Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:52, 3 May 2018

• 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 6 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:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 85 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

WP:ERRORS

There's been a dramatic upsurge in the number of errors being reported on the main page, primarily around DYK and POTD, which remain unaddressed (or which have some individuals refusing to do anything about them). More eyes from some uninvolved admins there would be good, if not for me, then think of the readers who are currently looking at several items which fail WP:V or are simply erroneous, on the main page, right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of work to do here today. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, plenty of work to do NOW. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:Standard offer for User:Leugen9001

Per WP:SO, I am copying here unblock request made by blocked user User:Leugen9001 on their talk page, for community approval. Checkuser shows no recent socking, and the blocking admin agrees (See: User_talk:Leugen9001#Standard_Offer_Unblock_Request). Vanjagenije (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like to request an unblock per the Standard Offer. It has been slightly more than six months since October 1st, 2017, and I would like to return to the encyclopedia. I promise that I shall no longer engage in the disruptive and rule-breaking behaviour that I have demonstrated in the past, and I do not dispute any of the reasons for which I have been banned. I understand that the Misplaced Pages community has a legitimate reason not to trust my promise and am willing to accept "2nd Chance" limits like topic-bans and requirements to propose changes to articles in order to prove that I can now be a productive member of the community. Leugen9001 (talk) 4:47 am, 12 April 2018, Thursday (15 days ago) (UTC+2)

• Oppose as is my standard unless a user demonstrates they will actually be an asset to the encyclopedia and discusses what they intend to do what they return. This is just a simple rote regurgitation of the SO procedure which does not demonstrate anything other than that they are able to read an essay and paraphrase it in an unblock request. Such requests should be declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment. Just to be clear, I don't support (or oppose) the unblock. I have not given the issue any thought. I agree only that the community should decide.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• @Leugen9001: As you have talked about proposing changes, I would like to know if there are there any particular articles in your mind that you would like to edit. If yes then what you would really like to change about those articles? D4iNa4 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Leugen9001 was more active as a contributor in WikiNews. Their block log is clean there. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• WikiNews is also dead, so I'm not really sure its the best project to point out a track record on. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support there appears to be minimal history, largely from 2016. If they're willing to go through this rigamarole rather than doing an (invalid) clean start, we should let them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

ACPERM is now live

Since there was substantial interest as to when this would go live, I just wanted to let everyone know that per this comment from Kaldari WP:ACPERM is now live on en.wiki. Thanks to Kaldari and DannyH (WMF) as well as MaxSem for their work on this over the last 36 hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Happiness GMG 01:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"There have been spontaneous demonstrations by new page patrollers, voicing gratitude and joy."--Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, by this time yesterday morning, I'd probably nominated a dozen G11s. What do we have today? A village in Nigeria, a Turkish Sculptor, world class table tennis player. Good stuff. Not a single bit of obvious spam to be seen. GMG 12:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hallelujah!! I've had to deal with 2–3 inappropriate BLP creations by newbie non-autoconfirmed editors in about just the last week while waiting for this to go through! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Community ban and indefinite block for Lidiia Kondratieva

• Lidiia Kondratieva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Edit count

This person is likely an undisclosed paid editor. Their competence in English and in WP is marginal at best.

The last straw for me was this response they just made, to a DS notice given to them by User:Ronz. It perfectly encapsulates what they do here. Perfectly pleasant on the surface, but either completely incompetent or completely bad faith.

Per their edit count, 8 of the top 9 articles they have worked on, are typical targets of paid editors. They also work on some historical figures as well (probably not paid?) and one of those is in the top 9 too:

• Corys TESS
• Christel Frese (athlete) here is the diff series - entirely unsourced.
• Greg Fischbach "entrepreneur"
• Thomas J. Falk CEO
• Rony Abovitz CEO
• Olivia Hime musician
• Brian Dyson retired CEO

? Not a typical target, but pretty clearly not notable and hard to understand outside paid editing

• Lucy Young here are their edits.

historical figures

• John Hedgecoe

A bigger list is at this COIN case I filed, which somehow got no traction.

I encountered this person at Naveen Jain, where efforts to "control the message" on that page have been ongoing since 2007 per this note on its talk page from back then, and also per the extensive list of SPA/promo editors I just added at the top of Talk:Naveen_Jain. Ronz has been riding herd on that mess since the page was created.

The COIN case linked above, shows past COIN cases about the Jain page and related topics.

A lot of the promotional efforts over the past 11 years, have been directed to downplaying the Infospace debacle and trying to emphasize his more recent space efforts.

More recently the page was pending changes protected in this diff in November 2017 and the Lidiia Kondratieva account showed up after that. They have made baffling Talk contributions like this, and this and this....and done radical edits to the page like this, where they deleted all the Infospace stuff and tried to create a POV fork with it.

The DS notice was given just after Lidiia Kondratieva took yet another hack at the Infospace section.

This person is not improving WP and is a drain on everybody else. In my view they should be indefinitely blocked. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog's assessment. I wish we could figure out who is behind the editing assignments that Lidiia Kondratieva is apparently getting (and the many other editors editing in a similar fashion). --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Endorse indef block There is something seriously amiss. @Lidiia Kondratieva: please respond here. We have grave concerns about your editing.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• I came across this editor a few days back and while the topics seem rather different, I believe this is part of one of the many South Asian UPE groups that I've blocked. There is some overlap with -- "Sudheer Telaprolu" group, but I can't be sure that it's part of that group, and per WP:BEANS I'm not commenting on a couple of other tell tale signs of being part of a UPE ring. If I hadn't seen this here, I'd have likely done some investigation into this account towards a resolution, but now that we're here, I think an indef block is in order (if not superseded by a CU block as part of a UPE ring). —SpacemanSpiff 03:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support: a clear behavioural pattern of UPE editing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• just adding a comment to prevent this from being archived. This account is problematic and I hope folks look at this. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Honorary Aryan

Sorry to cross-post with WP:RFPP, where I've asked for pending revisions to be applied, but it can sometimes take a while for the queue there to be worked down, and I think something is needed sooner than that.

An IP-hopping editor persists in adding information to this article sourced to WP:SPS (blogs) and an unreliable historical source (a book on the occult -- The Spear of Destiny -- written by a non-historian and published by a house which specializes in the occult and esoteric subjects is being used as a source for historical fact). The IP has yet to engage on the talk page, where this has been explained. (IP did the same sort of thing on Master race, which was then protected with pending revision as a result.) IP's comment in an edit summary: "You don't own Misplaced Pages."

Could the article be protected, please?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

IP has responded on WP:RFPP to call me a Neo-Nazi. I suppose I should move this over to WP:AN/I, since it now represents a violation of WP:NPA? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Why don't I just bock them???? I PP the page in question.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably the best idea, Dloh. 86 the guy. —Jeremy v^_^v 01:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I warned them instead. Someone should invite them to the party.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23 blocked the IP who made the PA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not that I'm suspicious or anything, but an IP editor from the Dominican Republic (can anyone say "proxy"?) is now reverting all the edits I made to Gleichschaltung in the past couple of days, including much sourced material. This seems like a retaliatory attack to me. Perhaps the IP (186.120.253.28) should be blocked? Pinging @Bbb23: and @Dlohcierekim: Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I have an unlimited number of blocks in my back pocket.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, you may need them, since this is clearly a proxy attack.. My edits on Vanguard America, Economy of Nazi Germany, Strafgesetzbuch section 86a and American Nazi Party have all been reverted by IPs from various places in the world, all without an edit summary, and all without cause (one was just fixing up refs, another just putting the portals where they should be). The IP editor is clearly just rolling down my contribs, selecting those on Nazi-related subjects, and reverting. IPs involved are:

• 87.116.177.120
• 82.230.128.165
• 186.88.98.205
• 31.42.65.227

There's also the two IPs from Honorary Aryans which weren't blocked, although they are obviously the same editor:

• 109.29.93.7
• 24.21.43.23

Given the explanation I've provided here, I'll be using rollback to revert these edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

New one: 2600:8801:2E01:16C0:F031:BCF8:E2E2:6851

It might be a good idea to semi the articles listed here for a short period of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semied for various lengths of time. --NeilN 02:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• In a discussion from November on Talk:Racial policy of Nazi Germany#Chinese and Japanese, User:Zahne mentioned that the IPs adding this material were probably socks of User:ProfessorJane, who's been indef blocked since 2010. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, bad ping, @Zanhe: Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Just to update: I moved material from Honorary Aryan which did not have any sources about people/peoples being "Honorary Aryans" to Nazism and race and the IP disruption moved there. Ad Orientem answered my RFPP request for semi-protection of that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

"Prayer of Azarias and Hymn of the Three Children"

There's some fool using IPs that geolocate to the Philippines who keeps inserting some "Prayer of Azarias and Hymn of the Three Children" into articles: 124.104.231.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 112.207.250.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Any of you know who this is? And can set something up, like a filter, or do these IPs combined with your experience set up a rangeblock, maybe? I have the feeling I've seen this cat before. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ha, 124.104.235.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is one too. Pinging NeilN and BOZ, who dropped some protection. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Ha again: User:MRYSpecialForces2018. CambridgeBayWeather, you also protected a few of their targets. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Drmies: It's an LTA. Block and protect. --NeilN 03:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Been there; done that.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Drmies. The ping didn't work but that's OK because I have no recollection of that particular incident due to my advanced age. On the plus side it's only −21 °C (−6 °F) and the sky is still light in the east. Not long now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll keep you in mind when we get in the pool, most likely tomorrow. Cheers! Drmies (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Go for it, this is one of those folks with a single-minded purpose who is just not listening to everyone else. BOZ (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Is the edit filter working?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

--Auric talk 12:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

AN / ANI boards under criticism

"Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only thirty-six (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), a recent survey by the Community health initiative on English Misplaced Pages found. The survey, which was undertaken by the Wikimedia Foundation Support and Safety and Anti-harassment Tools teams, also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including 'defensive cliques' and biased administrators as well as fear of a 'boomerang effect' due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports." Source: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2018-04-26/In focus --Guy Macon (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Not that it is in any way surprising.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Boomerangs are a feature, not a bug. It's not common for experienced editors to get themselves into hot water, without any kind of pushing involved. If we don't examine all aspects of a situation, we run the risk of rewarding those who stick a foot out and then go to ANI to report an editor has faceplanted into said hot water. --NeilN 17:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Boomerang/scope. I think that all aspects of a situation should be reviewed and that one should not automatically adopt the OP's pov. If the boomerang is keeping people from filing frivolous or misleading reports, then good. defensive cliques My concern is that there is a lack of input from uninvolved and disinterested editors, so the shrieking just moves here or that one or the other's friends pile on in a biased manner without looking objectively at the situation. We need more uninvolved user engagement, but I for one just avoid the drama.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, your last sentence is exactly why we don't have more uninvolved user engagement... I deal with ANI issues only when absolutely necessary (or I'm involved somehow). Primefac (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"Nobody has ever helped their own cause in any way by participating at ANI. Even non-controversial edits have a way of getting people into trouble." power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• That's a popular canard. I spent ~8 years as a regular editor bringing relevant issues to ANI and participating in discussions. Most were dealt with appropriately and never once did I get in "trouble". Just make sure your own hands are clean and you present evidence calmly and civilly. --NeilN 19:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• The easiest way of getting in "trouble" at ANI as a regular editor is by NAC-ing threads (which is strangely controversial). Starting "this is a bad editor but it's too complicated to be handled at AIV" threads is generally fine, and !voting on existing threads ... sometimes is fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Amen.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm totally on board with changing the organizational culture so that if someone posts a response at ANI that contains a personal attack, the next uninvolved person simply removes it (rather than redact pieces of it) and they can try again. It'll piss off a lot of already pissed off people though. GMG 18:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

  I'd be on board with that. If you can't say anything nice... Primefac (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course there's always frivolous reports when the filing party doesn't really understand what they're complaining about, usually with a lot of hot air and noise. Lugnuts 19:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not even going to comment on this. Doing so risks sanctions. Legacypac (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you just did.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it not true that if anyone regularly participates in AN or ANI threads as an uninvolved editor -- no matter how helpful those contributions might be -- that fact will be held against them should they ever run for RfA, 'Crat, Arbcom, etc.?

• "I supported but I think the opposers have a valid point in objecting to the candidate's disproportionate focus on drama boards as opposed to content involvement and I would similarly oppose most candidates with that focus without hesitation."

• "My one point of concern is that the candidate seems overly focused on the drama boards"

• (From the candidate) "I have tended to avoid the 'drama boards' ".

• "The only time I'm perturbed by a busy editor with a lower-than-usual percentage of mainspace contributions is when it's someone who spends all their time at drama boards"

• (From the candidate)"I have generally not been an active participant on the 'drama boards' "

• "There is a very large amount of opposition centered on lack of content contributions combined with spending time on drama boards."

• (Advice to someone considering running for RfA) "9 months of solid article work, significantly less activity in drama boards, contribute to the BOT activities..."

So we actively discourage veteran editors from getting involved and then we end up with a clique problem. What a shock. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• There's a current RfA which migh suggest not  ;) —SerialNumber54129 14:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It isn't entirely clear to me what conclusion the Original Poster, User:Guy Macon, is recommending. Is he saying that there is something wrong with the drama boards, or that there is something wrong with many of the editors who file at the drama boards, or what? I agree that the handling of cases here can be unsatisfying. WP:ANI does a relatively good job of dealing with flamers, trolls, uncivil POV-pushers, and other editors who are not here. It is also true that WP:ANI attracts combative editors who seek to use it to pursue their objectives. For them, as noted above, the boomerang principle is a feature, not a bug. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I personally think that some significant reform in the governance of the English Misplaced Pages would be appropriate. However, that isn't likely to happen, because it isn't about to be initiated within the current system, and the WMF, which could start the ball rolling, doesn't understand well enough to be able to help. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is being proposed here, if anything? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Not everything has to be a proposal. Some things are informational. If this is a problem for you, you should bring it up at Meta:Research:Detox and Misplaced Pages:Community health initiative on English Misplaced Pages/Research about Administrators' Noticeboard Incidents/Quantitative data analysis where the data was gathered and presented. I merely reported it in the obvious place. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Letting people who are commenting in this thread know that I've been following it and I'm available to answer questions about the AN/I research. Also, I want to emphasis that Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team are looking for your ideas and thoughts about the broader topic of how to make improvements to reporting of and workflows around harassment. This week we are opening a discussion on ENWP (and Meta) about problems that have been identified already from the surveys. We are also looking to update the problem list during the community discussion with the purpose of identifying areas our software developers could make improvement later in 2018. I'm adding recaps of community discussions like this one. But it would be better to participate in the discussion yourself! SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

FrankCesco26, umpteenth wave of disruptive POV edits

Moved to incidents board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wddan (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing IP vandalism. Rangeblock?

There is an ongoing problem of an IP vandal on Greg Holland and Felipe Vázquez daring me by name (well, sorta, since the user can't properly spell my user name) to block them for their vandalism. The vandal has been editing from 99.203.29.239 and 99.203.29.210, as well as IPv6 addresses. I've protected the pages temporarily and have blocked the IPv4 addresses, also temporarily. Is a range block warranted at this point? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably not, seeing how you've already protected the pages and blocked the offending IPs. Rangeblocks should only be used as a last resort given their potential to adversely affect legitimate editors. -FASTILY 03:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Both are sprint ranges - and very wide so a rangeblock would likely be impractical / have way too much collateral. Probably best to protect the pages as you did. SQL 01:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Just wondering then what is the most efficient way for dealing with this, other than protecting pages and blocking IPs, which feels like a game of Whac-A-Mole. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help

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

Can someone move The powerpuff Girls back to The Powerpuff Girls? A move was done without any discussion on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I also need List of The powerpuff Girls episodes changed back to List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Can someone also move the tslkpage back since it is currently at the wrong name.--67.68.161.151 (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN 01:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Spamming of Portal Pages

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

One editor User:The Transhumanist who is overly enthusiastic about Portals is now spamming portal talk pages with glowing invites to their wikiproject. There are scores of users who want to delete all portals so automated spamming this needs to stop. Just imagine if WikiProject Biography posted a message like that to every bio! Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Although I disagree with User:Legacypac on the issue of whether portals should be deleted, I agree that User:The Transhumanist is using AWB to spam pages, and he was also spamming user talk pages with his canvassing. On a related note, the discussion Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals started by User:Galobtter is completely out of control and needs to be ended immediately (close discussion as SNOW OPPOSE)! Brian Everlasting (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion has been very civil and under control. The closing of the discussion has already been arranged for at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals, and should run for the full 30 days for consensus to be formed.    — The Transhumanist   07:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove awb access?Spartaz 06:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Seeing the endless spam of thousands of edits on portals, that might not be a bad idea. Isa (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spartaz, long time no see. Concerning the posts to the portal's talk pages, they are on-topic. I've changed them to a more informational tone to reflect this. They convey information on how the WikiProject supports portals, and what resources it has available to help with portals. The rest were invites to those who had expressed interest in portals - they were not sent randomly. As always, I'm here to help. I've ceased posting AWB'd invites and the notices to portal talk pages, pending the outcome of this discussion on how the portals should be notified of the Portals WikiProject's operations (news). For example, there are design discussions taking place on the WikiProject's talk page that affect all portals. I referred to them in the post as design initiatives. I've contacted about 350 of the portals with the notice so far — the other 1,200 need to be informed of what is going on with portals. How should I proceed?    — The Transhumanist   07:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: Just in case you weren't aware, the button captioned "Show preview" next to the blue one can show a preview of what the page will look like with your edits. It would have avoided most of the 13 17 edits you've done so far. Isa (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I use the preview, most of the time. But no matter how many times I read a post before I post it, I almost always find typos and such ways to improve it after I post it. Sorry for the inconvenience.    — The Transhumanist   07:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should slow down a bit? Isa (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

As you wish.    — The Transhumanist   07:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I've been described as overly enthusiastic. Actually, I've become an acting curator for the Portals WikiProject, and I do what I can to recruit new members and facilitate communications between the WikiProject, its members, and others affected by it. For the record, a copy of the revised version of the notice at issue is posted below. Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   08:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

(The discussion is continued below the following notice - please post replies there. Thank you.)

Discussion

Posting a pertinent message to multiple talk pages is not "spamming", it's good communication. I note that nobody who has actually received any of the messages has complained, and indeed the users who were contacted directly had expressed an interest in portals. To me, this thread reeks of gameplaying in order to disrupt the efforts to revitalise the work on portals, as opposed to any genuine concern.

Having said that, I would suggest that no more than one message is posted on each portal talk page (the above sample is fine) and that any messages bulk-posted in User Talk are on an opt-in basis. WaggersTALK 07:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

One more thing to add: unless User talk:The Transhumanist has been asked to stop and refused to do so, and there's absolutely no evidence of that, this is not an issue that requires admin attention. WaggersTALK 07:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

What are we supposed to do about the other 1200 portals that have not been contacted yet?    — The Transhumanist   08:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

STOP please! If you don't stop posting the same message to every page in the namespace as a minimum your AWB access should be removed. I'm talking about Portal talkpage spamming which showed up on my watch list which is when I realized he planned to spam all 1515 Portals talks with this long message! I came directly here because such automated editing by the self appointed "acting curator for the Portals WikiProject" is not appropriate in my opinion and prior efforts to get them to stop posting soliciting notices on the face of every single portal failed. Legacypac (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

What Legacypac seems to want is to censor the Portals WikiProject, to keep it from communicating with portal editors. The notices to the tops of the portals pages he referred to were those required to be posted to pages nominated for deletion. The discussion concerning Legacypac's objections to the proper notices is covered here. The notices are still at the tops of the portal pages for the duration of the RfC, and look like this:

That Legacypac is still presenting that notice as some kind of wrongdoing, shows his bias. He adamantly dislikes portals and wants to get rid of them. So much so that he wishes to stop valid communications concerning them.

He has warned me about what is not appropriate in his opinion, without actually looking up the rules first, or inquiring what the accepted practices are. He assumed he knew the Misplaced Pages definitions of spamming and canvassing, but he clearly does not. His warning about MfDs below is a case in point.    — The Transhumanist   12:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I warned this user about Canvassing for MfDs and separately User:Brian Everlasting warned them about canvassing with the Portal talk page messages I posted here about. He also sent out a bunch of messages that included this canvassing As you know, there's a proposal to delete all portals. It started out looking pretty dismal for portals, with primarily posts supporting their demise. It turned out that the proposer didn't post a deletion notice on the very pages being nominated for deletion (a requirement for all deletion discussions). Once that was done, a flood of opposition came in and has apparently turned the tide. RfCs generally run for 30 days. It started April 8th, and so it has about 14 more days to run its course. The more work we can do during that time on the portals, the stronger the reasons for keeping them will be. And the more prepared we will be for any MfDs that follow the closing of the RfC. while at the same time objecting on a procedural basis to the MfDing of any portals. That seems wrong to me. Legacypac (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Transhumanist is not spamming. He is not canvassing. Here are the important points:

1. When an article is nominated for deletion a notice is placed on the page. Whether it's 1 article or 1500 portals doesn't matter Template:Afd_footer_(multiple). All 1500 portals have been nominated for deletion. All 1500 portals should be tagged.
2. The WikiProject guideline #5 describes how to revive a wikiproject. It says "To try to gain new participants, individually invite active users who have been substantively involved with the topic to join the project." Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Revival In order to prove a charge of canvassing you have to prove that the editors contacted were not substantially involved with the topic. That evidence has not been submitted.

In conclusion, we should be thanking Transhumanist for taking on a dirty job that noone else would do. And I mean noone. I see no reason to suspend AWB access.– Lionel 10:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: The portals fall under the scope of the newly revived WikiProject Portals. I propose that this discussion be closed and the complainants be offered the opportunity to raise grievances at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals and any resolutions be recorded there.– Lionel 11:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Would it be possible that it's placed below the talk template that explains the rules of the page?--Moxy (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The supposed MfD canvassing Legacypac accused me of, was the creation of this section on the WikiProject page:

For archives, see: Portals for deletion at MfD.

• 2018 April 24 - Portal:Baltimore - Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Baltimore
• 2018 April 23 - Portal:Football - Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Football
• 2018 April 22 - Portal:Quidditch - Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Quidditch
• 2018 April 22 - Portal:Blu-ray - Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Blu-ray
• 2018 April 22 - Portal:Muhammad - Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Muhammad
• 2018 April 22 - Portal:Belemnoids - Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Belemnoids

Article alert sections are a standard feature of WikiProjects. For some examples, see:

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Australia#Current discussions
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football#Article alerts
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albums#Article alerts

I explained this to Legacypac in reply to his accusation on my talk page, but he never answered.

The quote Legacypac posted above was part of a newsletter that was sent out to members of the Portals WikiProject, all of whom had already !voted in the RfC in favor of portals. Therefore, not canvassing.

Legacypac has used the label "Canvassing", but has not presented an actual case by citing specific rules that have actually been broken.

The Canvassing guideline states: "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."

The WikiProject status report (shown above) that was posted to the portal talk pages is about the Portals WikiProject, with links to its various sections such as the task list, a tools list, and its talk page, where we are designing new components for portals. The intention of the notice is to assist editors in 1) finding resources to use in building and maintaining portals, and 2) getting together with other editors with which to work with to build and maintain portals. This does not fall under the definition "notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion".

There are 1200 portals that have not yet been notified about The WikiProject's operations. Please explain to me (cite the rules/provide links) why this WikiProject should not be allowed to post general notices pertaining to the improvement of portals on the talk pages of those portals. Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   12:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that Transhumanist is not spamming. This thread should be closed with no action. Lepricavark (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• I would just like to comment on the technical implementation of the message. In the future, if anyone plans to repeat the same text over thousands of pages, a template should be created instead of directly using {{ambox}}. This would make it so that if we needed to make a change to the message box, we would only need to make the change once and have it reciprocate across all pages that transclude the template. We would not have to use AWB to edit all of the thousands of pages again every time a change is needed, which is what happened twice here. The very reason why the template namespace exists is for this purpose. Mz7 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I totally agree with Mz7! Brian Everlasting (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason I chose to do the deletion discussion notice that way, was to preserve it as-is in the historical versions of the pages it was posted on. So that the message that will be displayed in the future will still be what was displayed when it was posted. If the hypothetical template were to be deleted because it was no longer being used, or converted to some other purpose, that wouldn't affect the historical postings. This event was out of the ordinary, and I thought it might be studied or referenced in the future, making a static record more important. Though, it is not completely static, as it uses ambox, but the message text is.    — The Transhumanist   09:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Question

How does one remove AWB access, anyway? Is it as simple as removing someone's username from Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage? I already voted in the aforementioned discussion, so there's no way I'd be touching The Transhumanist's user rights even if AWB should be removed. Nyttend (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend:--Yep.~ Winged Blades 11:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock question

I'm assuming the range is too wide, but I figured I'd ask anyway. Dynamic IP here Enigma 04:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No, actually. See Special:Contributions/2401:7400:e800::/48. I've blocked 6 months. ansh666 06:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, Enigma 17:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Anti-seminitic comments

Would someone take a look at this user who has already been blocked for in appropriate use of the talk page. It looks like the behaviour has continued. -----Snowded 05:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan has blocked this IP. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Three minutes after this report! Impressive response or parallel monitoring. Either way resolved so thanks -----Snowded 05:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Pure procrastination. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

if anyone has admin bit on commons

this attack disparagement image needs deletion.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

*poof*. DMacks (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Heads up: No renaming

Hello English Misplaced Pages Administrators:

Global renaming is experiencing technical problems, and we are processing NO renaming request after we found the renaming is malfunctioning. WP:CHUS and Special:GlobalRenameRequest shows the warning that request is halted, but you should not re-block "unblocked to allow post @ CHUS" people because they did not get renamed in short time: that's outside of their control. (Meanwhile: They can use "GlobalRenameRequest" while they're blocked without being unblocked.) — regards, Revi 07:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixed since then. — regards, Revi 21:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

John Donvan copyvio question

I have deleted the article John Donvan because the body of the article has been a copyright violation of an ABC News source since its first edit. In retrospect I'm not sure that this was the most appropriate course of action - on one hand, stripping the article of the copyvio would have left it nearly empty and with only one visible revision, but on the other hand the subject is a fairly prominent person, and an article with >1,000 pageviews this month. I don't have time to rewrite an article on an unfamiliar subject from scratch at the moment, but would another admin like to review? Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Definitely big copyvios, but it looks like it's only the first paragraph of the Career section. I'll see about trimming it down to non-copyvios and see what's left before restoring. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Restored and trimmed. If I've missed something obvious feel free to remove it and/or re-delete as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The Awards section was also copyvio, though perhaps less so. The list of awards is verbatim to the same source. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The edit was apparently made in 2006. The ABC news article was written in 2010. Unless I misread something, it seems more of an other-way around problem? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I can see why you think that, but no. If you have a look at the last diff before the revdel, , it liks to the article. I don't know why the date shows it as it is (frankly, such a screwup might invalidate any copyright claims, but I'm not a lawyer, and certainly wiki-law is still violated). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, seems to be a misconfiguration on ABC's part perhaps when they changed their site layout. The Internet Archive does have the article as far back as 2004, but at a slightly different URL. When the original editor contributed the article here ABC's article looked like this. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 04:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

EDreams / EDreams ODIGEO

These two articles have been subjected to intermittent edit-warring to insert BLP-uncompliant allegations by anons for the past months. One of the anons tried to report the reversions at ANI and AIV (which is where I took note of the situation) on April 25, and were reverted since their report included potentially defamatory material.

After issuing an initial warning to the latest IP 118.200.76.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and placing EDreams under PC1, I was alerted on my talk pagethat some undisclosed COI editing may have taken place in support of the article by registered users, most of them stale. Internetguruspain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) however is still active and may possibly be a connected contributor. His other edits include writing the bio of Javier Perez-Tenessa, the founder of the companies covered by the other two articles.

I have blocked the IP for inserting the BLP-sensitive material removed from EDreams for which I warned him on the 25th into EDreams ODIGEO today for two weeks, and added PC-1 to this article as well. Would appreciate more eyes on the situation as I'm both rarely online and probably quite a bit rusty. On top of reviewing, any egregious errors in tool usage can be undone without consulting me, but I'll be grateful if you let me know what I screwed up so that I learn from any mistakes. Thanks, MLauba 18:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Item needs looking at

I don't know how long it will be until Materialscientist has a chance to see this so I thought I would bring it to this noticeboard in case it is something that needs attention sooner rather than later. If you deem that my post here is bringing undue attention to it please feel free to remove and even R/D this section. MarnetteD|Talk 21:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the personal information, but this seems more like a content dispute. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Autoconfirmation

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

Why am I not autoconfirmed yet? I registered 5 days ago and have over 100 edits. When I click on one of my contributions, there is no "autoconfirmed users" tag, as there is for other Wikipedians. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)DangleSnipeCelly1

Not sure what you're talking about by "click on one of my contributions," but you are indeed autoconfirmed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Automatic community ban (User:Miccoliband)

Miccoliband (talk · contribs) was indefinitely hard-usernameblocked on 3 February 2018. On 7 February 2018 and 30 April 2018, the user was found to have engaged in sockpuppetry in accordance with publicly-documented CheckUser evidence. Per WP:3X, this user is automatically considered community-banned. I haven't found any other examples of these AN reports, which are suggested by the policy, so I'm guessing this will be good enough. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I suppose under the policy, we need an administrator to declare that the user is well and truly automatically community banned – misread that. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Editors who are found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for any reason, are effectively site banned by the Misplaced Pages community. Publicly documented CheckUser evidence should typically be involved before a user is considered banned in this way. Users who have been banned in this way are subject to the same unban conditions as users banned by community discussion.

Administrators should normally place a notice at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' Noticeboard alerting the community of such a ban, place Template:Banned user on the master account's user page, and add the user to any relevant Arbitration Committee sanctions enforcement list.

Are you referring to Administrators should normally..., or is some other admin declaration needed? Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Yeah, I was referring to the "Administrators should normally ..." sentence. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the point is having a trusted user do it, rather than just any autoconfirmed user; we don't want someone going around and inappropriately tagging a bunch of long-blocked users, either through malice or through misunderstanding. We also don't want someone going around tagging the user when the alleged sock is not blocked (that would either be getting ahead of a reviewing admin, or doing something in spite of a contrary review), but here the socks have been blocked. Probably the writer of this piece imagined that an admin would perform the block and then come here to announce it. Since that didn't happen, and since SPI clerks like you are quite trustworthy, I can't see a good reason to demand an admin do it. If an admin be needed, I'll have to revert or duplicate your notice here, and I'll have to revert or duplicate your edit that added the {{banned user}} to the userpage, since the policy says that the admin has to do those things. WP:BURO, let's be satisfied with what you did :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, works for me. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The idea behind it was that it should be an admin so that accountability would apply. I don't think we've had much use of that part of the new policy since it was passed, because, well, most of the people who sock aren't longterm users and are mainly just trolls and spammers, who the policy wasn't really aimed as much at i.r.t. the unblock aspect. If you look at the discussion, there was some comment as to whether that part was needed, and given that I'm sure this is not the first THREESTRIKES ban, it might be worth tweaking that bit.I think the idea that we want community oversight when this is applied to a longterm user is important, but it doesn't make the ban any less operative in cases like this. The main part of the policy is that an indefinite block plus two incidences of socking is equivalent to a ban and requires the same conditions to unblock (namely, discussion). The bureaucracy part we can tweak as conditions requires. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I pushed to have the bureaucracy of that part worded as weakly as reasonable: 'administrators should normally', not 'the blocking admin has to tag the master and announce it here'. For me, basically, an editor who is blocked under the conditions is plainly community banned, even if it is not announced. Announcing and tagging is sometimes good (awareness by broader community, overview), but sometimes also to be avoided (don't feed the troll). Also, the wording has to be so that we don't get a sockmaster with 20 checkuser confirmed and blocked socks coming with 'I am not community banned, because a) no-one announced it to WP:AN, and my master account has never been tagged.

Q: do we have a special parameter on {{banned user}} or {{sockmaster}} for the three strikes to identify that the banned user is banned 'automatically' and not be individual discussion? I do think that that is informative. --Dirk Beetstra 06:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra, what do you think of what I said, Probably the writer of this piece imagined that an admin would perform the block and then come here to announce it? Were you hoping for the blocking admin to do the tagging and announcing? Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: not hoping, I don't really care that the editor is tagged or not, nor whether the community has been explicitly notified. What Kevin did was fine, but, to me, superfluous. --Dirk Beetstra 12:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Dirk. The situations where I see this is needed is for cases where we have a user who had previously been an established member of the community, who gets blocked and then starts socking. For the tagging, it might be worth updating the sock template with a parameter. This is useful for unblocks. I might tweak the wording a bit since this hasn't caught on. I still think it's a good idea to place a notice here if say someone like DrStrauss were to be socking again, but we don't need it for trolls and people who never hit extended confirmed.​ TonyBallioni (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I misunderstood the consensus – the wording of the policy made it seem like the ban is automatic and mandatory. Got it now. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The ban is automatic. The paperwork, etc. is a "normally" thing, and was worded as such, because like Dirk pointed out above, we don't want to feed the trolls, etc. Like I said, as there was some comments on the RfC that the paperwork wasn't always neccesary, and we haven't started posting the notice in every case, we should probably tweak it (and I'll work on that sometime later this week )​ TonyBallioni (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

So, Tony, this sounds like it's for someone like Access Denied, whose name will be known to plenty of people who aren't sock-fighters. Is it supposed to be applied retroactively to everyone (minus those who got a community or Arbcom unblock, of course), or only to people who continue socking after the provision's created? On one hand, it might make sense to apply it to someone who was making a mess a few months ago, but on the other hand it would be a bit silly to apply it to User:WoW, the original incarnation of Willy on Wheels. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: LOL. WoW! That will certainly get the conversation moving-- on wheels!--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sharkslayer87 second chance

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

Hi, I was topic banned for editing the article Raju. The reason given to me was:

Hi, Sharkslayer87. I have not banned you for adding unsourced material, but for using poor sources, and/or making claims unsupported by your sources, despite warnings and advice. The place you can appeal is the administrators' noticeboard. But Serial Number 54129 gives you good advice: you'll have a better chance of a successful appeal if you edit uncontroversially in other areas for a few months first. Bishonen | talk 11:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC).

I don't agree with this. I didn't use poor sources that don't support my claims. Rajus have Kshatriya status and both the terms are synonymous. I used the below sources for that.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Kanumuri-Bapiraju-faces-uphill-task-in-Narsapuram/articleshow/33795850.cms https://books.google.com/books?id=oQOF7tkWXjIC&pg=PA98&dq=kshatriyas+rajus&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD-s67t4PaAhWGxFkKHcyxBUY4FBDoAQhUMAk#v=onepage&q=kshatriyas%20rajus&f=false

The first source says "Rajus (Kshatriya)" and the second source clearly says "The rajus are a small, close-knit community of the Kshatriya caste"

I also used Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard who is considered by many as one of the greatest social anthropologists ever. He has more than a hundered thousand results at google scholar and he has been cited by thousands and thousands of scholars. “The Raju caste, classified as the Kshatriya or warriors among the Twice-born castes, is the second highest in the village. The Raju are descendants of former rulers of the area and though their wealth and influence has declined they still bestow patronage in the form of land, money and political connections. Several Raju families have Shudra and Harijan field laborers attached to them by yearly agreements”.

He states in no uncertain terms that Rajus are classified as Kshatriyas. The link for that is below

https://books.google.com/books?id=BZqBAAAAMAAJ&dq=raju+caste&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=kshatriya

A particular user called Sitush was not allowing me to contribute. He even targeted an entire community of people. The exact words he used were "except in the minds of self-glorifying southern communities such as the Raju and the Nair". These comments really pained me. I got a little aggressive and edited the article but even then I didn't source anything from poor sources. I made a little mistake. In my last edit I used https://books.google.com/books?id=gVNdhHtG134C&q=aravidu+kshatriya&dq for synonymity but it was just a silly mistake. In my previous edits I used the below two sources for proving synonymity for which I was reverted by sitush.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Kanumuri-Bapiraju-faces-uphill-task-in-Narsapuram/articleshow/33795850.cms https://books.google.com/books?id=oQOF7tkWXjIC&pg=PA98&dq=kshatriyas+rajus&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD-s67t4PaAhWGxFkKHcyxBUY4FBDoAQhUMAk#v=onepage&q=kshatriyas%20rajus&f=false

The difference is https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Raju&diff=839049605&oldid=839047790

I apologize for any mistakes on my part and I promise I won't repeat them. I want to appeal for a revokation of my ban as I am a good wikipedia contributor and I want to continue with my contributions.

Thanks Sharkslayer87 (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Decline The fact you called the comment by Sitush "racist" in the section title alone shows a need to keep the ban in place. You've been warned by multiple editors about editing from a POV, and you continued. Filing an arbitration request before even going to the talk page (which is where the discussion SHOULD start) was another example of trying to WP:BLUDGEON your POV. As others have said, I would say you need to edit elsewhere for sometime before requesting a lifting of this topic ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Decline This editor is clearly here with a WP:AGENDA and is suffering from a bad case of WP:IDHT. Given their pattern of editing and their deportment in talk page discussions I endorse the topic ban and will go on record as opposing any further appeals for at least six months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Decline Topic banning instead of an outright block was pretty generous. Ban needs to be in place for a minimum of six months before I'd even consider an appeal. Yunshui _水 13:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• For the record, I've blocked for 24 hours for continuing violations of the topic ban, all of which occurred after both the acknowledgement of the topic ban and the filing of the appeal here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I am suspecting that their next block will be an indefinite one. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably, but like I said on their talk page, I'd rather the first block be a short one, as a warning shot across the bow, so to speak. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Decline as above. GiantSnowman 13:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Decline agree with everyone above. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Decline Much per above. I have altered the section title above just to explain why it no longer *states* sitush is being racist and so it doesnt appear in the archives as such when this gets closed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Decline The second chance was actually the generous TBAN, which has already been violated, and I think the next such violation or any further disruption would merit a NOTHERE block. —SpacemanSpiff 16:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The problem is not that they are not providing sources but that they are providing cherry-picked sources, sometimes poor ones, and failing to adhere to NPOV. Their contention - which over the last couple of months they have taken to ANI, DRN and RFAR, as well as providing walls of text elsewhere - is already mentioned in the article in the sort of nuanced manner that is required when sources disagree. There is no doubt that the article could be generally improved but this person has an agenda relating to a specific point of "improvement", they've got it wrong, and they're clearly here just to glorify. FWIW, they've been trying to push this point at other articles in a less obvious way (eg: using the term Andhra Kshatriya where Raju would do) and they also have a problem with copyright violations. They've edit warred beyond 3RR and seem unwilling to accept the numerous comments from people experienced in the topic area, all of whom have been banging on about the NPOV/cherry-picking issue. - Sitush (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Geonotices

Would anyone be willing to help keep an eye on Misplaced Pages:Geonotice, or add their name as a backup contact for it? It's not a very burdensome task - there's a couple of requests a month and mostly they just need a javascript template to be filled out. A couple of minutes work in most cases.

At the moment there's only one or two admins who frequent it. I'm mostly active on Wikidata these days, so if I don't spot it on my watchlist when I drop in, things can go weeks unanswered. I've just dealt with one I missed almost a month back (!) - thankfully it was requested a month in advance - but of course it's very useful if we can post up requested notices promptly.

I used to do a lot of maintenance work here and the page still has me on as a "poke if nothing happens" contact. I don't really think it's a great idea to have someone semi-active as the suggested contact, but equally I don't want to remove my name when it's the only one there... Andrew Gray (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've watchlisted this and added my name to the list of people to poke. GoldenRing (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Great - many thanks. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee seeking new clerks

Cross-posted from the ArbCom noticeboard: The arbitration clerks are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators. Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner.

Past clerks have gone on to be (or already were) successful lawyers, naval officers, and Presidents of Wikimedia Chapters. The salary and retirement packages for clerks rival that of arbitrators, to boot. Best of all, you get a cool fez!

Please email clerks-llists.wikimedia.org if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and any questions we want to put to you.

For the Clerks of the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration Committee seeking new clerks

Cleanup on Aisle G13

We have a motherload of pages listed in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions that are eligible for G13 deletion. I'm not seeing it in Category:Administrative backlog yet, but I've gone through and tagged some of them and there's many more if someone wants to swing by and clean some of them out. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Empty. Feel free to one-click this. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: Not so fast - there's 307 pages listed at the moment. Home Lander (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I misread and thought you were talking about Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions. For what it's worth, G13-eligible pages are not necessarily summarily deleted, they still require someone to nominate them (usually User:HasteurBot). There are some users who find "diamonds" in these pages, and so there's no reason to summarily d-batch the entire cat (otherwise we'd just have it happen automatically). Primefac (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

In other words, it is not (and will never be) part of the administrative backlog. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: Yeah, I bring up a batch of pages at a time and have a quick look to see if there's anything that looks really good. Unfortunately many of them simply consist of the unsubmitted draft template followed by an empty reference section. Incidentally, there's a tag at the top of the category page that I had overlooked stating that it will put the page in Category:Misplaced Pages backlog if more than 500 items are pending. Home Lander (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

alan jackson vandal again

Special:Contributions/Ichabbie396. Do we have an LTA page for it?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Misplaced Pages on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Misplaced Pages and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Puzzling entries at CSD

I'm starting to see entries at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion that I don't understand why they're on there. There doesn't seem to be anything in the entry histories that indicate they were tagged for CSD

User:CAPTAIN RAJU/AFD

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 2

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

User:Wcquidditch/wikideletiontoday

There might be others. But these jumped out at me for not having been nominated for deletion, but appearing on the list. — Maile (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

They were transcluding one or more pages that were themselves nominated for deletion. It gets cleared once the transcluded page is handled one way or another, and the host page is recached. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the clarification. — Maile (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Just for completion's sake, it was Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hugo (software) (2nd nomination), deleted under G7. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Maile66, this is a function of the Job queue. If a page is added to a category indirectly because the category is part of a transclusion, the category does not get removed immediately when the template is removed: the page has to be edited first. Not an issue if someone edits the page to remove the transclusion, but if it's removed indirectly (say it's added by a template on a transcluded page, and the template's removed from the transcluded page), or when the transcluded page is deleted, you have to wait for the job queue to catch up. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Template vandalism nested within Disambiguation

Probably thousands of pages are affected, every transclusion of {{Disambiguation}} is impacted by vandalism of nested {{Disambiguation page short description}}, which itself is a new thing. I've reverted the vandalism. I don't have my admin tools anymore but IMO at least a VOA-block of Delpmart and some protection of {{Disambiguation page short description}} seems warranted, and then y'all can discuss the need for this subtemplate and/or why this was left vulnerable (I thought template-protection was supposed to cascade down to transcluded subtemplates but maybe I'm wrong). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm heading to bed so I've no time to continue edit-warring with some shitty vandal, hopefully some admin will attend to this regardless of the idiot deleting this thread. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I've protected {{Disambiguation page short description}}, and blocked the vandal. Someone more knowledgeable should take a look at the necessity of this newly-created template. utcursch | talk 05:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Relevant thread (which I haven't read yet): Template talk:Disambiguation#Related templates Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks utcursch, Salvidrim!. The template is part of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Short descriptions campaign to populate mainspace pages with Misplaced Pages:short descriptions to avoid WMF using inappropriate or poor quality descriptions from Wikidata in search results. Precursory saga described at project page through links. Basically forced on us by WMF. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) : 06:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The image File:Asshole hat.jpg that was used in the vandalism above is still showing transclusions onto well over 500 pages. I've put in a request to have the image blacklisted but many pages may still need to be purged. I've loaded several but it's not showing on any so far. Home Lander (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Ban requested

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

I'd like to be banned to infinity. I am Grawp, the dead man walking. --Prüm (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You've certainly been making some very odd comments elsewhere (eg: the arbcom case request and User_talk:Sharkslayer87) and I did wonder whether you were trolling. Just walk away. - Sitush (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Per Sitish, no one is making you log into this website, read it, or contribute to its mission. If you don't want to be here anymore, simply don't be. --Jayron32 12:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, either this is Grawp, or someone pretending to be. Either of those rates an indefinite block. Done. Bishonen | talk 15:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC).

Please help- who tried to break into my account?

Can you please find out who tried to break into my account? It worries me. I want to see if it was someone in my area or other. Alex of Canada (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alex of Canada: Someone tried three times several hours ago to get into mine. It happens; as long as you have a secure password you should be fine. Home Lander (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This just happened to me, too. It's not unusual, I get one or two a month, and about once a year, someone makes a whole lot of login attempts. Make sure you have a unique password for Misplaced Pages. Use a password manager if you don't already. Use multi-factor authentication. Consider changing your password if you are worried (or especially if it wasn't unique). I already have these set up on my account so I just ignore the warnings when they come in. You asked to find out who tried to break into your account. That information is not generally available, I'm afraid. --Yamla (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

My password is secure, but I'm worried it might be a hacker who will find out how to get into anyone eventually. Alex of Canada (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Best case is to use a unique password here (so if they figure out who you are, can't get into anything else, such as your email) and set up extra measures. A WP:Committed identity would be a good start. Home Lander (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That might be a legitimate worry, but it existed before some person or bot tried to brute-force some Misplaced Pages accounts. Hacking without guessing the password is a whole different proposition. Related stuff at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#two-factor authorization and User talk:Winkelvi#Compromised account attempt. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Related discussion at VPT (permalink) with some more detailed information. Seems there's a rash of this today. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Two threads at the teahouse on this same subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Just tried and failed with mine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Recommend that all admins set up 2-factor auth. Andrevan@ 18:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Everyone reviewing WP:STRONGPASS and WP:SECURITY couldn’t hurt either. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Me, too (in case anyone is keeping track of admin v non-admin attempts). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Me too. I already asked a question at WP:Village pump (technical)#two-factor authorization. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I had this today as well, but I have break-in attempts on a regular basis, with a record of several hundreds per day (not today though).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

They must like you. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Got an attempt today as well. SQL 19:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Me as well. Question I should probably know the answer to: can a functionary look up the IP addresses behind these bogus login attempts and implement a technical restriction? Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Technically, yes. Whether it is allowed by the policy I do not know.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, if there's a way to determine that an IP is being used for abusive login attempts, autoblocking that IP for 24 hours is probably a good security practice. Wouldn't stop them hacking an account probably but then at least they wouldn't be able to edit. If our policies don't support that then we should change our policies. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Me too. Natureium (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

First Thursday of every May. Coincidence, perhaps. --NeilN 19:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm probably the only editor right now that hasn't had attempted account hacks ...... Not sure if that's a good sign or a bad one lol. –Davey2010 19:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• I readily admit I am not the most experienced CU, but I am unaware of how we could look up who attempted and failed at logging in. I’ll ask for further input though in case it’s just something I don’t know about. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point. So all we need to do is all simultaneously set our passwords to "password* for five minutes and simply track 'em down!!? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it would take far more access (database?) to determine where this is coming from. If that information is even stored. If this isn't a bot driven thing (which it probably is), then a limiter on logins per IP would be nice as well. Arkon (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• I’ve gotten some response form the other functionaries about this, here’s what we’ve got:

• Currently, CU cannot do this
• There is a phabricator thread about notifying the user of the ip of whoever tried to log into their account. It is approved and being worked on but not functional yet
• There is some indication that this is a specifc banned user already familiar to some of the functionaries so it is possible some action will be forthcoming but I’m not sure wat it will be.

Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Apparently there have been tens of thousands of failed login attempts over the past few hours. Check this out for some idea of the scope. The back office is aware of this and we cn expect a statement from them in the near future. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Interesting. I got one of those failed login attempt messages too. I changed my password to something stronger and thought nothing else of it until now. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• I just got a notification that somebody get into mine too.--Crasstun (talk | contributions) 20:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Me too, and User:SPECIFICO. We were also both targeted at Misplaced Pages yesterday by the same editor, but no idea if there's any connection. That editor also knows my anon Facebook and Twitter accounts. Strange. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Cassianto

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Cassianto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Cassianto 20:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

A further topic-ban from infoboxes for three months. I have been instructed not to add, edit or remove infoboxes, and you may not edit discussions about anything related to infoboxes, either as regards their use in specific articles or in the abstract, imposed at . Further discussion can be found here.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

here

Statement by Cassianto

The actually wording of the sanction imposed by the committee is not to "make more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article". The diffs in question are

• 14:53, 1 May 2018 Mary Shelley, a comment I was entitled to make;

• 16:11, 1 May 2018 Mary Shelley, not fitting the wording of the above sanction;

• 08:08, 2 May 2018 Mary Shelley, not fitting the wording of the above sanction;

• 19:02, 30 April 2018 Stanley Kubrick, which I'm entitled to make;

• 20:04, 30 April 2018 Stanley Kubrick, not fitting the wording of the above sanction.

I appeal this further sanction for two reasons:

• Nowhere was I discussing the "...inclusion or exclusion of an infobox"
• The wording of the original sanction was/is too ambiguous as to work efficiently. I feel that owing to the bad and misleading prose, I was set up to fail. Even the drafting arbitrator admits his wording, sometimes, can by sub-standard. No DS alert was issued; no friendly reminder; and I was left at the surrendor of the unintelligible and ambiguous wording at the case finding. I have tried to discuss this with Sandstein, here, which was ignored, and only heard from him when I reverted his closure at AE. I was advised to discuss this with him, as per his advice on my talk page, but to no avail.

Finally, I apologise if the formatting is up the wall or badly laid out, I've never done this before. I won't have a problem with anyone wanting to adjust my layout. Cassianto 20:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

Statement by Martinevans123

User:Goodforaweekend looks so very well-informed and skilful for an editor with such a new account? Almost as if you were big baited there. I'm sure your addition of a thread here is "out of process" so maybe you might expect to get "additional sanctions" dumped on you. But your edits don't look like those of an editor who is just being wilfully disruptive. More one that seems to be frustrated they can't be left alone to help add content. User:Sandstein's very rapid sanction looks bit harsh to me. Also the wording of the original arbitration enforcement sanction looks like it might be ambiguous, perhaps at least "open to interpretation"? Is there some middle ground to be won here? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Cassianto

Result of the appeal by Cassianto

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog