni Dewani. This appears to have been a carjacking in South Africa that was botched and wound up with her being killed. The gunmen then confessed that it had been a murder for hire. By confession , they got lighter sentences. They tried to incriminate Shrien Dewani, her husband. He was extradited to South Africa, where he was tried and formally acquitted, with the trial court finding among other things that the confessed killers contradicted each other and were lying. User:Lane99 and his sockpuppets insist that the current article is biased because it does not reflect a judicial finding that this was a murder for hire. User:Bishonen topic-banned User:Lane99 from Murder of Anni Dewani based on BLP discretionary sanctions on 14 November. Lane99 was then blocked for 48 hours on 30 November for evading the topic-ban. Since then, the arguments that the article is “biased” (because it doesn’t state that there was a murder for hire, and because it states that Shrien Dewani was found not guilty) have been by sockpuppets. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lane99 and https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&type=revision&diff=705486051&oldid=705485256 This may not make much difference, because User:Lane99 is a single-purpose account who hasn’t edited since 30 November, when first blocked. On 1 December, Lane99 was blocked for one month for sock-puppetry. Lane99 hasn’t edited since then, preferring to let sockpuppets do the dirty work. However, when the puppet-master hasn’t learned from the one-month block, I propose that a Site Ban is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• C'est vrai (bolding lest my !vote be deemed unclear) . Collect (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Collect (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support ban relentless socking is unacceptable. Implement Pending changes on the article as well? Blackmane (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support per above. Lugnuts 07:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support - even if it is merely a formality, it's worth making a clear statement that this behavior is unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support as a gesture, I suppose. I admit I can't see it making any practical difference. Bishonen | talk 09:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC).
• Support (Non-administrator comment) just to make it official. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support but don't think it will make any difference to a relentless and prolific sock creator and meat puppet canvasser. It would be more productive to extend the the article's semi protection (it is due to expire a week from now) or implement the "Pending Changes" measure as that article is the sole target of Lane99's disruptive editing. NeilN implemented the semi 3 months ago. Dewanifacts (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Spina bifida caused from agent orange exposure

I wanted to make sure that the information on spina bifida and heterotaxy being linked to the exposure if Vietnam war veterans to agent orange. But have no idea how to change that as it says that it could have been prevented and blaming the mother. This is one of the things that are definitely linked to agent orange. Please will someone fix it as I'm not capable and I do not feel comfortable doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.235.94.221 (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Take it to the Spina Bifida or Heterotaxy talk pages along with your sources. Blackmane (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Notification of Topic Ban imposed on User:Nadirali due to a Conditional Unblock

• Admin note - This ban has been logged at WP:ER/UC. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Are you asking us to review your block, or something like that? I don't understand the big box, or if you have another reason for leaving this message, I don't understand your reason. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"Official" topic bans imposed by a single admin are kind of a new thing, I'm assuming this is intended just to notify other admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Am I the only one uncomfortable with this? I don't really object to having a topic ban imposed by a single admin as a condition of unblocking. I am opposed to such a thing where the user is restricted from appealing the ban for a fixed amount of time, especially something as long as a year. I can easily see a newer user agreeing to something that is inappropriate and then not having a means of appeal. Note: I've not looked into this case and I'm not making any claim at all it was inappropriate in this case. Merely that the idea that community review of a single admin's action can't be appealed for a period of time, especially a period as long as a year, seems troubling and against the general spirit of how Misplaced Pages works. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

  If the editor agrees, I'm not uncomfortable in general - however I'm not really in favor of some of these specifics. 1:These type of restrictions should able to be appealed without delay; think about it - will we really say "sorry it is only 11 months, come back for your appeal next month"? 2:These should not be 'indefinite', suggest capping at 1 year. — xaosflux 16:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Restrictions against vexatious appeals are pretty standard language for ArbCom bans and blocks. Without saying whether it is or is not appropriate for this one case, it happens a lot in other types of bans. --Jayron32 16:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

  It does and I'm not faulting Coffee for following that standard. I'm just uncomfortable with it given it's just one admin and A) I see potential for abuse and B) it goes against what I view as a governance principle of Misplaced Pages: individuals can be BOLD in their actions, but those actions should be reasonably review-able by others. Preventing the review of an action taken by one person, especially for as long as a year, seems problematic to me. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

These bans can lead to confusion. I recall an editor last year who believed they were under a topic ban indefinitely. I looked for the admin who imposed the topic ban, they had quit the project years ago and the original ban was only for a year. It didn't help that the topic ban was buried in user talk page archives. It helps that this one is logged at the Editing Restrictions page but that doesn't always happen so other admins are clueless if the ban is appealed. Liz 00:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem here, the ban was the condition upon which the editor was unblocked. If the editor didn't agree with it, they could have just stayed blocked and pursued an unblock using normal procedures. Conditional unblocks are hardly a new thing, nor is negotiation between an admin willing to unblock and an editor wanting to be unblocked. Nothing new here, folks. BMK (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like anyone is objecting to this specific action - more that it is opening discussion for future standards. — xaosflux 02:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

BMK has summed it up quite nicely. It would be good if this sort of notification becomes standard practice. When one goes through ] and look at some of the discussions that go on at the blocked users' talk page, you will occasionally see some negotiation between admin(s) and the blocked user. However, once the blockee is conditionally unblocked, the only way to know these conditions is to browse archives or talk page histories, which is a nuisance. Worse still is if the blockee doesn't remember or is reluctant to provide proof of past sanctions it then falls to the memory of users involved in the original negotiation. This is not ideal. AN/ANI has a lot of traffic so it is a good thing to leave a notification that an edit restrictoin has been logged and where it is logged. Blackmane (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm on vacation at the moment. I will consider this when I get back and may start an RfC on the issue later. Again, I've not looked at this specific case and have no opinion on it. Hobit (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

GA reviewer

I am uncomfortable with the rate at which MeAsAPerson (talk · contribs) is passing GA nominations, with no proper review. Some intervention is very likely required and the articles renominated/reassessed. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (negotiate) 00:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• All of those need to be rolled back. For those of us who are waiting for a review on an article we have put a lot of work into but would like serious feedback (ahem), for the reviews to be treated like that is ridiculous. That's not to say these articles don't pass the criteria, but you can't review something in 3 minutes. Laura Jamieson (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations be appropriate? This editor has only been active for 3 weeks and I think those who are familiar with the GA process could give him/her feedback on how things are handled. Liz 00:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

That is a good idea and should be done, but I wanted to get attention to sort out these articles ASAP and don't have the time to be engaging in multiple discussions right now. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) 00:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No, Liz. The edits need to be rolled back, the GA pages deleted (hence why the request is here - we can't do that), and then the editor engaged in discussion as to why what they're doing is disruptive. Laura Jamieson (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm involved (I nominated one of the affected articles) but I agree: the cleanest solution is to delete the GA pages, roll back the edits on the talk pages that replaced the nomination with a pass, and (if possible) manually adjust the time stamps and positioning on the GA nomination list, so we can return to the status quo and get these properly reviewed. There is no content to be saved from these "reviews", and no value to the project in using them as the basis for GA status. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Seven GA reviews in 38 minutes? That isn't even enough time to read the articles, much less assess them. This person needs to stop reviewing GAs now, and all of the reviews need to be unwound. We've had a few similar incidents in the past, and that's how it's been dealt with. What would really help is to have an admin delete the seven review pages. For now, I'll restore the various article talk pages to undo the passage, temporarily upping the page parameter by one so the bot doesn't attempt to reinstate the reviews, and then restoring it once the review pages have been deleted. If there isn't an available admin, I can request a speedy delete for each, but I'd rather not if I don't have to. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, how about a list of the pages you are referencing here? — xaosflux 02:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing, Xaosflux. Note that I have unwound the reviews, and MarnetteD has independently marked all the review pages (linked below) for speedy deletion.

• Talk:Book embedding/GA1
• Talk:Happy Refugees/GA1
• Talk:Diamond Rio/GA1
• Talk:Mary Isenhour/GA1
• Talk:Alasdair Cochrane/GA1
• Talk:Mount Washington (New Hampshire)/GA1
• Talk:Inside Out (2015 film)/GA1

My edits were to the article talk page to restore the GA nominee template, and if a GA icon had been added to the article page, I removed that as well. In one case, the article name had been added on the GA pages, so I reverted that edit as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I should probably add that a few hours before these reviews were opened, the reviewer nominated the article Big Kap for GA. The article is so far from meeting the GA criteria that it clearly shows a lack of understanding of what a GA is. (The nomination was also unwound.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Racist Refdesk Troll Countermeasures

Hello to all,

As you may know, the Reference Desks have been put under a sustained attack by sockpuppets of LTA Soft skin. (Please note that Soft skin is not likely the original account; there are others.) They have created over 160 sockpuppets -- and that's just by tallying up the named ones reported to SPI! They geolocate to Alberta, Canada, and Globalive Wireless is probably the provider. The refdesks have had to be protected numerous times, and each individual spree can involve handfuls of socks at a time. There has been quite intensive discussion over how to deal with this, but there has been no conclusive course of action, and RBI seems to be the only option.

I am proposing to contact the provider (Globalive) and ask them to look into this. The abuse and disruption has lasted for months (maybe as long as a year), and while I don't know the minutiae of Canada's hate crime or internet laws, this is getting really egregious. I suggested this at the SPI a while back, and MarnetteD also mentioned this possibility. While I cannot cite the incident chapter and verse, I am aware that we have used some similar tactics in the past.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance,

GAB 00:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Abuse response. --Jayron32 02:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jayron32: According to Misplaced Pages:Abuse response, this process retired in November 2013... Is it still currently being used? AeroAuxiliary (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Largely because its goal (organizing Misplaced Pages users and empowering them to contact ISPs to seek remediation against trolls) was almost universally ignored by said ISPs. As in, there's not a damned thing we can do except WP:RBI and hope he gets bored. --Jayron32 02:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Globalive Wireless is Wind Mobile. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I do not believe there is much interest from the side of the WMF to get involved in such cases, but I hope I'm wrong about that. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe next time he's there, you could point him toward User talk:Soft skin. I could have a chat with him. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This IP: 86.187.166.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was added to the sockpuppet investigation. I'm not sure if they are related or not... can someone check on this? AeroAuxiliary (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless its a proxy or the troll is on vacation, probably not. That IP geolocates to London, England. Our racist troll normally edits from IPs that geolocate to Alberta, Canada.--Jayron32 14:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There's always the option of blocking everyone on the ISP from editing collateral be damned. That's obviously not a real option but the threat of such may spur them into action. Otherwise, the only option is as Jayron32 says. RBI with maximum prejudice. Blackmane (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

That is unlikely to have any effect. Blocking people on an ISP from editing just means they wont be able to edit. Its unlikely to cause them to complain to their ISP, and even if they did, their ISP is not liable for any denial of service as a result, as they can still utilise wikipedia's primary function (that of being an encyclopedia). From experience the only thing that gets ISP's to take action when they have a problem user they are refusing to do anything about is to actively block them from utilising any aspect of the service. For websites this means denying incoming requests and/or redirecting to a 'You may not access this website due to X' splash screen. An ISP's entire customer base being unable to edit - not really a problem for them. An ISP's entire customer base being unable to even view wikipedia - much bigger issue. Of course this would never be approved by the wikipedia community, but its really the only sure way to deal with the bigger ISP's. Make it more expensive for them to deal with the complaints from their customers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it would solve our immediate problem, if it's technically possible to do it. Or would it be possible to prevent users from that ISP posting to the reference desks? Tevildo (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Precisely, the point is to stop that troll from hitting the RefDesk. If there isn't a huge amount of collateral damage, that may turn out to be an option. The point isn't to stop people accessing WP, but to stop the troll editing. Ideally, it would do little to hinder to average user but maximally disrupt the troll's ability to rant on the refdesk. However, I'm operating under no illusions that there will be no collateral damage. Blackmane (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not an expert but it seems, looking at mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules_format, that disallowing edits on certain pages by certain IP addresses is technically possible. Consider asking at WP:EFN. BethNaught (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I know this comment doesn't directly address your question about blocking hundreds of sockpuppets but doesn't Misplaced Pages have edit filters that don't allow editors to post comments with racist language? Should these filters be expanded to include other offensive language? By that I mean racist slurs, not regular words that can be used in a derogatory manner. Liz 22:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: Capital idea, but there may be some difficulties with that - I'll email you with more details, as the LTA is almost certainly watching this page closely. Sorry for my paranoia. GAB 00:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Using edit filters is not likely to be effective. The troll usually does not start out with openly racist speech or hate speech, so that the troll would be able to start out. (After all, trolling originally referred to a fishing practice of dragging bait through the water to see if any fish would bite. It did not consist of using dynamite.) Making the edit filters so expansive as to prevent any threads that can become offensive would cause very deep collateral damage. For instance, today's episode involved a question about the "Holocaust hoax", but Misplaced Pages really does cover Holocaust denial, and an edit filter would interfere with encyclopedic edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

An edit filter exists already. See this filter here. He started with the "black brutality" bullshit, and a filter was created to stop that. After he got annoyed with trying to find ways around that filter, he switched up to the antisemitic stuff. It's only of limited utility to stop very specific formulations, and it doesn't take much creativity to beat. --Jayron32 18:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Forest Theater

Can an admin please take a look at this page? (Forest Theater)

It seems as though there are a lot of accounts editing this page (the unautoconfirmed accounts, not the IPs) that are either promotional usernames, and/or the accounts are spamming links by the means of promotion. One of the accounts has already been warned about this, with yet no response: .

Here are the following accounts in question:

• Foresttheatercarmel (talk · contribs)
• FORESTTHEATER (talk · contribs)
• Foresttheaterguild (talk · contribs)—CURRENTLY BLOCKED
• Justfollowingtherules (talk · contribs)

Thanks!

AeroAuxiliary (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Large group of users requesting accountcreator permissions

At Misplaced Pages:ArtAndFeminism/AccountCreator there is a very large list of users that are being encouraged to request accountcreator permissions. A brief review shows that many of these accounts have no substantive edit history (some are not even autoconfirmed). I don't think this is appropriate, and would like some other admin opinions here. Thank you, — xaosflux 21:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ping to others that have been involved in conversations: Swarm, Mlpearc, Bluerasberry. — xaosflux 21:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with some of the established editors on that list - there are a couple of rollbackers and reviewers there - but the non-autoconfirmed ones and editors with 13 edits? No. Katie 21:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems like the original call was by User:Theredproject so maybe they can say whether they expect 89 editors who've signed up to receive AC status over the next week. Liz 22:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I firmly disavow any real knowledge in this area; however, I will be involved locally (and have just been given my AC permission). You may want to get some more insight from @Gobonobo who is the experienced Wikipedian working on the Minnepolis edit-a-thon. I'll just copy this note from a previous discussion: No one has any idea how many people will attend my event (Minneapolis), but it's being strongly promoted, and someone soberly suggested "around 100". I expect a large proportion to be new editors, and so far (to my knowledge) only one other person attending has Account Creator permission. So, honestly, I expect this flood is not too much of an overkill. Most of the organizers here appear to be Misplaced Pages noobs (they are librarians from local institutions), so it also doesn't surprise me that a lot of noobs are asking for this permission. This is not to downplay the difficulty in managing the situation, but just to affirm that probably these are not weirdos trying to game the system. Phil wink (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

One confusing aspect of this incident, which wasn't clear to me until I saw Phil wink's comments is that this is one master list to cover events happening all over the world. I thought it was a list for one specific event so it seemed like overkill. Is this understanding correct? Liz 22:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Just based on glancing through some of the listed user pages, yeah, these are librarians from all over.Phil wink (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• ...also, ZERO of those listed user names are a match for anyone currently signed up for the Minneapolis edit-a-thon... more evidence this is probably a global catch-all page. Phil wink (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• (non admin opinion) I thought I'd comment on this because I am at a meet and greets for one of these edit-a-thons right now and am an account creator. The event I am at has no other experienced editors, so I can see why non-established accounts are requesting AC. However, the list of usernames should state the specific event they will be participating at and an expiry date for when the AC right can be removed. -- Cheers, Riley 23:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• Hello all. This request was made in advance of next weekend's Art+Feminism Misplaced Pages Editathons, which will be taking place in 125+ locations on all six inhabited contents. I am one of three lead organizers, along with @Failedprojects and @Siankevans. If you are unfamiliar with this campaign, this is the third year we have run this annual event, and many of the nodes in the network hold monthly or quarterly events. We talked at WikiConUSA recently about why organize differently than many traditional Misplaced Pages groups do, and why we believe is core to our success. We instruct each node event to have at least one organizer request AC permissions. Each year we have requested and been assigned temporary account creator permissions for at least one person at each event, as most nodes will create well more than 5 accounts at each location/IP address. I want to be clear that this isn't an "incident" but rather part of our regular planning process. We have never had any problem with any editor's temporary use of these permissions. I believe that @Pharos, @Bluerasberry and maybe @Jeremyb have initiated this process in the past. The events are already happening, so we need these permissions assigned ASAP. The events will primarily be complete by March 31st, which is an appropriate date for termination of permissions. We may have a second (smaller) list for permissions at the end of this week. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Theredproject (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• It is simply not appropriate to start a massive request list such as this. Account Creator is a highly restricted permission with the only exceptions being temporary grants to coordinators of specific outreach events for the duration of the event they are conducting (this is virtually always one to a few people per event). We need specific event information for each case so we can keep track of these temporary grants. It is not arbitrarily handed out to any editor who puts their name on a list. Users with good reason can submit a request at Permissions per the standard procedure and have it assessed, granted and logged on a specific and individual basis. Swarm ♠ 00:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Account Creator has, to my knowledge, never been abused by organizers at any of the Art+Feminism edit-a-thons. Until we have the ability to temporarily whitelist ips for the duration of events, the only way to allow more than 6 people to create accounts is to have someone in the room with the Account Creator flag. Each of the 125 or so individual Art+Feminism nodes requires an Account Creator so that their event is not ruined. Where possible, these are local administrators assisting with the event. Elsewhere, it is either experienced Wikipedians or librarians. Giving this group of people the flag for a day will not result in any harm to the encyclopedia. gobonobo 00:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The point of this discussion should not be about the validity for the need of AC for these events, nor about abuse. It needs to be about organization and guidelines. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Hi there. I am the Secretary of Wikimedia New York City and am a Co-Facilitator of this massive Art+Feminism initiative. I will be helping administer the over 120+ event pages. I will be monitoring the individual events and editors closely. This global initiative that Art+Feminism is undertaking is a huge opportunity to engage with new and established editors alike. I think this request should be allowed with close monitoring by WM NYC and other A+F stakeholders. Put a time limit on the Account Creator permission -- have it turn off on 4/1 or something like that. I think that's a reasonable approach. Otherwise it is going to be NIGHTMARISH for the organizer -- and quite frankly for the attendees. Isn't the point here to engage and encourage Wikipedians? I am also a bit confused as to how these satellite temporary Account Creators can harm Misplaced Pages significantly. People will be watching closely, so there doesn't seem to be a significant downside to this request. -- Erika (Secretary, Wikimedia New York City) aka BrillLyle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• Hello - I made the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Account creator. Sorry for attracting attention but the event is March 5 and I needed to identify people who cared.

There is no clear policy about who can have the account creator permission and who ought not have it. It is granted on need and removed when the need is gone, and it should not be abused, but probably has not been so discussed since 2013 at the start of the Misplaced Pages education program. In that instance, there was a rule that teachers could request it for classes, even if the teacher had never edited Misplaced Pages.

In this case the rights are requested for WP:A+F. Art+Feminism is an event, mostly on one day, 90% within one week, where people edit art and feminism content. In each of the last two years the event has attracted more than 1000 editors internationally with maybe 800 of those being new accounts. A+F events happen in person in many places, typically art galleries or libraries.

I acknowledge that it is a little wild but it has worked for two years and it is a model for outreach. Many people hosting events do not edit Misplaced Pages themselves - A+F takes what it can get - but just like in the education program professors often feel comfortable telling students to edit Misplaced Pages even when they themselves never edit, in A+F people hosting events can still get new editors to make useful contributions when they themselves have no edits on their account.

xaosflux suggested that one admin oversee the granting of these rights and later removal after the event. Maybe that would be best, but I still wanted to give notice about the event in a week and also to say that even though I want to find a way to make it work on this short notice, I would be around to help develop policy or guidelines on such things in the future. There is also WP:Year of Science happening now and some people have made commitments to present at academic conferences likely to get hundreds of more new users on board with little or no experienced Wikipedian oversight.

Mlpearc As you say - guidelines ought to be more clear about what is and is not appropriate. In many ways A+F pushes the limits of what is understood as Misplaced Pages in-person outreach. I am not sure what the limits should be but to me, this event seems like it pushes beyond what has been done before without creating too much liability.

KrakatoaKatie - to address your comment, yes, I am requesting account creator rights for people with 0 edits. I am saying that the rules permit this, there is a history of the event happening without abuse, the potential for abuse is low anyway, and to moderate risk the rights will be removed after the event.

Liz - yes, all of these people need account creator rights asap, and especially in time for the Saturday 5 March event. The late notice is a problem. Notice ought to come sooner next year. Yes, this is an international event. There are 89 people signed up. I presume that most events will have only 1-2 people requesting rights, few will have more, and I regret to say that some events might not have anyone signed up for AC rights yet.

Swarm I confirm that this mass request is not appropriate. I apologize. At the same time, this is wiki and I request your advice on what to do. One way forward is to grant the rights outside of the "account creator" process as xaos suggested - it has always been an option that any admin can oversee this. At the same time I prefer to log requests in process. We have options. I can give more information about the need, but I hope that you can be convinced that the need is real and the cause is worthy. There is a log of event information at the A+F page but many of the people requesting AC rights are new users and it is too much to ask of them that each one associate themselves with an event page. Time is short this time and they are new users. A commitment that can be made is that they can have the rights removed after the event, and that all of these accounts will be watched by event coordinators. There are a lot of experienced volunteers participating in this effort, and that also is social insurance against misuse of the rights.

Gobonobo thanks for the support.

Does anyone have questions? Going forward, A+F can arrange for a few individual admins to grant the rights, but I still would like to give notice that this is happening on the AC request page so that everyone understands what is going on and who to blame. What more should I do or say? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding to my previous comment, weather or not the A&F is a valid event is not the issue here. The issue is "How many users should be given the ACC flag per event", "When should they be given the flag" and how to monitor the removal of the flag after the events. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Mlpearc - That's not just one issue, it's three. But these are important, good issues to raise. Do you have any constructive ways that the organizers could go about creating a structure that would be generally amenable in response to what seems to be a bit of an overwhelming late breaking situation? -- BrillLyle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, your comments answer any questions I had about this. If this project has been run successfully for two years now, I think it would be wise to bring in any admins who had previously worked with you on granting these rights, who are familiar with what's needed for the event along with what standards Misplaced Pages usually requires. This sounds like exactly an instance where WP:IAR might apply. The main problem I see with this is the lack of communication between event organizers with the larger Misplaced Pages community prior to this conversation. This is unfortunate because you could have experienced editors virtually assist new editors or, at the least, alert editors on the New Pages Patrol that there might be a surge of new articles this week that should be considered stubs. I think we all know how frustrating it is for new editors to write articles that are quickly deleted and communication with those editors who evaluate new articles to see if CSD criteria apply would do a lot towards making this editing experiment a positive experience for new editors. Liz 01:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: Nope, I'm in the same chair as you, sitting on the sidelines waiting for some good ideas to show up :P Mlpearc (open channel) 02:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: Ha! Well I'm not really on the sidelines, as I will be one of the people assisting in this initiative, paying the price if there is a hard line drawn in the sand on this. I guess I would hope that Misplaced Pages editors who have these issues with the AC rights, that hopefully we could work together to create a solution. There have to be options here. I shudder at what could happen if not. Maybe said editors such as yourself who have objections could be granted Account Creator rights and promise to support 5 to 8 events remotely, assisting with sign-in. And/or participate in monitoring and training new event folks? This is what might help out here.... -- Erika BrillLyle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I already have the flag, thanx. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Who is going to train all these people on policies? How will they handle issues like blacklist and anti-spoofing warnings? — xaosflux 02:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

those shouldn't a very common occurrence? just tell them to never bypass the checks without guidance and make some more experienced A+F organizers available to advise as needed. training on role accounts shouldn't be too hard but yes it needs to be done. --Jeremyb (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's not a great solution for a large scale request like this involving many locations/IP's, but IP cap exceptions can also be requested: Mass account creation Maybe we could streamline/user-friendlify that process for the future? The Interior (Talk) 02:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

IP exemptions don't work if the venue doesn't have a static IP or you can't learn what that IP is in advance. I've corresponded with venues in advance of events and wrote emails asking for public IPs and the response that came back was the private block behind the NAT. OTOH, occasionally a venue will give unique, publicly routable IPs (i.e. not RFC 1918 IPs) to users that bring their own equipment and use venue WiFi. Account creators are also somewhat useful (as a side benefit) in order to keep track of who was created at the event in case some users don't sign the list on the event page. --Jeremyb (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• There's a lot of irrelevant fluff above but let me reiterate my point, that the event coordinators are always provided temporary access without issue. Unquestioned blanket grants for large groups which include nonestablished editors are not and have never been necessary or practiced, even if such groups conduct outreach programs. There's no reason the standard requesting venue shouldn't be sufficient for these coordinators. Swarm ♠ 03:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• I and a couple of others have historically been the ones granting accountcreator rights for this campaign over the past three years that it has run, and there have been no abuses. It was a mistake to put this up as a Requests for permissions, and to put the burden on other admins. Myself and other admins working with the A+F campaign will process these accountcreators, and then remove them in the week after. It is important to note that we are in fact only adding one or a couple of coordinators per event, but there are 100+ in-person events for this campaign.--Pharos (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Pharos: Let me know if you need my help. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• Me as well, Pharos. The Interior (Talk) 04:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Spam at Language identification

Do we need all the spam to personal software libraries? Misplaced Pages is not a Listing Service for products. This (and similar pages) are full of personal product pages. I blocked somebody for posting a link where the URL included his name. He requested an unblock saying he is not a company. I looked and unblocked for username, then he proceeded to spam again. Before I start admonishing this user, there are many more in the same vein. Are we a listing service? I am tempted to remove the whole section on personal software development. Comments before action requested. -- Alexf 21:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with your comment at User talk:Diadistis. It seems this user was stopped by an edit filter when he tried to post the name of a software that included his own user name. He shouldn't be doing that, and a block should be considered if he doesn't get the message. If somebody wanted to clean up the Language identification page it wouldn't hurt. At List of search engines there is a local custom of only allowing entries that have their own articles. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. User warned (again), this time for spamming. List cleaned of spam. Added a page notice. -- Alexf 02:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Good call, those links were not just spammy but clearly against the external links policy. Lankiveil 10:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC).

WP:RIP

With difficulty I must post this: Please be aware of this. Any and all help would be appreciated. — Ched :  ?  11:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• could one of you folks please protect the user page - I think that's standard in these cases. thanks. — Ched :  ?  11:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog