Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:32, 7 March 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 27 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 25 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 94 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 73 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 64 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 55 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 48 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)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine

(Initiated 33 days ago on 7 December 2024) slowed for a while Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (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 21 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 107 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 73 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 64 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 43 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

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)

• Requesting closure: As the discussion has come to an end, would someone be willing to wrap this up? Mike V • Talk 20:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
• I would close this but now pigsonthewing has taken strong exception to Mike V's removal of his IPBE, for reasons I think are justified. I don't think we're going to be able to sweep this one under the rug. Given this appears to be a grievance between an editor and a checkuser, do we have to send this to Arbcom to adjudicate? Ritchie333 12:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• comment agree with Richiee333. Sadly, it appears that Mike V is digging his heels in on the "one size fits all" interpretation of one section of a general policy. — Ched :  ?  15:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• Further: As part of this review on 20 February 2016, Mike V removed IPBE from LouisAlain, who has been unable to edit ever since. Mike insists that LouisAlain is editing from a webhost, but it is clear that Mike is relying on inaccurate information which suggests that the range used by LouisAlain's ISP, Free (ISP), is a webhost. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Mike has show no appreciation for the likelihood that he is working from outdated information; LouisAlain, a native French editor with 75,000 problem-free edits across Wikimedia projects, remains blocked on the English Misplaced Pages, despite an unblock request sitting on his talkpage for over two days. This is beginning to show a pattern and I feel strongly that this should not be closed until all of the issues that have a arisen as a result of the removals of IPBE are properly and fully resolved. --RexxS (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity, how does that in any way have anything to do with the administrative action of Nyttend? That is what this section is for. It has nothing to do with LouisAlain, nor does it have to do with the general IPBE right. Having this section continually here seems to be a little unfair to Nyttend since it has their name on top. If you want to start a new topic feel free to do so. --Majora (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm sure that User:RexxS and I could start a new section, below this one, about the removal of IPBE from LouisAlain's any my accounts. What purpose do you think splitting the discussion in that way would serve? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
    • @Majora: I was under the impression that this section was to discuss Nyttend's actions in relation to his reversal of Mike V's removal of IPBE from an editor - please correct me if I am under any misapprehension. If that is the case, then surely you can see that examination of perceived flaws in Mike's removal of IPBE in other cases is most relevant to how we should view Nyttend's reversal of one such action. I expect you are familiar with WP:BOOMERANG and you understand the chilling effect that making a report to ANI can have in stifling dissent. I am steadily reaching the conclusion that Mike V has not only exceeded his remit, but is now unwilling to accept the resultant criticism arising from more than one ill-judged removal of IPBE. While editors in good standing like LouisAlain remain needlessly blocked, and a Wikipedian-in-Residence like Andy (who needs IPBE to counter the potential disruption of a hard block on an institution's IP range) have had that right removed, then it is necessary to question the benefit of slavishly following the letter of some policy against the problems caused to productive editors. This is particularly so where it is clear that the editors involved have had the right for some time without it causing any problems whatsoever. From that perspective, it appears that Nyttend made a pretty sound decision. --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
      • You do realize that there are better venues for that discussion to take place in right? The one time reversal by Nyttend is probably not going to happen again by any other admin. The removal was done based on confidential checkuser information. Information that normal admins have no access to and would not be able to comment on. Mike V has said repeatedly that if you have issue and need to confirm to either talk with another CU or to bring it up to ArbCom. If you have a problem with the administrative actions of Mike V, there is ArbCom. If you have a problem with Mike's use of CU, there is the Ombudsman commission. This is not the proper venue anymore. Pick one that is. --Majora (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
        • This is a point I don't understand. Why is it so inappropriate to discuss these matters with the users involved? I don't understand the attitude that once an action is made, it can't be questioned, and that people with a problem should formally appeal through the appropriate venues. Why is there so much hostility towards a public and reasoned discussion of the actions taken? Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Indeed it has been suggested that Arbcom may be required to resolve this, but I do think it is reasonable of provide the opportunity to Mike V a less stressful venue to reconsider his options first, which he has heretofore been reluctant to do. I did notice that he had said he was unavailable until after the 14th of March. While it is indeed "Administrative" and "CU" tools that are being questioned, I feel that community input is a step that should not be simply skipped over. Unfortunately, we have at least a couple of users who are unable to have reasonable objections addressed ... short of another CU/Admin. restoring those IP block exemptions. — Ched :  ?  23:10, 6 March 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)
  • @Hobit: Not sure if you had a look, but I've posted my thoughts below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• @Coffee: There's some thoughts which I'd like to bring your attention to, and the attention of other admins to - both with reference to the norm, and this particular case.
• Firstly, I think clear reference should be made to the fact that the unblocked user specifically agreed to the restriction proposed by OhNoItsJamie; this is necessarily a common theme at WP:ER/UC. Why? The community has historically declined individual administrators imposing topic bans outside of sanction regimes (such as DS or probation), but if the user has agreed to conditions of the binding topic ban prior to the unblock & logging of the topic ban, they can't suggest that admin authority was exceeded. I suppose a scenario where conditions are not agreed in advance might be where an user is for some reason blocked without proper cause, and then another administrator conditionally unblocks the user with an unwarranted restriction (including conditions that the user cannot appeal the ban to the community for 1 year). I think the voluntary nature of it should still be clarified at least in the log, and in any case of conditional unblocks really.
• Secondly, the appeal restriction can be problematic sometimes. I agree with Hobit's first instinct that in the usual course, preventing review of a restriction should not really be an enforceable condition in the way framed here. It can be a very wise recommendation, but that's all. Even if appeal is prevented to the community, there should be clear guidance about taking it to ArbCom in that instance in the conditions. If I am asked to elaborate on that, I can. But that said, given the user is sufficiently familiar with ArbCom given the history and 1 year is reasonable given the broad nature of the restriction (uploading images on Misplaced Pages), I don't see any need for any of that in this specific case.
• Lastly, I don't think there is anything wrong with an indefinite restriction of no less than 1 year if appropriate. I think it's appropriate in this specific case. My view anyway - being that overall, this is fair. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Three things, 1. For Hobit and Xaosflux's situational awareness, according to the blocking policy "Administrators have discretion to set the expiry of unblock conditions, provided that: The unblock conditions of blocks that expire after more than a year (including indefinite) may expire up to and including indefinitely", also the indefinite nature of the ban was discussed with the editor before the unblock was made and they agreed to it. 2. @Ncmvocalist: I've updated the ban notice here (during this edit) and at WP:ER/UC to include the voluntary nature of the ban for clarity's sake. 3 @Nyttend: My only intention in posting this here is so that other admins are aware of the restriction; it's an informational post, nothing more. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:04, 2 March 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)

   Done Protection applied. — xaosflux 15:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

  Also sent an "email this user" message with directions if this is in error, or if page changes are needed. — xaosflux 15:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Was stunned to see this edit. I wondered if anyone reached out. Liz 01:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I had tried not too long ago to do a little something without seeming to be yet another editor wagging one's finger at her. After a brief talk page conversation, she drifted away. This is quite sad news. Blackmane (talk) 04:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Liz - yes, several folks offered an ear, and more importantly - (my understanding is that) it was referred to the WMF. I have no idea where it went from there. — Ched :  ?  04:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• I also tried to inform Jimbo Wales of the situation this morning, but again, no idea if he even read it. — Ched :  ?  04:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm the one that was actually involved with the WMF report and its response (if that's what it can be called). I don't necessarily think it's appropriate to go quite in-depth about it here (after all, this is AN and such things are not "administrative issues"), but I did detail the timeline of the situation over on WO -- probably shouldn't point to a "WP:BADSITE" but you guys know the way there anyways. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it a certainty that Lucia Black is deceased? I wish I had gotten the chance to talk to her, since, as someone who has battled depression and suicidal thoughts, which have at times been exacerbated by the stressful work I do (and interactions I have) on Misplaced Pages, I have personal experience with what she was dealing with. Of course, everyone's experience is different. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of at this time. — Ched :  ?  02:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

There is the possibility that the "decease" of Lucia Black is in reference to her account as opposed to her person. However, we are not in any position to truly know and to seek it out would be an invasion of privacy. Until otherwise informed, it would be good faith to assume that the IP means the former and let her family go about their mourning without any prying by strangers. If it were the latter, then it would be to Lucia's benefit as she could have found another avenue to direct her attentions without the baggage associated with the Lucia Black account. Blackmane (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd overlooked that an IP was involved. Normally, I would be cautious of trusting the word of a random IP about something like this, but it seems that due diligence was done in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

WMF's handling of emergencies

User:Salvidrim!, it was brought to my attention that you have indicated that I "pretty much closed the case" of Lucia Black with my final note to you. (Basically, your thread on Wikipediocracy was mailed to me.) This seems to be based on the mistaken belief that we will report back to you what actions we have taken. Our work on emergencies does not include reporting back to our contacts on the outcome of investigations. Our emergency policy does not permit me to disclose how individual reports are handled to you, to any other volunteer, and to most staff (outside of the emergency response team). There are privacy factors at play. But the work that happens on them is begun by, not concluded with, contact with the reporter.

As I noted here in our blog (http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/22/wikimedia-foundation-emergency-response-system/), we have a reporting system developed in coordination with the FBI. We pass along issues brought to our attention (including suicide and threats against others) to law enforcement according to that protocol. They take the situations from there.

I'm concerned that your misunderstanding of when and how a case is closed may mislead others into failing to report on the mistaken assumption that because they do not know what we do on any one case, we do nothing with them. And this may result in issues not being reported to us...or to law enforcement through us...at all.

Some situations reported to us meet our protocol. Others do not. We report everything that does, with an explicit instruction to err on the side of caution - when in doubt of whether a situation meets the reporting criteria, we report, and the FBI makes the final call. I know of specific cases where this system has led to swift intervention from law enforcement. It would be a shame to lose any avenue of help because of misinformation. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm glad to hear you may have done more than what I was initially aware of. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mdennis (WMF): I have questions. Can you please explain why the author of the following comment, Haitham Shammaa, is an emergency contact in the event of suicide threats?

Haitham Shammaa (Senior Strategist) wrote:
Took a look at this.
Sounds of a very low credibility.

--
Haitham

Has Shammaa received any professional training in dealing with people experiencing a mental health crisis? If not, why is he involved with the emergency response team? What are the WMF's criteria for assigning staff to the team? Who else is assigned, and do you record this anywhere public? What training do you provide to those staff members, by whom is it administered, where was it developed, and is it accredited by any professional health organizations?

You do not have to disclose any details of the emergency process itself, but you absolutely should be fully transparent about all aspects of how it is staffed. I look forward to your reply.  — Scott • talk 20:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, User:Scott. While he is our newest emergency responder, Haitham has proven a valuable part of the team. I have all confidence in his ability to assess posts against the criteria. He is not a suicide hotline responder; none of us are. I want to be very clear here that we do not provide mental health support to people experiencing mental health crises. We have no training for this. In fact, our policy is that if a suicidal contributor reaches out directly to one of us, the person who receives that report escalates it to emergency for handling by others on the emergency response team just as community does public posts. While we have been looking into the possibility of expanding resources to offer people who are undergoing mental health crises (I spoke to HR recently about whether we could put together material for people), that is not part of our current role. Instead, the law enforcement personnel we contact deploy local, properly trained assistance.

All Support & Safety staff- and only Support & Safety staff- work on emergencies; a few others on staff (including legal representatives) receive reports and may be called upon to assist as necessary and as permitted by the Privacy Policy in follow-ups from law enforcement. Emergency staff are trained in the protocols that we developed with the FBI, including a period of one-on-one observation without action, where they are partnered with an existing staff person. Our process requires multiple team members to look at every threat for the specific reporting criteria. We have been advised against publishing this protocol to avoid its being misused (sadly, people do misuse any access paths to law enforcement), but as I have previously noted one of those factors is specificity. For example, a statement that "I am going to kill myself" meets reporting criteria for credibility on the specificity factor. A claim "I feel suicidal" does not, by itself. Other factors weigh in, and these factors are evaluated as part of the process. It is part of our job to share our thoughts on how the diff we are given fits into criteria. In this case, the conversation was begun accidentally on the email out. The evaluation does not end with reviewing that diff. It is the first point.

On average, we deal with one report every three days (in practice, for some reason they come in clusters). --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect Maggie (and by that I mean with a great deal of respect), it sounds like emergency response is outside the scope of your area. To suggest that "A claim "I feel suicidal" does not, by itself" merit being reported is either incorrectly worded, vastly outdated, or emergency response procedures have changed drastically since 2012. As I have left my position at our local CERT, my material may be a bit outdated - but if you wish, I could dig up a few of the resources and forward them on to you. Also it should be noted that the "number" of emergencies may have an effect on response time, but not in what is reported or responded to. If I am misunderstanding what you are saying - my apologies.

One thing I had NOT considered when I began this post - perhaps training to Internet threats is different now than other venues. — Ched :  ?  22:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ched, our reporting protocols are those defined for us by the FBI. We didn't create those criteria; they did. When a clear threat is not communicated, we evaluate other factors - which is why I say this is the first point, not the final point. An unclear threat does not mean we do not report; it means that further evaluation is necessary. A clearly communicated threat simply expedites that process. (ETA: our FBI liaison is specifically tasked to handling online threats. I would not be surprised if emergency responders in other areas use different criteria, or, for that matter, if some local responders use different criteria than the FBI.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll drop you an email this evening. — Ched :  ?  22:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Status

There's a status meter on her userpage that says the following "if there was a new gauge for suicidal. I would probably be right there". Now... I don't want to draw any rash conclusions, but maybe it's best to delete that graphic or at least the thumbnail comment, as it could incite all kinds of ugly speculations, drama and trolling. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I added a hide tag to that image, any admin may revert this for any reason. — xaosflux 13:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Nazi swastika

Please add File:Flag of German Reich (1935–1945).svg, File:Ace Christensen2.jpg, File:CurtisHawk.JPG, File:National Socialist swastika.svg, File:Parteiadler der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (1933–1945).svg, File:Parteiadler_der_Nationalsozialistische_Deutsche_Arbeiterpartei_(1933–1945)_(andere).svg and File:Reichsadler der Deutsches Reich (1933–1945).svg to the bad image list because they contain the Nazi swastika. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pickuptha'Musket:. Misplaced Pages is not censored. The Swastika is a historical symbol despite its recent (in terms of history) usage. Amortias (T)(C) 18:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Amortias: Some images containing the symbol are already on the list. Improper use of the Nazi swastika is illegal in some countries too. These are the reasons why I made this request. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Ace Christensen2.jpg and File:CurtisHawk.JPG less so than the above but I don't see them being linked to any disruptive behaviour.

How people are using/misusing the images would be their responsibility, Misplaced Pages is ont responsible for how people use the site either I'm afraid. I can see the last two may warrant inclusion but the first batch I'm not sure would pass the reasons for inclusion

Amortias (T)(C) 18:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Until such time as the US wikipedia servers are located in those countries, tough shit for them. Misplaced Pages isn't required to conform to foreign nations' censorship laws. Jtrainor (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about Misplaced Pages but it is not uncommon for websites to display different versions of their site which are tailored to adhere to that country's restrictions on content. But I imagine this subject of Nazi imagery has been discussed more thoroughly on German Misplaced Pages than here. Liz 23:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pickuptha'Musket: You say that inappropriate use of the Nazi swastika is illegal. It probably is, but that doesn't mean that we need to delete all uses of it. It may surprize you to know that it is in use on the German Misplaced Pages (appropriately, of course) - see de:Flagge Deutschlands. File:Flag of German Reich (1935–1945).svg was the legal flag of Germany from 1935-45, therefore its use in ship articles and lists of shipwrecks during this period is appropriate.
Now, if there are cases where a swastika (or any other symbol) is being used inappropriately, simply remove it and state why in your edit summary. If problems persist either raise at the article talk page or at WikiProject level in the first instance. Persistent problems are probably best reported at WP:ANI. Mjroots (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Who is suggesting that files be deleted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there an ongoing pattern of disruption involving these images, or is this just intended to be preventive? Some of these files are extensively used in articles, and I believe adding them to the BIL would disrupt the writing of other articles where their use is appropriate. I could be wrong re: transclusions, but if there's a problem with having these files displayed in Nazi Germany navboxes, that discussion probably belongs elsewhere. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to suggest the addition of these files to the list; it would prevent, for example, vandals adding them to pages on Jewish people; it will not prevent them from being added to relevant articles. However, at least one of them is used as the national flag alongside sportspeople who appeared for Germany during the nazi era, running to thousands of articles. It would be untenable to require each such article to be whitelisted first. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump --> Drumpf courtesy of Chrome browser Drumpfinator - heads-up_Drumpf_courtesy_of_Chrome_browser_Drumpfinator_-_heads-up-2016-02-29T21:07:00.000Z">

Hey all, just a heads up that the John Oliver Show has released a politically jokey Chrome extension that will replace "Donald Trump" with "Donald Drumpf" (the surname of his ancestors). (See video around 20:00 for mention of app, and 18:43 for explanation of Drumpf.) I've tested it and it does also change Donald Trump to Drumpf in the edit window, so this is very likely to cause some accidental changes across a number of articles. I wouldn't automatically assume that they're all vandalism. I seem to recall someone using a plug-in a while back that would change "political correctness" to "respect", and the editor totally forgot that s/he had it installed. It caused some irritation. Good luck! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)_Drumpf_courtesy_of_Chrome_browser_Drumpfinator_-_heads-up"> _Drumpf_courtesy_of_Chrome_browser_Drumpfinator_-_heads-up">

We had trouble this morning with vandals intentionally changing 'Trump' to 'Drumpf' in several related articles as well, particularly the one about his father. Hopefully it will die down as the week goes on, only to be revived next Sunday night. :-/ Katie 22:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Normally I would hope this sort of thing would die down, but some things are more important the Misplaced Pages. Like quality comedy! Make Donald Drumpf again! HighInBC 18:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Be careful there, buster - he might sue you. He does have all the best words. Katie 21:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You cannot get blood from a stone. Besides, I hear he threatens to sue far more often than he sues. HighInBC 17:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Gosh. I blocked a new username, User:MakeTrumpDrumpfAgain, today, after googling it and learning the phrase was "trending" on social media. Being an admin in this place is so educational! Bishonen | talk 21:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC).

All the best words - but not necessarily in the best order. NebY (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Something 'trending on social media' isn't really complimentary; it generally means "the morons are awake".

• Comment: Donald Drumpf has been nominated for RFD. Steel1943 (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe that page should be added to the blacklist or salted. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that Donald Drumpf needs to be made great again (hope I don't get an empty legal threat from the Donald for that), there exists an article named Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight), which is probably one of the few articles, aside from Trump (surname) and Donald Trump, where "Drumpf" is used intentionally in a constructively way. Otherwise, it will probably be prudent to salt the term "Drumpf." epicgenius (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Selective reversions

A well-intended, but misguided user spent hours doing changes based on a wrong understanding. (See User talk:Cynulliad#Alphabetical order.) The problems are:

1. Those edits are mixed with helpful edits, so a simple revert is often not possible.
2. There are (at least) 144 instances, so some degree of automatization is needed.
3. While many edits are neatly summarized as "Alphabetical order", the user only started adding summaries recently. There may be more such edits among those that just have no summary.

Is there a way to selectively only revert the bad ones? (I am an administrator, but I didn't see any tool for that under Reverting. I also asked this question some 30 hours ago at WP:HD, but no suggestion came up.) Also, it would be nice to filter a user's edits for such edits (that is, edits that are mostly just small texts moved around, with maybe a comma or an "and" added, or an "an" changed to an "a".) Sebastian 17:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. And the best place to ask would be Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical) - that's where the technical experts tend to hang out. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Help

What should we do with this? User trying to start an edit war. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

Also, see this interesting discussion. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

I do not see any discussion of the issue at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think we need to hide flags on photos? Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

The point is: in the event of a dispute you are supposed to discuss it on the talk page before running to this board. Have you informed the editor that you have opened this thread? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

For what help are you looking, when you are pro-separatist (you are supporting conflict region's independence) and try to push this separatist flag in the article without any discussion. Also this is just city and that "flag" has nothing in connection with urban landscape. --g. balaxaZe★ 16:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Would you please comment on the issue and not on the contributor, and please at the proper venue, which is the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter, who are you speaking to? Ilya Drakonov (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

I left two messages in this thread, the first one was for you, the second one if for Giorgi Balakhadze. However, it is not so much important. Both of you should stop reverting and go and discuss the issue at the talk page of the article. If you can not agree there, try mediation.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Just butting in to point out that the mentioned interresting discussion is really interesting. Ilya Drakonov states that Giorgi Balakhadze's been blocked on the Russian Wiki, the Esperanto Wiki and Commons for pretty much the same thing. I checked and I can verify his block on the Russian Wikiepdia | it shows as such on his user page I can also verify the block on commons | here , his | userpage discussion on commons doesn't look very encouraging either. I saw nothing showing that he was blocked on the Esperanto Wiki, although Giorgi does have a userpage on that wiki as well. Looks like Ilya is correct, Giorgi has been pushing the same kind of POV on the Russian WP and Commons and now he's here. I won't suggest a block or anything at this stage , since this is the English Misplaced Pages,but in lieu of his past behavior a Topic ban might be in order. KoshVorlon 16:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, re the Esperanto Misplaced Pages, User:Giorgi Balakhadze was blocked there for one week on 20 February with both e-mail and his own talk page access blocked as well . Voceditenore (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Voceditenore I stand corrected. Thank you ! KoshVorlon 11:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

My reverting is not my wished but only necessity (after his edits) to have stable and somehow balanced article. --g. balaxaZe★ 17:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

User:KoshVorlon after your investigation let me have my word, in Russian wiki they blocked me for my own user page, in commons they blocked me because of controversy with with Polish user who were also pushing "independence" of this region, he even told me that "Georgians lose the war and now Abkhazia is independent", you know I am also quite tired doing these things, but if not me or some other one or two guys English wikipedia will be like Kremlin official web-page about these regions. This issue is very hard and sensitive and it needs more attention of administrators, my past mistakes are not reason to make me always wrong and fault. Misplaced Pages needs to be more competent in case of conflict regions and as it is yet not like that, stick is always broken on such users as me.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

User:KoshVorlon, yes, you are absolutely right. I work in a lot of wikis as a member of the SWMT. This user creates edit wars in a lot of them. Today there was one in Abkhaz wiki, I am speaking with the stewards about that now. Giorgi, we don't want to say that you should stop editing Misplaced Pages of something like this; we say, that your edits must be in articles, that are a bit further from the political situation in Geogia and breakeaway Abhazia and South Ossetia. I support a topic ban. Always yours, Ilya Drakonov (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

Ilya if I should be, same must be with you and many others, because without me you or some other are pushing separatist propaganda in Wiki I am reacting only against them. I am only reverting, reverting your POV edits and not changing article according POV of Georgia, for Georgia there is no de facto Abkhazia and it is just Russian occupied area. For example in this particular situation with Sokhumi, you are putting separatist flag on city which is very sensitive for many people without any discussion. The problem here is not me, but people who try to push separatism in encyclopedia. I will enjoy if someone instead of me will control your or other users edits with this attitude.--g. balaxaZe★ 20:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

User:KoshVorlon you are too wrong, I am not "now he's here" I was here, I am here and I am going to here because I am part of big Wikimedia Community and I am trying to make it clear from political edits. You are speaking about reverting but not about what was reverted.--g. balaxaZe★ 21:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't support separatism. You don't clearly know what NPOV actually is. You shouldn't support only Georgian position, or only Abkhazian position. We have 2 positions here. And also, I would ask the admins to control that Giorgi hides provocational userboxes on his UP. Also please, don't make theese edits before this discussion isn't closed. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC).

You know what, stop playing drama, and tries to make something "dangerous" from users which are in controversy with you. I am not providing Georgian view, I am against pro-separatism that you do, everybody can see that you support Abkhazia's independence and you starting new edits with this attitude. I am not starting editing (or adding) information into articles from Georgian view (if it was like this I would remove everything about "the RA" and write only about Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia).--g. balaxaZe★ 21:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no firm views on the question of Abkhazia, but I do not think that this sort of edit summary is in any way helpful. Obviously we don't want the pages to become propaganda for one side or another, but the image which contained as a small part a few flags is not propaganda by any reasonable interpretation of the term. Lankiveil 03:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC).

Detailed indices of the archives of this page

A discussion on this topic is open at the talk page, i.e. at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_with_the_Detailed_Indices_of_this_page_.3F. Reply there (not here) if you are interested. Pldx1 (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Tachlifa the Palestinian

Tachlifa the Palestinian was moved from Tachlifa of the West per a Requested move in August 2011. It has recently been moved back to Tachlifa of the West unilaterally without discussion. This should not have been done, as from the page history, moving the name of this page is contentious. Chesdovi (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the request move had no other participant than yourself, so it does not quite hold weight, though the move was successful. I think Sir Joseph's literal version is well grounded in sources. He should have notified the page, of course. But rather than squabble, wouldn't it be best to just proceed to build the article a little? Clarifying,for example, precisely what the 'West', per sources, actually referred to (i.e. the 'Palestine' of that period).Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for monitoring a user's contributions

With difficulty I must post this: I am sorry to report something like an unwanted edit warring here, regarding to one of the user's improper changes on both English and Persian Wikipedias. Unfortunately, he had been blocked for three days on Persian Misplaced Pages regarding to some direct ethnic insults and underestimating kindly admonitions of experienced users. But, he has so many improper changes to both English Misplaced Pages and Wiktionary, some of which has been reverted by several experienced Wikipedians. I do not want to continue useless struggles with him. So, I just want to ask someone, to investigate the user's contributions. There are some Wikipedians on the Persian Misplaced Pages who have investigated his edits and are monitoring his edits. Thank you. Hamid Hassani (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hamid Hassani, you need to inform the editor (I'm guessing it is X.goodarzie?) of this discussion. Also, your link goes to a discussion on an article talk page, it doesn't show an edit war going on. I haven't read over the content of his article edits but I don't see misconduct here. Liz 19:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Liz. I left a message on his talk page a couple of days ago, and wrote: "I wish we could friendly solve the main problem on the Persian Misplaced Pages, so that the situation does not lead in such an unpleasant and a distasteful, discourteous case." May be he has not checked the messages on his talk page. The user, repeatedly, continued struggling likewise. It seems that he is an educated person, and also it seems that he speaks English well; but he needs more practicing here on Misplaced Pages(s). So, I don't like to hear more soft ribaldry, like ethnic insults and underestimating the others. I have informed the Persian Misplaced Pages's "ANB" as well; but he continued that behavior and repeated it there! I wish he could behave much better someday. Thank you. Hamid Hassani (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no Misplaced Pages standard on the romanization of Presian. See Misplaced Pages:Romanization. Possibly this could be addressed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC).

You are right Rich! But the most usual Romanization forms for the discussed name are Khiyaban, Khiaban, Khiyābān, or Khiābān (not even Xiyaban or Xijaban, as the most of modern Persian dictionaries and also the usual Persian Romanization system (based on the language's standard, natural phonological system) suggest, based on the Greek letter Chi = Χ / χῖ) (voiceless velar fricative; a tangible Persian example given in the exclusive article: , meaning sister). Here are two other famous examples for Romanization as Kh: Ekhtiyariyeh ("a neighborhood in the district of Shemiran in northern Tehran") and Khuzestan Province (also Romanized as Khūzestān), both including Kh (= X) as given in the English WP's article Romanization of Persian (Cf. Comparison table). One more fact on the Persian's second equivalent is Færanse (not Franse*), meaning France in the standard Persian. All the best. :) Hamid Hassani (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming Misplaced Pages editing event

Hello all. An email arrived at OTRS about this upcoming event for International Women's Day . Just thought I'd let the admins know; I know events like this can look strange if there's no prior warning. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It's likely one event connected to Misplaced Pages:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism which is occurring this month. Liz 23:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Request move/merge/split topic ban for User:FoxNewsChannelFan

In January/February, User:FoxNewsChannelFan made a mess copying and pasting material between variants of Circuit City that he was creating, without attribution, and duplicating lots of text. That was cleaned up and the problem explained, but it's been continuing. Since then we've had a copy/paste content fork of Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome to Demolition of the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome without attribution (and really no justification for it anyway, and done incompetently by just copying a section from one into a new article to make this), a merge of Visa Europe into Visa Inc. again without attribution (presumably based on a sparsely attended merge request in November 2015, and done incompetently by simply copying the entire Visa Europe article into Visa Inc. complete with duplicate See also, References and External links sections), an attempted split of Lunds & Byerlys into three separate articles - Lunds & Byerlys , Lunds (admin only due to external copyvio) and Byerly's , which not only included unattributed internal Misplaced Pages copying again but also a large copy of material directly from the company's own web site. In addition, FoxNewsChannelFan has had copyvio image uploads deleted recently. Considering the disruption this causes and the work needed to fix up these messes, I've indefinitely blocked until we can be sure it won't recur. As a condition of unblock, I request a topic ban from moving, merging or splitting articles, and from uploading images - with an appeal allowed after demonstrating six months of trouble-free and copyvio-free editing on other articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to include a copy/paste move of Chrysler to FCA US LLC . Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

And a copy/paste move of Comcast Cable to Xfinity Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've struck the request for a ban on image uploads, as looking again I see they were valid fair use images just improperly labeled. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You blocked this editor indefinitely. Is a discussion of editing restrictions needed at this point? Liz 23:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I think a topic ban would be better than my indef block, and if it's approved then I'll unblock - he's clearly enthusiastic and seems to be able to make other edits without problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Marie Banu

A draft submitted to Articles for Creation review appears to have been literally simultaneously rejected and accepted by two different reviewers (neither of which were me). It was initially created at User:Mariebanu. The upshot of all this is that the draft should never have been accepted for the reasons I've outlined at Talk:Marie Banu. Is it possible for an admin to move this article to Draft:Marie Banu? Or do I have to go through the AfD rigamarole? Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. IFRC is The International Red Cross / Red Crescent , Oxfam is Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, ISSUU is definitely a site for self-publishing, and therefore, that can be trimmed off as it's not a reliable site, reliefeb.int is actually part of the United Nations, CSIM.in is Centre for Social Initiative and Management Chennai , that appears notable, however, the reference is to an article she wrote, so notability is questionable here, and it could be trimmed out, add to that she works for that organization. The remained of the CSIM references are pretty much the same, articles she wrote. The last reference is to ChennaiOnline.com.

I'm not sure of the notability. However, the only site directly connected with the subject of the article is CSIM, the rest are not, so I think this article may be saveable. KoshVorlon 16:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the references to the other sites, are simply to copies of reports she co-wrote. They do not discuss her at all. The only remotely independent source is the Chennai article about her receiving an award somehow related to Karmaveer Puraskaar which may or may not be notable. I haven't been able to find any other independent sources about her. My own view is that this BLP article is simply not ready for main space yet and should be worked on in draft space until it is. There's also the issue of the main editor who seems to be editing under two accounts Mariebanu and... er... Webmasterscsim, i.e. Webmasters CISM. I've asked him about that here, but no reply yet. Anyhow, I'll now leave it to others to decide what to do with it. Voceditenore (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated the autobiography for Articles for Deletion. I don't see it as a candidate for speedy deletion. It isn't unreferenced and so isn't a candidate for proposed deletion of a BLP; the references being inadequate do not support WP:BLPPROD. I don't see proposed deletion as plausible. My reading of the deletion policy is that this noticeboard isn't the place for a deletion discussion or for overriding the decision of a reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I have reported User:Mariebanu at WP:UAA as a misleading username, because the name is that of a real person with a marginal claim to notability, but the editor states that they are not Marie Banu. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Removing analysis of POV author in Hebron Pages.

Hebron Conflict of interest and NPOV of sources

After several weeks, it has been determined that the source for a particularly accusatory paragraph against the Jewish Settlers in Hebron was bias and not compliant with the NPOV policy. It was discovered that the author downplayed murders of Jews and and used language which maximized the emotional value of deaths of Palestinians within the conflict. The author was described by a non-participant in the dispute and as anti-Israeli agitator, and best.

The response be the editor of that paragraph has been to remove the observations, lock up the talk section and most importantly, now claims that Misplaced Pages doesn't adhere to a NPOV policy. How do we get this past an editing war and into a real dispute resolution? It apears that administration tools are being used to block user input on this matter, and particularly that several users have noticed that the quaote author is POV and not objective.

At this point, the editors has accused anyone who disagrees with him as being a member of the community. and that they are being proponent of the community, and he doesn't need to be NPOV on wikipedea, and he keeps avoiding the main point which is that his source is POV and disqualified from being used to support the paragraph that he wrote.

166.84.1.2 (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This editor keeps posting long unfocused rants at Talk:Hebron, both as an IP and logged in. The editor seems to want to remove a source because the source may have a POV, which of course is not a valid reason for removal as all sources have a POV. Sepsis II (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 says (in part):

All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Any page, not just articles. If the IP editor's behavior is disruptive—and I don't believe I've ever edited Talk:Hebron, nor is it on my watchlist, so I don't know if it is—their messages should be deleted immediately or the page should be semi-protected. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 01:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Moved to WP:ANI more appropriate for that venue Mlpearc (open channel) 03:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Moved to WP:ANI more appropriate for that venue Mlpearc (open channel) 03:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog