Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:39, 25 March 2020

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

Open tasks

• 9 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 10 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 67 sockpuppet investigations
• 8 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 2 requests for RD1 redaction
• 105 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 23 requested closures
• 33 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 22 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Please semi-protect Coronavirus disease 2019

• Coronavirus disease 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

And make it indefinite if possible. The page is getting 250000 views/day, so even quickly-reverted vandalism is seen by hundreds of people. Thanks all. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at the history, are we sure that all or even most IP edits are bad? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, but this stood for six minutes. I expect if we unprotected Donald Trump, there would be a mix of good and bad edits also. Care to try? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've done so even if it technically violates policy. This is exceptional circumstances; a page with such high visibility on a topic with so much misinformation (both malicious and good faith) swirling around is a unique case. With the kind of pageviews this is getting, if "taking zinc supplements prevents you getting it" or the like is live even for a few seconds, we're potentially putting someone's life at risk. Yes, Anyone Can Edit and all that, but we still have a duty of care to readers. ‑ Iridescent 18:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, Iridescent. A rule prevented you from improving Misplaced Pages, so you ignored it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  No problem at all; when the protection policy was written, we obviously didn't anticipate a situation with such a high potential for people to insert good-faith errors with potential real life consequences. AFAIK even the cesspits that are Facebook and Twitter have also started filtering coronavirus-related nonsense.

  General note to the usual self-appointed busybodies who wander around noticeboards unilaterally closing threads; don't close this one but instead let the bot archive it in the normal way once it's stale. There will potentially be objections to this action is it technically violates Misplaced Pages:Protection policy, and there's no point forcing anyone raising reasonable objections to start a fresh thread. ‑ Iridescent 18:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

At this point, Suffusion of Yellow there are over 100 coronavirus-related articles and templates so are there any others that you see subject to vandalism? I have many watchlisted but they change repeatedly over a day and I can't check every edit or verify every patient total that gets updated. A week ago, I asked if members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine could keep an eye on the subject but it has grown exponentially. Liz 21:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: Here is a log of all non-confirmed edits to pages with "coronavirus" or "covid" in the title. There are going to be too many to review them all, but it may be useful to find pages that need protecting. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Good call, thank you. I'd agree that our obligation not to spread disinformation is greater than our obligation to be editable by anyone at this moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse protection - I don't even think this is an IAR case. There wasn't much vandalism but there was some, and of the nature that suggested there would be more, and we use protection to stop disruption - that's basically all the policy says about "when to protect". Unfortunately some of it is from confirmed accounts. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 18:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse - I don't think that "some vandalism" is a particularly good protection reason but preventing people from adding medical disinformationon to the main article of an ongoing major disease outbreak which has already drawn disinformation is a good one. Worth watching the entire COVID-19 article zoo, perhaps? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• The main Coronavirus page is actually getting more views. It's EC-protected, but that expires in a week. Someone should remember to enable semi-protection as soon as the EC protection is over, IMO. And maybe enable PC protection now, in case no one remembers. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• I think it was brought up at least once before, but how do people feel about community-authorized sanctions for Coronavirus? I recognize that this is more "preventing a potential problem" than "fixing an existing problem," but I only expect disruptive editing and conspiracy theory-pushing to get worse. Not a formal proposal, just a straw poll, since I've never participated in GS proposals before. creffett (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Personally I'd be against it. DS only works for intractable disputes; treat all the loons, homeopaths and Russian bots as we do any other vandals. ‑ Iridescent 20:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Creffett, I agree with Iridescent S Philbrick(Talk) 21:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Sphilbrick, Iridescent, all right, thanks for the input - that's why I asked instead of jumping straight to the proposal! creffett (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Creffett, I appreciate that your suggestion was well-intentioned, but I think starting with protection, and possibly escalating to 1RR would be better interim steps. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse protection, thanks Iridescent. There is very little chance of good information being missed because a passing IP was unable to add it, and very good reason to help keep rumor and disinformation out even if it was only present for half an hour. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• This seems very sensible to me; well done all. I've marked the page as semiprotected so readers can see it. Agree that similar semiprotection for related pages might not be a bad idea, though the other two main pages already are - Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is semiprotected until the start of April and 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic until mid-April. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose IP editors are not causing any problems. The last IP edit I saw was this edit. It was fine and perfect. Misplaced Pages is free for everyone. Protection should be based on real vandalism history not speculations based on page views.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  If you have any valid criticism of my protection feel free, but don't just come here and make shit up in the hope we won't notice, and if you're going to tell lies tell lies that take more than ten seconds to fact-check. The last IP edits priot to the semiprotection were both, vandalism, and the "fine and perfect" edit you cite as an example was questionable at best (unless you're seriously trying to claim that "Wuhan pneumonia" isn't genuinely used as a synonym by reputable media; if you think it's "anti-Chinese" you may want to tell the South China Morning Post and the Taiwanese Central Epidemic Command Centre). ‑ Iridescent 23:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse: I just wanted to add that I support page protection to add to the consensus. With a page as busy and important as this one, we shouldn't risk dissemination of false, dangerous information simply because we didn't strictly follow the letter of the law.  Bait30   04:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse because it's too urgent and there's too much misinformation floating around for our normal processes to work well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Endose. We have a deluge of IP's spreading misinformation on multiple Coronavirus-related articles (e.g. even this at Wuhan Institute of Virology). It is an unfortunate step to take, as we have many great contributions by IPs (and even in this area), however, things are too serious now (even the Wuhan Institute of Virology article is clocking over 20,000 hits per day), and we can't allow WP to be abused like this. Britishfinance (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• As we speak, here is another IP on the said Wuhan Institute of Virology article re-pushing a conspiracy theory about it . Britishfinance (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the alert. That page is now protected thanks to The Anome. Please continue to call attention to pages that need protection, everyone. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Without going into detail on which pages should or shouldn't be protected, I think that, despite the extra work it makes, pending changes protection should at least be considered for some small number of pages where many good IP edits are being made. I know that the link to making edit requests is provided in the edit notice at the top of the page, but many otherwise constructive contributors may be discouraged from even trying when the button says view source rather than edit. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Even the smaller articles are edited too actively for pending changes to be effective. El_C 17:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Understood, it was just a thought, well maybe keep it in the back pocket as a possibility if not for small articles then for the tiny/obscure and tangential articles around the edges where misinformation needs to be kept out. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse semi-protection of the entire topic area. We cannot let these articles be turned into sources of misinformation that could result in grave real life consequences. - MrX 🖋 12:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse. This is too serious a matter to take anything but the most cautious approach for now. -- The Anome (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Protection extended: world, U.S., Italy

Note that I have now semiprotected 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States, indefinitely. El_C 16:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Now also semi'd 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy, indefinitely. El_C 17:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Note for EI C, the article about the pandemic in US subjected to arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBAP2), same as India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh specific article (which falls under WP:ARBIPA) and most of Eastern Europe articles (falls under WP:ARBEE). 36.68.165.222 (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

While the coronavirus crisis has an impact on the political situation of the United States (especially the forthcoming primaries), I think it is a stretch to say the article is covered by discretionary sanctions. This is a medical crisis with political implications, it's not primarily about politics. Liz 00:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. What Liz said also represents my view. I've also adjusted the duration for Coronavirus (was set to expire in a few days) to indefinite. Anyway, our role in and reputation of being a vehicle that provides factual information (the encyclopedia) will always take priority, especially in a time of crisis. El_C 01:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse. This is too serious a matter to take anything but the most cautious approach for now, particulary since there seems to be a campaign to vandalise these articles; this should be extended to all the related subtopic articles. -- The Anome (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Can you change the protection duration of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom become indefinite, because I suspect when the protection expire on 15 March 2020, IP edits return their distruptive editing and they adding more rumours and disinformation about the event. 36.77.92.39 (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 14:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to do. Now done, for real. And logged at AEL. El_C 22:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Move Protection as well

We should also consider move protection (per today at Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic), as it is also very disruptive (given the links), and can cause the articles to drop off google's search rankings for a period. Britishfinance (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and please semi-protect this article too. It's the most controversial of all the article in this topic area. - MrX 🖋 22:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done and done. El_C 02:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I am too worry that if the article about coronavirus pandemic with high-traffic views is unprotected, there are many edits by IP that reverted by a users, for example such as "Revert edits by xxx to last version by xxx" or "Undid revision xxx by xxxx". Because of this semi-protection needs in order to factual integrity and stability of the article 36.77.92.39 (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Germany now also semi'd, indefinitely. El_C 04:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I have all of the coronavirus articles on my Watchlist (but not the dozens of templates) and after two weeks of watching and spot-checking them, my opinion is that editing is happening so rapidly with the articles being updated continuously through the day, that we need all of our collective team of community of editors, accounts & IPs, to keep up with the massive rate of changes going on around the world.

I think articles should only be protected if there has been consistent vandalism or speculation. I see references being added regularly and I think considering the pace of change, overall, Misplaced Pages is doing a better-than-average job of presenting the crisis to our readers. My only concern are the templates which are trying to track the numbers, which can be tricky because Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. JMHO. Liz 04:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Croatia now is subjected to discretionary sanctions relating to topic about Eastern Europe and Balkans (WP:ARBEE) joined articles that subjected to discretionary sanctions such as pandemic in US, pandemic in India, pandemic in Poland, etc. I also plan to include Armenia and Azerbaijan specific article about the pandemic into the discretionary sanctions as well. 36.77.92.39 (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Liz, that's a well-reasoned argument, to be sure, but my concern is if a disruptive edit on Misplaced Pages actually becomes public in the mainstream media, even if its lifetime is brief. I think a time of crisis, especially, makes Iridescent's approach particularly compelling. Our reputation is of utmost importance when it comes to the trust of the public, so an unusually cautious approach, protection-wise, is probably for the best in terms of minimizing risk for the project — again, as the top-rated vehicle for factual exposition and data on the pandemic. El_C 04:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

IP, if I'm reading the ARCA correctly, I think the Committee seems to be heading toward the direction of viewing these articles as being covered under ARBPS as well as ARBCAM. El_C 04:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

That would seem to be on pseudoscience and acupuncture topics. Is the intention to limit the scope to those areas? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, El C, safety first. I'm just seeing IP as well as some brand new editors making contributions. Especially in the country articles, where news sources are not in English, I think we could use all hands on deck as long as there isn't vandalism occurring. I was just recommending against a all-article shutdown but I see that this wasn't being proposed.

Regarding risk for the project, it looks like our good work on coronavirus articles is being recognized. Thank god for WikiProject Medicine! Liz 21:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz. I think edit requests are enough considering the circumstances, but fair point. Thanks for the link to that Wired article — that's pretty cool! El_C 21:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Promotion of fringe claims

What should be done with examples like this at Miracle Mineral Supplement which currently spreads a claim that the miracle product cures COVID-19. I would be inclined to revert and warn the user that they will be blocked if the edit is repeated. However, there is no policy for common sense and the normal wikiway would be to argue on article talk for a month. Should WP:IAR be applied to stop edits like this (regarding this article, and any similar claims in other articles)? Johnuniq (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

John’s analysis of the wikiway is accurate, and makes me sad. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Per the ARCA, no need to really IAR anymore, even. Just protect under the ARBPS or ARBCAM DS, if you so wish and log it at AEL. El_C 06:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and up'd the protection. El_C 06:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to make clear the following, I do not believe that MMS cures Coronavirus or any other disease, and I was not intending to spread false claims about it when I edited the MMS page. When I saw the notifications later on I realized the confusion that had been caused. If the language I used made it sound like I was spreading misinformation, I apologize for that and I recommend more experienced users in this matter fix the language to an appropriate manner. As well the sources I have linked to are only covering/debunking this phenomenon. As well this information was already present on the Misinformation related to the 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic page, which I linked to in the new section I created in the article. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Eons of Mollusk, for the sensible comment. El_C 06:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well (more on your talk). Thanks also to El_C for the links and protection but the IAR issue remains. If I revert the claims which are still currently in the article, that would make me WP:INVOLVED and unable to take admin action in any similar situation. Further, it's only a matter of time before an extended confirmed editor adds the claims to this or other articles. I suppose we can wait till then but I would like this noticeboard to decide whether to prevent the promotion of such claims, or whether to let a thousand flowers bloom as the issue is argued on multiple pages. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I am of the opinion that we discourage the addition of material that falls short of MEDRS aggressively. El_C 07:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Good but it's more subtle than that because the issue is not whether a mineral supplement can cure COVID-19. My concern is whether an article should proclaim that so-and-so has claimed it is a cure (see the first link in my OP above). When the pandemic is over, we can revisit the question and it might be useful to add refs that certain silly claims were made. However, what about now? I believe an IAR situation exists where people will turn to Misplaced Pages for information and while the panic is on we should not provide a platform to spread the claims because many people will skip the fine print such as refs which say the claim is bogus. Bear in mind that we only believe the claims are bogus as no one has tested whether Miracle Mineral Supplement can reduce the disease's impact. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I appreciate you weighing this claim in-depth, but I'm just not sure it, for the moment, is more nuanced than simply that lack of testing equating with that claim falling short of MEDRS standards. And in the context of the pandemic, especially, I am arguing that we should be even more aggressive than usual about untested cures. El_C 09:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I predict that the quacks are going to have a field day with their claims for the various varieties of woo. It's bad enough that we allow them to edit at all. John makes a very valid point. Thinkers here may want to think about how we re-inforce our protection of the project. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Quack claims that are not noticed by outsiders can be removed. Quack claims that are noticed by competent outsiders and are debunked can be couched as being false or incorrect in Misplaced Pages's voice per WP:ASSERT. It is not true that it is only a "belief" that MMS does not minimize the spread of diseases. Instead, what we can say is that it is false that there is any evidence that MMS helps cure any disease. I think that's pretty straightforward. jps (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

MMS is not a "mineral supplement". It's a strong bleaching agent. The scum who started promoting it under that name came up with that name so people would think it's an innocuous "natural" thing. MMS is promoted as The Secret Cure They Don't Want You To Know About for literally everything. Treating every insertion of "MMS cures X" into articles as a good-faith claim that needs a bunch of discussion for consensus-gauging is suicide pact stuff. It should be treated no differently from someone adding claims that you can cure X by jumping into lava while wearing nothing. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Although to be clear, the editor who made the edit linked up top was just documenting the latest conspiracy nuts flogging MMS. But like I said, it gets promoted as a magical cure for every disease, so I'm not sure exactly how much detail is warranted in the article for every separate instance of someone promoting it for something. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

TomStar81 actually brought this up over at Arbcom, the consensus there is that it would likely fall under discretionary sanctions related to either alternative medicine or pseudoscience. 2600:1011:B059:580C:549B:9499:A28B:4A1D (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Other COVID articles

There is no Discretionary sanction tag at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, and there is edit warring to install non-MEDRS-compliant text. Are all COVID articles covered by discretionary sanctions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The sanction says that it applies to "articles relating to coronavirus disease 2019". Even a very narrow interpretation would include that article. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the talk page header. I do not know where to find the discretionary sanctions notice, and would not want to be the one to deliver it at any rate ... could someone please notify User:Da Vinci Nanjing ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 17:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Termination of IBAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mix of good and bad edits from an IPV6 range

(2A01:4C8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32) is probably a UK school. I look every hour or two and find vandalism and some good edits. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This network is one of the four major UK mobile phone operators. Frankly I doubt there are any schools using it. Think 'T-Mobile for the UK', except I think it is generally divisible into smaller sub-ranges. -- zzuuzz 22:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: thanks, I guess nothing to be done. Doug Weller talk 19:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Lists of Polish gminas

Hey English Misplaced Pages Administrators!!! I am from Finnish Misplaced Pages and don't know English very well. Nevertheless i observed that all lists of Polish gminas are in almost same content!!! Thus all lists of Polish gminas except this are useless in my opinion. Kind regards Jnovikov (what things?) 05:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the articles are transcluding each other. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

OK.Jnovikov (what things?) 05:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears the problem started with an edit on 31 May 2009 by an editor who has not been active for ten years. Before that edit, List of Polish gminas (A) was a redirect to List of Polish gminas. The edit changed it to essentially what it is now. The current A article is the same as List of Polish gminas (Z) except for the list in the References section, which consists of one line of what is possibly the reference, following by a list of A entries in the A article, and Z entries in the Z article. I guess the redirects should be restored. Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The split was mentioned on the talk page. It was then combined into one list in 2018, but without redirecting the separate pages and without explanation. Peter James (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

In this 2017 diff (which I picked at random), the parent list functionally consisted of a header template, and placing it at the top of the letter lists made sense, since it allowed navigation and even had a rudimentary sidebar template. The only problem for the letter lists is that the transclusion never got removed. Of course, we really should re-redirect the letters to the main list, since the sortable main list provides much more functionality than the bullet points in the letters. By the way, note that the bullets aren't exactly in the reference — the reference appears at the bottom of the transcluded parent list, so the letter list items appear directly below it. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I changed all the subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/List of Polish gminas (after checking they followed the pattern described above) to be redirects to List of Polish gminas, so I think is resolved. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Macedonian language

Following a report at the 3RR noticeboard, I fully protected this article for ten days due to an edit war what involved removing/readding significant amounts of content, and advised editors to try and reach agreement on the talk page.

I am concerned by the subsequent discussion in which a group of editors on one side of the debate all seem to be agreeing with each other that 'progress was being made', closing their ears to the opposing editors who are suggesting this is not the case. Throw in a ridiculous and unwithdrawn accusation of sockpuppetry (someone editing since 2006 was accused of being a sock), and I think this problem is not going to be easily resolved. It would be worth keeping an eye on this (and a few related articles which are having similar disputes). Number 57 17:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Macedonia is under discretionary sanctions. You can unilaterally topic ban anyone who is disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Spanish flu talk page - More eyes and GS review

I've added {{COVID19 sanctions}} to the article. Amakuru questioned the applicability of the GS, so I thought I should also ask for outside admin review. My reasoning for its applicability is that interest in the topic has primarily resulted from its comparison with COVID 19 and politicians' comments about that virus (specifically, Trump's use of "Chinese virus"). See the page views template below. The Talk:Spanish_flu#Requested_move_15_March_2020 section makes this link further clear in users' comments. However, if other admins feel this is too broadly construed, please feel free to remove the GS. The RM and poor behavior in it by some users was the impetus for my application of the GS.

Also, could some more admins add Spanish flu to their watchlists? There's a RM ongoing and it's attracted the attention of some subreddits. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I commented as a (sadly former because of time constraints) RM regular, so I’m staying out of the adminy bits of it, but I’d agree with Amakuru that I don’t think it falls under the COVID-19 GS despite the media drawing comparisons. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks for the input. I'm still convinced the GS apply as "broadly construed" given that, outside of the notice box and the section I created, there are currently 15 mentioned of "COVID", 28 mentions of "corona", and 14 mentions of "Wuhan". Would, perhaps, WP:ARBAP2 be more applicable? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

If someone specifically mentions COVID19, that mention would have to be covered. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Not an admin, but, my feelings: IAR. Just look at that graph. While obviously the 1918 flu is not a current event, my unscientific anecdotal experience concurs that it's being compared all over with COVID-19, being the last real worldwide pandemic. First, do no harm: if readers might get wrong ideas about COVID-19 from reading about 1918 flu, we should err on the side of caution. I assume the community is "allowed" to declare this falls under the COVID-19 GS? Might want to consider doing it for other modern pandemics as well. If people can't stick to the straight-and-narrow while editing these there are millions of other articles to work on. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• I guess this isn't a massive deal really, but as I said on the talk page it seems unnecessary to be extending the sanctions to this page. I am not aware of any disruption on the article itself (which does not appear to mention COVID-19 at all), and the only incident was a bit of anti-Chinese-government soapboxing by a single user at the RM discussion. That sort of thing happens everywhere on the Wiki, but is not in itself a reason to come down with the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut solution of general sanctions. Disruptive editing of that sort should just be dealt with through the normal channels such as WP:AN/I, warnings, and (if necessary) blocks. There's no denying that there's been a large uptick in views on the article, but the same applies to all sorts of topics that have suddenly come into the news as a result of this, including such diverse articles as toilet paper, hand washing, panic buying, Chris Whitty, and Nadine Dorries. Should all of those articles be placed under discretionary sanctions too? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Normally I would agree with Amakuru, but these are a long way from normal times now. Having edited on several non-core Covid-19 articles, there is a lot of disruption going on and POV/misinformation editing. Spanish flu has clearly become an important article for readers in trying to understand Covid-19 (eg page views exploded), and it is important readers get the best/non-POV information, and that admins can act swiftly for editors interfering with this. I therefore support Spanish being included in sanctions. Britishfinance (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• I would think the whole page is not covered. Things specific to Covid sure, but not the whole article. PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, Kinda sorta. The problem is that the two are prominently linked in news and political commentary right now. I would say that any sanctions based on the DS would have to take account of the specific edits, but that the article itself is in scope - i.e. we should apply WP:CLUE. Guy (help!) 22:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

  I agree right now the two are linked in the news, I just do not think that will be the case long term. Also just a note these are not DS sanctions but GS that was a very week consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• I hate to disagree with PackMecEng or anyone else here. I endorse EvergreenFir's action. This is an exceptional situation and in my sincere opinion, we need to interpret "broadly construed" in a very liberal way. Whenever it is obvious that disruption of any article is driven by the pandemic, then I believe that discretionary sanctions should be used to squelch the disruption swiftly. Keep the talk pages open for edit requests. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have been under self quarantine for six days. Cullen Let's discuss it 22:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I suppose my main issue is with how broad it is already trying to be applied. The consensus for the GS in the first place was rather weak. Only open a few hours and not that many participants. PackMecEng (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• I disagree, Amakuru has the general reasoning set out, but I also don't want to see "increased activity, likely due to C19" be justification expand GS to additional pages. I also don't think the Spanish Flu page is so out of control that general steps for enforcing page discipline wouldn't work. Overturn GS addition to this page. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Edit after edit after edit, most from low-edit count users (but not all), provide reasons for their !vote that include bad faith assumptions that other editors' !votes are based on political motivations, and other non-WP policy or guideline reasoning. It's beginning to sound like commentary to a YouTube video instead of reasonable discussion. I don't know the solution, and frankly haven't !voted and am ambivalent on the subject. But, this is not how an RfC should work. Glad I'm not closing it. O3000 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Maybe I'm confused, but from what I can tell EvergreenFir didn't apply any page restrictions, they just added a template notifying editors about active sanctions that could apply to edits on that page. If they were to have added a page restriction, I think that would be a stretch, but {{COVID19 sanctions}} on the talk page seems fine. Obviously editors and readers are interested in the 1918 epidemic because of COVID, and coronavirus is mentioned by editors on that page over 30 times meaning that, yes, some of those edits may be subject to general sanctions. I don't see a problem letting editors talking about coronavirus know that we have general sanctions in place for edits about coronavirus. EvergreenFir's template addition seems fine. If editors have concerns about the scope or mandate for general sanctions, that should be its own discussion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• As already mentioned on her talk page, I support EvergreenFir's decision to cover the article under the COVID-19 General Sanctions. It just makes sense to have that template displayed on the article talk page. As for invoking it in specific instances for that article, that's a different question, but one where common sense should, again, prevail. El_C 07:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• This seems a reasonable interpretation of the GS, there are multiple sources linking the two and the 1918 pandemic is the leading comparator offered in news coverage. Guy (help!) 22:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• I support the application of {{COVID19 sanctions}} to the Spanish flu article, as it should be broadly construed to cover any article where we're likely to get COVID19-related nonsense. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support GS to apply, as it simply makes sense. Agathoclea (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

CatCafe edit warring again at the Bettina Arndt article

Over at the Bettina Arndt article Catcafe keeps on edit warring with any editors who disagree with them. They have reverted another editor 4 times in 24 hours and don't have any attention stopping. They seem very aggressive and not here to help the project as they only seem to edit in a very small topic area since joining, that is Bettina Arndt. Bronybooboo (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Bronybooboo Edit warring reports are made at WP:ANEW. Note that if you make a report there(and here, for that matter) your own conduct will be examined as well. I suggest that before you make any other reports that you first try to discuss the edit that you want to make on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

As an example of your own editing being examined, I note that the post above was your very first Misplaced Pages edit. What ID did you previously use? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It's probably Traceybrow, who has previously made similar complaints about CatCafe: , . NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

65.246.72.0/24, please unblock

Can someone please unblock this Wi-Fi IP 65.246.72.0/24? It’s just the Wi-Fi of Target. Unless there has been abuse coming from it, I don’t understand why it’s blocked. Everytime I’m near any Target and the Wi-Fi links up and I find something to edit it says it’s blocked because it’s a web host provider. No other store Wi-Fi does that. Just putting this out there. ⌚️ (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The range was hard-blocked on November 17, 2019, as a webhost by ST47. On June 5, 2019, the range was globally blocked for one year as an LTA by Ruslik0. You should have not brought this here. If you believe the local block and the global block are wrong, you should take it up with the editors who imposed the blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23, They tried for what it's worth. SQL 23:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I tried and a week went by. The issue kept popping up (as I live close to a university town center). ⌚️ (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Noting for the record that most Target stores have a Starbucks store inside which has a seating area; more often than not, I see people working there. I'd suggest blocking anon edits but allowing logged in users. -FASTILY 01:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Range was blocked due to an LTA which was detected on that range by Checkuser. It was already globally-blocked anonymous only at that time, it looks like the user in question created their account on Meta, where global blocks do not apply. These types of open wi-fi connections are commonly used by LTAs. Given the history of this range, applying IP Block Exempt is probably a better solution than making the rangeblock anon-only. ST47 (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit on the fence about the hard block. On one hand I prefer these types of block to be soft, on the other hand I can see the checkuser log and know what potentially lurks there. But one thing bugs me a bit, and no doubt causes a lot of confusion @ST47: now it's clear this a Target range, can we please adjust this block to not say it's a webhostblock? Do we need a new template for public wifi? -- zzuuzz 10:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I think {{rangeblock}} works fine, but if people want to create a new template I don’t see an issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I created this based on {{School block}}. --MrClog (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The template can now be used as {{Public Wi-Fi block}}, both as block reason as well as talk page message. --MrClog (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

If the only problem is new account creation, I can block it on meta as well and then the local hard block can be lifted. Ruslik_Zero 07:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems sensible! -- Luk 11:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Gale5050 UTRS

Gale5050 is sending me emails asking me to consider their current UTRS request. I am unavailable for at least a week. If an admin with UTRS can have a look, please, I would appreciate it. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, did he email you through the Simple English Misplaced Pages? Best, Vermont (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't handled UTRS requests and there is a backlog, if any admin has a few minutes. Liz 23:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Mass revert needed

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

Lepricavark (talk · contribs) has been spamming list articles with useless short descriptions ("Misplaced Pages list article"). This is a useless and pointless description. I started reverting this myself, but this has essentially been done in a WP:MEATBOT-like fashion without consensus. If someone could revert those, that would be great. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have been adding these descriptions in good faith for several weeks. Up until this point, a few editors have raised questions at my talk page and have evidently been satisfied with my response. A few minutes ago, Headbomb came to my page and demanded that I stop without providing any basis other than their personal opinion. There has been zero effort to communicate with me in good faith and a non-admin such as Headbomb does not have the authority to issue blanket orders. My edits do not need mass reversion and I do not appreciate the immediate escalation to ANI after Headbomb essentially ignored my response to their talk page demands. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Why not just use the article titles as the short description? It's not at all clear to me where, per WP:SHORTDES lists fall in the boundary between articles should have short descriptions but not redirects. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps Headbomb is unaware of Misplaced Pages:Short description. It states "Eventually, all articles should have a short description template, even if it is empty, so it is easier to keep track of new articles which still need to have one added." Later it also mentions that "Most mainspace articles should have a short description." Lepricavark is in no way shape or form spamming and, in fact, is to be commended for their work in adding these to articles. The call for a "mass revert" is IMO way out of line. If you don't like these Headbomb feel free to start a WP:RFC at the appropriate spot. This thread should probably be closed ASAP. MarnetteD|Talk 23:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Not all article titles are a description of what is in it. MarnetteD|Talk 23:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I imagine that Headbomb would find that arrangement even more (to use their gracious description of my hours of work) useless and pointless. The reason for including short descriptions on lists is that we are otherwise at the mercy of Wikidata's descriptions, which are far more susceptible to vandalism. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The addition of short descriptions is certainly within policy. A disagreement about what I see as ambiguity between varying points of WP:SHORTDES seems like a good discussion for its talk page. Which, fortunately, was already happening. Pending a consensus there to do something other than what Lepricavark is doing (at least one editor, RexxS is in support of these descriptions) I don't see a behavioral issue or one needing mass rollback. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Since Headbomb has chosen to refactor their post I should add that there is a consensus for "short desciptions" which is why the page describing their use exists. MarnetteD|Talk 23:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Headbomb never asked me if I had consensus to support my edits. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a consensus for short descriptions, there isn't a consensus for useless tautological short descriptions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you aware of the rationale? For example, List of women has short description "Misplaced Pages list article" which superficially looks silly (but is invisible for nearly all readers). If that description was removed, the article would still have a short description, namely "list of Wikimedia lists of women" from d:Q6626611 at Wikidata. Anyone (IPs or Jimbo himself) could change the Wikidata description to anything from trolling to BLP-violating attacks. The only way to prevent unmonitored vandalism at Wikidata from being visible on Misplaced Pages is to put a non-empty short description on the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Wait, our reasoning for local descriptions is really "because we don't trust WikiData"? If vandalism from WikiData shows up here, why aren't we just hopping over to WikiData to fix it? I know I've done that once or twice. creffett (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors should not need to assume responsibility for Wikidata's content. Even if we did, we won't always be able to promptly detect Wikidata vandalism that has leaked onto our site. By creating our own short descriptions, we avoid having to depend on a less-reliable website. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that short descriptions are not displayed to most editors and changes to them at Wikidata do not appear in the article's history or on an editor's watchlist (when I last checked, there was an option to include Wikidata in watchlists but it is severely impractical and rarely used). A key point is that readers searching on mobile will have the short description shoved in their face so they are a great target for trolls. Adding "pederast" to an article might not even be noticed by readers before it is reverted several hours later, but doing the same in the short description would be prominently displayed to readers. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Admin bot trial completed

Hello all. We previously notified this board of a request for approval for an adminbot which will assist in blocking IP addresses of open proxies. The request can be found at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/ST47ProxyBot. Primefac recently approved the bot for a trial of 10 actions, which has been completed. You can find the results at Special:Log/ST47ProxyBot, and they are summarized in a table in the BRFA. If you have any feedback on the trial, or any input on whether the bot should be approved, please comment at the BRFA. Thanks! ST47 (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Just as a note, those interested should comment on the BRFA itself instead of here, just so there's a record. If you (generic passing-by admin) have no concerns, don't feel like you need to comment; mainly looking for any major issues. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

ST47, your use of "we" suggests that you're sharing your account. Please keep in mind that you may not share your account, even if the bot says there will be cake for sharing it. creffett (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Post-close amendment to comments in an AfD

Hi - a user has noted that I mischaracterised their position in a recent AfD closure that I made. I think their comments are fair, I should have been clearer in what I wrote, so I would personally be willing to modify the AfD closure by adding an addendum to my original closing statement - I wanted to check here to see whether doing so would break something from a technical perspective (I always try to be careful when there is text in bold, red writing telling me not to do something!) Thanks for any pointers. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• No, as long you only edit the closing comment and nothing else it will be fine. I've regularly done it when I find I've made a typo in the comment. Black Kite (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, thanks - yes, it was just the closing comment I was going to add to, I'll go ahead. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 08:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

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

Vallee01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today I found that an editor filled a sockpuppet investigation against me here. Why didnt the editor notify me about it? I had no idea!. What if I was blocked and I was not aware of the investigation and so I didnt defend myself?. This is so frustrating. This editor made a sockpuppet investigation against me just because of content dispute. And its not just me! There is also a sockpuppet investigation against another editor Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Beshogur Beshogur. This is clear harassment. And with this bad behavior I really doubt that the editor is going to stop since he was never warned about this outrageous behaviour .--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam That request was closed by Bbb23 because all evidence pointed to retaliation. Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 11:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I know. I am upset because I didn't have the chance to defend myself against that accusation. When I saw that investigation today I was shocked. I didn't even know who that editor is and when or where did I interact with him/her.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not notifying the subject of an SPI is the norm. It tends not to have much of an impact on the outcome and leads to difficult to follow back and forths on the case page. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, what about opening sockpuppet investigations because of content disputes?. The editor opened two sockpuppet investigations because of content disputes. The editor should be warned about this.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You were just answered. When an SPI is opened, the opening editor is not required to notify the subject of the investigation. Grandpallama (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I was not answered. I asked about opening unsubstantiated sockpuppet investigations because of content dispute.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You were answered--you just don't like the answer. Every SPI is supposed to be opened in good faith, so there are no special rules for "unsubstantiated sockpuppet investigations." People who open cases aren't required to inform subjects, period. You can keep asking the question, but the answer will be the same. Grandpallama (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

When was I answered? I have never been given an answer about this question. Your accusation that I just don't like the answer is totally inappropriate. WP:SPI says that "evidences are required" and that "You must provide this evidence in a clear way." Unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppeting is a personal attack. The editor didn't do it in good faith. The closer has said that it was because of content dispute. If you are not aware of these policies please don't make any further comments here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I would seem to understand the policy better than you do. You should take your own advice and drop your stick, which seems only to be about calling for punitive measures against an editor for a three-month-old closed SPI. Grandpallama (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The irony about your claim that you know Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies is that you don't even know how to put your comment in a proper place. Have you read WP:THREAD?. I will not move or correct your comment. I will leave it like this so my comment here makes sense. I don't know why you are attacking me. I probably have seen your username before but I don't remember where or when. It might be because you made your comments in improper places so I didn't notice them?. Please don't embarrass yourself anymore and just leave this discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You haven't been attacked, and your knowledge of my username is irrelevant. The only thing embarrassing here is the quest to rage about a closed issue, objecting to the fact that you didn't get a chance to defend yourself at SPI...on a case that was summarily dismissed in your favor. This is friendly advice, and your wanting to take every opportunity to find a battleground isn't great. Seriously, take a deep breath and let it go. Also, typing the wrong number of colons isn't a lack of policy knowledge as much as an error, but please, rant on. Grandpallama (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You think this is only about number of colons? Who responded first? You or TonyBallioni? And whose comment should be first?. Also, you accused me of bad faith saying "I just don't like the answer" while I was not answered about the unsubstantiated sockpuppet accusation.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If there’s no evidence, we close it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When a user creates an SPI, the editnotice says: "Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack and will likely be summarily removed." So SPIs without proper evidence can be seen as PAs. (I haven't reviewed this specific SPI, just as a general comment as to whether SPIs can be PAs, which a user here seems to contest). --MrClog (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The editor didn't provide any evidence. The only reason for that report was content dispute. That page should be removed and the editor should be warned. He made the same thing with another editor.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Here are that editor SPI cases:

Against Beshogur:

These accounts magically put there support for something they should have no idea exists knew how to use Misplaced Pages well and knew Misplaced Pages's policies and after they put in there support they disappeared, someone how knowing about Misplaced Pages:COMMONNAME and knowing about the edit history of Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019). The accounts where created to put in more votes for changes to articles. Vallee01 (talk)

Literally no evidences at all

Against me:

The very first thing this account did was put support for a discussion in 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria the person clearly knows how to edit and knows Misplaced Pages policies it is an obvious Socket Puppet, the editing styles are similar to SharabSalam. The person is attempting to put support to spread their personal world view. Someone who is a real person wouldn't immediately go and put support for something they have should have no knowledge over and someone who is new wouldn't immediately know about Misplaced Pages rules look over the person account it is utterly obvious. Vallee01 (talk)

No evidence, no diffs, nothing!!! absolutely nothing.

• Why in God's name this editor is not warned about this. He created a public page called SharabSalam sockpuppet with no reason. This page should be removed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  Removing the page would remove the evidence of the user's bad behavior from future reference. That's not helpful for anyone. The fact it exists is more a black mark on them than anything else.

  As it stands, you are expending far more effort in raging about this than you would just moving on and getting work done. You will not get a pound of flesh by continuing this. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  An admin warning about unsubstantiated sockpuppet accusation is all I need. I am going to expand this even I had to go to the Wikimedia foundation or to the founder of this website. Unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppet and that public page that appears in Google is enough reason for a warning by an admin.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  SharabSalam, El C spoke to the editor about SPI without proof back when it happened, and the editor hasn't made that mistake again. Schazjmd (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  I had no idea. Thanks for bringing my attention to this.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Reporting Isaacsorry

Isaacsorry (talk · contribs)

This editor has been problematic for making unconstructive or questionable edits, such as these . This editor also has a bad habit of going back to articles, like the article Dangerous to restore their unhelpful edits . They has been reverted and warned by multiple follow editors, such as Ss112 , JesseRafe , Akhiljaxxn , Laser brain , SNUGGUMS , and Isento .

The talk page history clearly shows that the editor has been ignoring these warnings, and still making these unhelpful edits for several months now. This kind of behavior should be unacceptable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Isaacsorry was mentioned in the Michael Jackson meatpuppetry case, which led to General Sanctions being enacted in the area. The album Dangerous is certainly in the same area. ——SN54129 13:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I removed large amounts of puffery in the Lil Peep article. You can check for yourself. With the In Utero article, yes, it did receive widespread critical acclaim - I can't see how that is questionable. With the Dangerous article, an editor said to please stop as the article had to be kept that way for its status to be upgraded, which I took on board, hence I haven't re-added any lead info since that editors comment. I'm also not part of any meatpuffery, I have been accused of this before. Isaacsorry (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Isaacsorry You have been reverted several times in the article Dangerous and yet you keep restoring your edits. Your "helpful" edits doesn't made the article looks good, it only made it worse which is why you been reverted. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Isaacsorry habitually blanks his talk page to cover all the warning and complaints made.Eschoryii (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

And how would you know that? I blank my page after reading what has been left on it because it's not wrong to. Isaacsorry (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacsorry: Your talk page have a history of warnings and complains from other editors, you can blank your talk page but you can't delete your talk page history. That's why Eschoryii thinks you are cover your warnings and I think they are right. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Page protection of Coronavirus disease 2019

I had originally fully protected Coronavirus disease 2019 for two days to prevent further edit warring on the semi-protected, highly visible page between users whose experience should be high enough not to engage in such behavior.

After reading User_talk:ToBeFree#March_2020 and Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019#Full_page_protection, I can agree with CFCF that "it was an extreme act to protect the page".

I'd like the protection to be reviewed. and possibly removed or further reduced in duration, without waiting for my confirmation, by any uninvolved administrator. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the previous protection level of the page to prevent possible damage to Misplaced Pages's reputation, given the high amount of edits that are unrelated to the conflict (Doc James's happened while I was looking at the protection interface, if someone wonders) and the necessity to allow experienced editors to quickly fix issues in the highly visible article, given the constantly and rapidly changing information about the topic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Resolved amicably by self-undo of the disputed protection and exchange of kind words. Discussion(s) archived. Shit happens, lesson learned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Attempts to access account

I woke up this morning to a notification that someone had attempted to access my account from a new device. I received a second notification an hour ago. I think my password is pretty secure, but I won't be in a position to change it for a few hours. It's an unsettling feeling to receive that notification, so could an admin please look into this and advise me on what to do next? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I think many of us get these notices fairly often, Mclarenfan17. Someone tried to log on as you and got the system to send a password reminder notice to your associated email account. They did not access your account. I think some times trolls do this just to unnerve editors and admins. This is not an emergency. If you want to change your password, just do so the next time you log in.

But I wouldn't worry that someone has guessed your password unless you have made your password known to friends or other people....which I hope you would never do. But the person trying to log in DIDN'T have your password because they had the system send out a password reminder. Liz 00:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: thank you for the response. I never give passwords out, but it rattled me to see that message. Last time it happened was in 2018 when a million or so editors got affected at once. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Some suspicious Editor:

I just like to inform admins about a mysterious and annoying editor in the handle of 118.136.118.232, he did remove the philippine sections in the Kris section and conducted round of revert, s/he doing edit wars in other pages in Misplaced Pages and s/he had warning card.[REDACTED] is not a playground to remove or delete any unpreferred or mostly bias point of view, and I afraid this issue was hard to resolve for this Ip editor have too many handles and backed by some (not accusing all) corrupt moderators in Misplaced Pages, I am so concern about the NPOV which can affect the quality of information we produced, I don't know. who s/he was but this user frequently removing the Philippines in any Southeast Asian articles as if he "dedicated hater" (my personal opinions as i check his/her patterns). I'm just one of the members here who have guts to stand against this no-neutral approach. thank you (Enola gay0 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You did not notify the IP editor in question as is required when filing a report here. I have notified them now. --MrClog (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Guido_Nonveiller.jpg

Hi. I'm deleting copyright violations on Commons, and this file appears to have been moved from Misplaced Pages before being deleted. The Commons deletion rationale mentions the Misplaced Pages version has correct licensing information, however it has been deleted. Could an admin please tell me whether the file had good licensing iformation (if so, what it was so that it can be corrected and kept on Commons) or whether it was a Fair Use image, in which case please restore it here (since it must be deleted on Commons). Thanks, Storkk (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

On second thoughts, looking at the logs, they meant File:Guido_Nonveiller_(Entomologist).jpg which appears to be used under Fair Use. Unless I've missed something, feel free to mark this section resolved. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I have just reverted an entire section from TV detector van which is clearly copied verbatim from an IEEE journal showing an unambiguous copyright message ((c) 2013). The user even had the courtesy to provide a direct link to the source from which he copied it making it dead easy to spot. I have left the contributor a message on their talk page, so I assume that no further action is appropriate on that front at present.

I am relatively new around here, but it occurs to me that the copyright material is still present in the article history. Is there any process or procedure for dealing with that?

For reference, the edit including the copyright material is and my edit removing it is

Since this notice is not directly addressing the user's action and I haven't referenced them directly, I have not left the required notice on their talk page. As I said, I am new around here so if I have erred on that point, please accept my apologies. -RFenergy (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@RFenergy: Historical revisions that include copyright violations are indeed deleted. To request such a "RevDel" (revision deletion), you can use Template:Copyvio-revdel. To make it even easier, there is a special script that speeds up the process. --MrClog (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Might be a bigger problem that I previously envisaged. The copyright material was first edited into he article with this edit. The 'insertion', that I referenced above was only a reversion of someone else's removal. A lot of editing has taken place since, so I have no idea what happens now? -RFenergy (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

RFenergy, I second Mr clog’s advice on revdels. That said, I do not think a revdel is warranted in this case; while the removed text was obviously a severe overquote that should have been removed, too much history would be hidden in a revdel. If a lot of history/major edits will be hidden, a revdel will be usually declined. Money emoji💵 14:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. One lives and one learns. -RFenergy (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@RFenergy: I would additionally suggest apologising to Andy for giving him a copyvio warning when he wasn't the person that added the text originally. --MrClog (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm way ahead of you. -RFenergy (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Appealing Topic Ban on Sports Articles

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

When the ANI Discussion started back in February 22, 2019, noting that when I first started the ANI Discussion, I did not started because I just did that. I did it because editors disagreed on my editing on NHL Hockey articles and that I was noticing what was going to happen when they were going to report me.

You also asked why I was not able to discuss probably about the issue on nhl players stats on the ANI discussion a year ago? Its because I had been assuming for a long time that the stats I updated when I really started doing this since the 2016-17 NHL season was verdiable even when I corrected some of my own mistakes, I would have thought already the information was not original research.

I also learned that to avoid making more inaccurate information, I should be getting the official team stat source to make sure the information is accurate. If this ban is lifted, should I still discuss the issue of what sources should be used for the purpose to update NHL Hockey Team stats at Wiki Ice Hockey Project? NicholasHui (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• All things being equal, NicholasHui, in the world of Tban appeals—or any other—brevity is your friend  :) ——SN54129 16:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• No one is going to read all of this. Consider shortening your appeal to a more concise summary. See WP:NICETRY.--WaltCip (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Influx of new editors and IPs

Not surprisingly we are and will continue to see an increase in new editors and editors using IP addresses to the fact that hundreds of millions of people are at home instead of school, work or partying. Inevitably it means more vandalism and pov editing. But it also hopefully means more good faith editing by editors who haven't a clue what Misplaced Pages is about and are going about it all wrong. I've tried to help a couple but that's too time consuming, and I've yet to see a welcome template, or at least one in Twinkle, that sets out clearly how we work. What I have in mind would start with a short version of what we are and what we aren't, and then go on to discuss the difference between writing an article here and writing an essay, explaining about the need for verification, reliable sources and original research in simple prose. Also some links to where to get help and of course to NPOV etc, but I probably wouldn't say much about NPOV except perhaps a sentence making it clear that it isn't exactly the same as being neutral. I've brought this here for discussion because I think there are more experienced editors here than most of the other boards, but if anyone thinks this really really belongs elsewhere, eg a VP, feel free to move it but with a link from here please. Of course if anyone has anything to add about vandalism and pov editing, feel free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards