Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:52, 10 July 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 25 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 23 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 92 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 71 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 62 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 53 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 46 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)

Talk:Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov#RFC_on_Infobox_for_Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov

(Initiated 36 days ago on 2 December 2024) The last comment on this was on 24 December 2024 and Legobot has removed the RFC tag. An independent closer (preferably an admin) would be welcome. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 November 27#File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg

(Initiated 41 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 19 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 105 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 83 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 71 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 62 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 41 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

User:LorenzoMilano/sandbox

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

I just nominated this for speedy deletion as a blatant NOTWEBHOST violation, but discovered that it has some 40,000 edits in it (user has made four mainspace edits since 2014). This requires a steward, no? Drmies (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep - try m:Steward requests/Miscellaneous, I've got these requests processed there before. Hut 8.5 17:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• User:Hut 8.5, thanks. You think it'd be a good idea to get another admin from over here to endorse? Would you? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I suspect they'd be happy with one admin but yes I'm happy to endorse it. Hut 8.5 17:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Fun fact, User:Hut 8.5, they (well, one of the stewards) won't sign off on it just like that...would you mind having a look? Drmies (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
      • It's too large to be deleted from the front-end. Please request server-side deletion at phabricator.wikimedia.org. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

        Requested at phab:T198156 — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

        Holy moly--thanks to you both. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

LorenzoMilano (talk · contribs) is still actively editing, more than 500 edits a month. If he's doing nothing useful but violating WP:WEBHOST, should some action be taken? I've notified him of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wow! Xtools () says the user has 40,266 edits on a total of four pages. There were two edits in September 2017 to Macklemore & Ryan Lewis discography and two edits in October 2016 to Fedez and Laura Xmas, so the other 40,262 edits must have been to User:LorenzoMilano/sandbox. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

  I would be inclined to see if the user responds to Ed's comment. If the user does not respond and resumes their sandbox editing, then they should be blocked until they do respond. Fish+Karate 08:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

  Users abusing Misplaced Pages as a host for fantasy reality TV shows is a known and recurring problem. The page uses O instead of 0 to evade detection. This user is clearly not here to improve Misplaced Pages. I'm blocking. MER-C 09:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I can definitely tell you that stewards cannot delete this page because of a timeout - but it's better than breaking the whole Misplaced Pages, isn't it? — regards, Revi 08:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It might be good if we were to get a database query for (non-talk?) non-mainspace pages with more than N revisions. 40k edits in 4 years should have popped a red flag somewhere.... --Izno (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There is Misplaced Pages:Database_reports/Pages with the most revisions but it includes all the namespeces. I had a quick look though it and while there are a few other user sandboxes with a large number of revisions, there isn't anything that looks concerning. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User:East London Line is an interesting one. No mainspace edits since 2013, carried on making 22000 edits to User:East London Line/Sandbox for a further three years until 2016. Blank now though, as per this MFD back in 2016. Couldn't see anything weird webhosty stuff in the other user space pages with lots of edits. Fish+Karate 13:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• I run into these things all the time, but my previous record was one with 8,000 edits. That this can't be deleted without breaking the Wiki is deeply ironic. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Update from the technical side: The page has too many revisions to be safely deleted from the back-end at this point. I recommend that it be blanked for now (like the previously-referenced other webhost sandbox) and deleted once a suitable technical solution is available. At any rate, leaving this history intact shouldn't provide any harm here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've blanked it. Perhaps it should also be fully protected so it doesn't accumulate any more edits? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've protected it in the blanked state as a workaround. Hut 8.5 20:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks both. Looks like a solution is in the works, I'll ping back on AN to confirm when it is deleted. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Can't a dev just waive the three second transaction limit temporarily to allow the page to be deleted? Or is there a reason it can't be waived? Fish+Karate 08:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• It may bring the site to it's knees. MER-C 20:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ha, it's still going on. phab:T198156 Drmies (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Whiteleaf30

I was fortunate to nip this one in the bud. Some sort of random mass page moving. It begs the question, that if it has happened once, then it can happen again. Maybe some sort of edit filter / page move throttle? Ronhjones  14:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen that editing pattern, or edit summary, before... GiantSnowman 15:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Whiteleaf30 and other accounts are operated by a cross-wiki vandal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/68 is tailor-made for this situation, except for the comically-low conditions to bypass it. —Cryptic 15:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes. he makes the right number of edits and cracks on... Maybe time to increase the conditions? Ronhjones  16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Started a proposal at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_increase_trigger_of_Special:AbuseFilter/68 Ronhjones  18:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Page creations are now logged

Just wanted to let folks know that all page creations are now logged at Special:Log/create (T12331). This should make tracking the activity of spammers and vandals a bit easier (especially for non-admins). The down side is that these log entries may occasionally need to be suppressed (similar to other page logs) if a page title or first revision text includes private data or harassment. (See T176867.) Kaldari (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, why does this sound familiar? Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Page_creation_log_is_live_--_be_careful_with_attack_pages Natureium (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. Looks like MER-C beat me to it :) Kaldari (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

LeBron James involved admin

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

While the reliably sourced sporting news world is discussing LeBron James' signing with the Los Angeles Lakers, Bagumba has come up with some WP:OR about why Misplaced Pages should not reflect this ... and then full protected the article . Attempts to explain WP:INVOLVED to them have been unsuccessful. NE Ent 18:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

NE Ent: Your timeline is misleading in that protection was done a full 20 hours earlier, and it’s a stretch to frame a mere opinion on a talk page as “OR”. You have been invited multiple times in our discussion to form a consensus at Talk:LeBron James, where there are arguments to call an “agreement” the same as an actual “signing”, or to say nothing at all until there is an announcement from the Los Angeles Lakers, his announced preferred destination. You were also told to use WP:RFRPL if you believe the protection level should be decreased. You have also been informed about {{Edit fully protected}}, which you could use to request your preferred edit from an uninvolved admin. Instead, you have done none of these, and your recent edit history suggests you are more interested in WP:VAGUEWAVEs of INVOLVED and now posting on a noticeboard. What do you really want?—Bagumba (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Er anyone can check the article history and see you have made a number of edits on article content regarding his employment - prior to you full protecting the article, which you then (after protecting it citing an edit war) reverted back to the version which included the content you had previously edited. Looks pretty standard by the definition of involved editing. Do not use your admin tools in a content dispute in which you are already engaged. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe those prior edits are unrelated to this current dispute. Please provide diffs of earlier edits if you believe they show that I would be biased in this instance per INVOLVED. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

We should unprotect immediately. Regardless of the involvement issue, the current state of the article is unreasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: There’s probably weak consensus to add in prose only that there is an agreement in principle, something like at Talk:LeBron_James#Lakers.—Bagumba (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba, this diff clearly indicates that you are involved (and INVOLVED) in the discussion over the matter. Use of your admin tools in that instance was inappropriate, and if you do not shortly reverse it, I intend to. Out of courtesy I'll give you the chance to do so yourself first, but this is very clearly inappropriate. Seraphimblade 02:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: The comment was 20 hours after I took admin action to protect the page. It was a good faith attempt at moderating discussion after the fact.—Bagumba (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: I see that you anyways went and downgraded protection at 3:32 4 July. I would still appreciate a response further explaining your INVOLVED concern. For your convenience, please also refer to the timeline I presented below (at 05:27, 4 July 2018). Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, there was similar long periods of full protection for James in July 2010 during James’ famed The Decision announcement and again in July 2014 when he announced his return to Cleveland.—Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Not having any prior involvement with this issue, it does seem utterly absurd that two full days after LeBron's agent announced the intent to sign with the Lakers, the word "Lakers" does not appear anywhere in his entire biography, let alone the lede. We should not let technicalities of free agency regulations get in the way of informing our readers. There is no shortage of reliable sources to be found, and if we have to nuance the wording slightly, that's better than pretending this hasn't even happened at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Unprotect immediately- this is absurd. The article should at least mention the Lakers. I get the point that Bagumba is making that the deal is not official yet. But we can easily reflect this, its just in the way to word it, maybe something like "James has agreed to accept a deal with the Lakers which he is expected to sign on July 6". It really shouldn't be that controversial. I'm not sure if this raises to the level of INVOLVED, but it still was a poor decision by Bagumba to lock the page.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that at least some mention of the Lakers and the agreement should be made in the article. This is a clear case of WP:HOSTAGE and poor admin judgement.--MarshalN20 🕊 03:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

For the record The timeline in question is as follows:

• 16:10, 29 June 2018‎ I revert that he is not a free agent. Edit summary: "unsourced that it’s official"
• 1 July: NBA free agency period begins
• 08:14, 1 July 2018‎ I make minor edit that he is not a "potential" free agent anymore
• 00:51, 2 July 2018‎ I apply full protection
• 01:00, 2 July 2018 I revert to last stable version. Edit summary: "WP:PREFER: last stable version before dispute"
• 21:19, 2 July 2018‎ I make a talk page comment to provide understanding and facilitate consensus
• 6 July "Free-agent moratorium ends, allowing players to officially sign contracts and trades to be completed"

Also given the precedent of previous full protections in July 2010 and July 2014 (by other admins) during similar James' free agent announcements, it's disappointing this is not seen as good faith. Such is life.—Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The broader point here is that the apparently-accepted practice by some NBA-focused editors of removing well-sourced information about players' free-agency decisions on the flimsy grounds that there is a .000001% chance that the decision changes, is absurd, hostile to readers and fails to serve our purpose. When Britannica beats us to have a more-updated biography of LeBron than we do, merely because some Wikipedian thinks it's not "official" yet, it's time to take a step back and rethink what we're doing. Sometimes a flood of outside editors and IPs is right and we're wrong. This is one of those cases. There are no reasonable grounds for excluding this well-sourced information from James' biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem with the community having that conversation, but AN is not the best forum for content discussion. Talk pages are. I commend you for having just started that at Talk:LeBron James. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Reversions resume In the 2+ hours since protection was downgraded, reversions have resumed (and this is with most of North America already asleep). While, the good intentions above was that mention of an agreement (not signing) is suitable, disagreements continue on whether James should be shown as actually being a member of the Lakers or as a free agent. The most recent reversions are here:

• 04:11, 4 July 2018‎
• 04:17, 4 July 2018
• 05:55, 4 July 2018‎
• 06:10, 4 July 2018‎

At a minimum, extended confirmed protection is probably needed.—Bagumba (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I recommend that Bagumba apologize and step aside from this BLP for several weeks. Pedantic arguments to avoid any mention of this development in the LeBron James article border on the disruptive. Bagumba could have helped craft accurate language but instead chose to obstruct. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Absolutely correct, User:Bagumba, which is why, at AN, the community isn't discussing content, but your mis/use of tools on an article in which you have a consistent and persistent involvement which stretches back years, whereby not only did you protect an article you were / have been engaged in, but then fully-protected in favour of the version you advocated, citing WP:PREFER. By this, are we to assume that you saw mention mention of the subject's free-agency (or otherwise) as either "defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people"? Because nothing else in that piece of policy supports your protection; and the fact that it does so so weakly makes relying on it potentially questionable judgement. As, in fact, does calling your actions "all good". —SerialNumber54129 07:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Actual policy WP:INVOLVED: One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Yes, I've edited the article before. Nobody has shown diffs of where the bias is. If you still believe it's bad faith, so be it. Ping me if my involvement is needed back here. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is all well and good, Bagumba. But you are not addressing your own behavior which is widely perceived to be obstructionist, and the fact that you used your administrator's tools in the midst a content dispute that you were involved with. Are you incapable of seeing how bad that looks to uninvolved editors? Your history with that article is far from "minor". Evidence of bias is not required to conclude that an administrator is involved in a content dispute, and should not use the tools in that dispute. Please show some self-reflection here. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You specifically edited the article about his employment prior to upping the protection to full and then reverted to your preferred version. And not years before. About this very same change of employer. Now you have frankly made the article a laughingstock to sports fans because of your involved actions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba, as per your comment above, you have not been involved in just an administrative role. You have participated in the article's content development. That's entirely fine; admins are still most certainly editors and can choose to take the "editor" role on an article they're interested in. What we're not allowed to do is to act as both referee and player in the same game. If you choose to interact with an article's content as an editor, leave any needed adminning on it to someone uninvolved. You could have easily posted a request at WP:RFPP if you thought protection needed to be changed, and it would've been perfectly fine for you to do that, but you shouldn't have made the call yourself. (And for the record, if an uninvolved admin decides full protection is warranted, I do not object and would not consider that wheel warring.) Seraphimblade 12:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on the general issue of "reported sports transactions". It's not as absurd as it sounds to be patient before updating these articles. The Lakers' own website does not mention LeBron James! Their "latest news" is about their Summer League team and rookie Moe Wagner. The problem I always saw with people updating the articles early is that the wrong signing date would be entered into the article, and never corrected later. The dates that will be recorded in NBA history are not the dates when a contract was "agreed to," but when it was signed. (Lately, many teams have even made a point of photographing the moment when a player completes the paperwork.)

I sympathize with Bagumba in this case. Most people don't understand the subtleties involved, and aren't patient enough to wait a few days. It wouldn't hurt to have a line about the Lakers in the body of the article, but it's absolutely correct to wait a few days before updating the first sentence and infobox and such. It's unlikely that the deal will be scuttled, but if we're patient, there will be a point when we KNOW that the deal is official. Zagalejo^^^ 13:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem here, it seems, is beyond the article content. Actions were taken by someone trusted with admin tools, and those actions are being deemed inappropriate due to admin involvement in the article. Instead of apologizing or at the very least affirming that the lesson was learned, Bagumba reassures he correctly used admin tools, digging into a bigger hole in the process.--MarshalN20 🕊 15:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I think WP:IAR applies. Sports articles are a huge pain in the neck to maintain. Bagumba has surely seen this same situation hundreds of times, and knew what had to be done for the sake of other editors' sanity. This isn't like other content disputes; in a few days, the situation with LeBron's contract will be resolved, unequivocally. Zagalejo^^^ 18:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Where the player (especially a high-profile one) has publicly, undisputedly announced that he will sign with a given team as soon as he can, the existence of that announcement is a statement of fact—a very important fact for someone looking at the article about the player. There is no argument against including that fact in the player's article, and in fact it is misleading not to include it. I agree that is different from claiming in the article that the player has already signed with the team, but full-protecting while keeping any mention of the announcement out of the article was an overreaction. This is not like situations in which fans are trying to update the article based merely on unconfirmed rumors or wishful thinking. So I conclude that this article should not have been full-protected and certainly not for as long as it was, purely as a matter of judgment, without reaching the question of involvement. Since the full-protection has been lifted and I don't see anyone seeking to reinstate it, that should resolve the issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• The section title made me think it had come out that LeBron is secretly a Misplaced Pages admin. I’m very disappointed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

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

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Misplaced Pages. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Misplaced Pages. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Misplaced Pages in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. 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. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Arbitration discretionary sanctions motion: community comments invited

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

An arbitration motion has been proposed that would clarify that editors are not permitted to use automated tools or bot accounts to issue discretionary sanctions alerts. The community is encouraged to review and comment on the motion. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Discretionary Sanctions

Hide Edit

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

Please hide this edit and the edit summary. There is another one before this as well. Thanks.Gharouni 11:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done by Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Closed RM

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

Hi, I closed this Requested Move unaware that the page was Move Protected. Can anyone help to implement the workflow. Cheers, Mahveotm (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverted citing Non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: ... The result will require action by an administrator: ... Moving an article into a page (such as a redirect) that can't be accomplished by a regular editor WP:BADNAC. Requesting that an administrator who does have authority to address the Move Protect close the discussion. Hasteur (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to call attention of Administrators and interested editors to at least 2 other cases where Mahveotm's actions around moves have been quesitonable judgement: Moving Module:AfC (which reportedly broke many AfC project workings), regarding a "technical request" move (for which there was not accuracy). I present these as additional touchstones that may be worth looking at. CC: (AlexTheWhovian—Oshwah) as editors who raised the concerns. Hasteur (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I just fixed them all... there were articles and AFC modules and templates that were left completely broken because of these moves..... ~Oshwah~ 22:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure of past issues or mistakes regarding module or template moves - whatever is decided here, just know that we need to be absolutely careful when proposing and making these kinds of technical changes. The moves were very small and simple in nature (only 2 modules were moved not including talk, doc, etc) and it broke many articles and other modules and (see the module pages that were moved here, including a module to formulate map images for geographical articles based in the UK). Regardless, we can at least breathe easy... the damage is undone. We need to take what happened here and use it as an opportunity to formulate how this should be planned and executed and with disaster avoided in the future..... ~Oshwah~ 22:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I was also concerned by those careless actions, and I have asked for the granting admin TonyBallioni to consider revocation of the page mover right, per criterion #2 of WP:PMRR. See User talk:Mahveotm#Module:AfC. Many thanks to Oshwah for clearing the damage. — JFG 23:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Always happy to help ;-) ~Oshwah~ 23:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of NPR permission

Please remove new page reviewer right. I do not now see myself using it any time soon. If I need it in the future, I will request again at that time. Thank you. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Alex Shih (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions alerts

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The following sentence is added to the end of the "Alerts" section of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions: "Editors may not use automated tools or bot accounts to issue alerts."

The Arbitration Committee is aware of a discussion taking place at the Village Pump regarding issuing discretionary sanctions alerts via bot. As this discussion has a potentially large impact on how discretionary sanctions operate, the Arbitration Committee has decided to clarify existing procedures to note that alerts are expected to be manually given at this time. This is intended as a clarification of existing practices and expectations, not a change in current practice. The Arbitration Committee will fully review the advisory Village Pump discussion after completion and take community comments under consideration.

For the Arbitration Committee, GoldenRing (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding discretionary sanctions alerts

Revision delete

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

Request revision deletion in List of programs broadcast by BET, this version in the edit summary, via WP:CRD #2. --B dash (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That edit summary doesn't rise to the level of needing revdel. --NeilN 14:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Login help needed, please

Howdy guys, 12-year wikiveteran and daily editor here, old man now and apparently have gotten really stupid with age or else somebody has screwed up my account. Yesterday or the day before I was logged out automatically (I thought) and the system asked me to make a new password, which I did by a small variation on the one I've used all these years. Well now the new password does not work, nor will the system send a reset email to any of my 3 email accounts (I forget which one I started with on Misplaced Pages).

I've already read the info at Help:Logging in and Help:Reset password, neither of which were very helpful. I would really rather not create a brand new account and lose continuity with my 12 years of edits. Can anyone help me out here? Textorus 47.32.227.223 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Quote from Help:Logging_in#What_if_I_forget_the_password? -

"Otherwise you will have to create a new account under a different username. After doing this, if a user page and user talk page were created for the old account, it is advisable to make them redirect to the equivalent pages for the new account. (To carry the content and history of these pages over to the new location, you can use the "move" function—contact an administrator if assistance is needed.)"

so basically unless you used WP:Committed identity then your only option is to create another account,

You could be anyone and as such we can't really help - The account hasn't made any edits after the 4th so it's not been compromised - You'll either need to try & remember the account details or create a new account. –Davey2010 21:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Davey. Yes, I read the Help article, and I just hoped somebody might know an easier way to get around this problem. What I really don't understand is why Misplaced Pages apparently does not recognize any of my email addresses, all of which I believe I've had since before I joined the project here - that is very strange. Textorus 47.32.227.223 (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you don't have an email set. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3AEmailUser&target=Textorus says: "This user has not specified a valid email address.". SQL 22:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Huh. Well crap, maybe I never entered my email address. That bites. Well after dinner tonight guess I'll be creating a new account, and probably will be back here for help moving the old content & history over, as the Help page says. Thanks SQL. Textorus 47.32.227.223 (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why we ought to change our registration process. We permit new registrants to register without specifying an email address and I'm not proposing to change that. There may well be legitimate reasons for someone to wish to register without specifying an email address. However, I think such a decision should be accompanied by a warning in big red letters with exclamation points, explaining that while they are permitted to register without specifying an email address, they will absolutely unequivocally not be able to update their password should they forget it, and many, many editors have learned this the hard way.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Textorus, you might be able to get help from the tech staff on this one. Even though you don't have a committed identity (hardly a requirement to resolve a problem like this), they could take other steps to confirm that you are the account owner, like checking the most recent IP used by the account against the IP used to make the request. They can be reached by filing a ticket at phabricator.wikimedia.org (you may need to make a new account to do that). Good luck! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

An aside to this: I've never heard of MediaWiki forcing someone to do a password reset - does anyone know anything about that? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I never remember it happening before on WP - I just figured it was the New Normal. But I may try the phabricator thing, though looks like they are pretty slow to respond to queries over there. Thanks Ajraddatz. Textorus 47.32.227.223 (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ajraddatz - Apologies my reply could've been clearer but you're correct it isn't a requirement - I only mentioned it as it could've helped that was all. –Davey2010 00:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Reedy: any insight in to this, such as any updates to badpasswords that may have gone out? — xaosflux 23:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it could have been phishing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. Some recent attempts at phishing have been made using malicious js, but the user doesn't appear to have any local js files, so it's probably unconnected to what I'm thinking of. But it may be a different sort of attempt. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ajr: Sysadmins can force people to reset their passwords via command line command, but last incident that happening (IIRC) was in 2013 with wiki replica problems. — regards, Revi 00:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• The IP is Textorous. I was under the impression that it is not possible in these circumstances for the new account to have the history of the old as it would in a normal rename.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Soooo... Poking around a bit. It does seem that Textorus had an email address confirmed all the way back in 2006. But the field in the DB is blank, and no way to easily find out what it was... Or when it was changed.

On the 3rd May, there was a login to enwiki, and very shortly after a password change. On the 4th July, a successful login was made to enwikiquote. I see one revert shortly after... - Do you remember logging into the English Wikiquote? Are you still logged in if you visit it?

The other option is with the web of trust... Do you know any other Wikipedians in real life? Anyone that can vouch that you are who you say they are? And as such, any that I, or other people I trust, can use their authority to verify you.

Reedy (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the checkuser confirmation, why do we need any further proof? At this point, either we should be saying "sorry, you can't get back into your account" and preparing to grant Textorus' user rights to a new account, or we should be focusing on ways to get him back into it. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparent hoax and vandalism by User:Defensecontributor

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

Apologies if this isn't the right or best place to address this; feel free to move this or let me know of a better venue!

It appears that User:Defensecontributor is attempting to create a hoax article. A cursory search of the subject shows no hits and the "company's" "executives" are undergraduate students. This editor logged out and made similar edits, including adding one of those same people to the article of a real company. Unless I've missed something or made a mistake, this editor has clearly earned a block and a summary deletion of their hoax article. ElKevbo (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Thanks for spotting this. The company seems real but based on the two editing histories, we can't trust anything the creator has written. Draft G3'd and editor indeffed. --NeilN 16:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the company exists but thanks for taking care of this anyway! ElKevbo (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Enforcement requests for General Sanctions

With cryptocurrency and professional wrestling added to the areas under community-authorized general sanctions, is there any enthusiasm setting up a board similar to WP:AE that would handle enforcement requests? WP:ANEW can handle violations of revert restrictions but is unsuited to discuss behavior and WP:AN does not have the organized structure WP:AE has. --NeilN 00:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Generally the Arbcom system is better organized than the community system. The simplest would be to run a combined board, dealing with both arbitration sanctions and community sanctions. But that would be like crossing the streams and most likely Arbcom wouldn't go for it. You could also combine Arbcom alerts and community alerts just by issuing new two-letter codes for each kind of community sanction. (You would still say subst:alert topic=xx for new values of xx). Since the Arbcom alert system set up in 2014 is much easier to use than the former one this saves work for admins and others who want to give the alerts. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Having a structured board would be an improvement over free-form ANI discussions, but combining community sanctions into AE would limit sanction discussions to admins, and limit non-admins to stand-alone statements with no threading. That works for AE because the admins in the bottom section, who are deciding on sanctions/no sanctions can thread, and the statements from non-admins are just informational, but a community sanction needs to be able to be discussed by all parts of the community, not just admins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Kind of confused here. "Administrators employing these sanctions must issue appropriate notifications, and log all sanctions imposed, as specified in each case... Administrators may not impose sanctions unless an editor has previously been made aware of the existence of these sanctions." It's still admins deciding on an editor's sanctions, no? --NeilN 01:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you're right, Neil. I was thinking of community-imposed General Sanctions as being along the same lines as a community imposed block, which shouldn't be lifted by an admin without community approval, but it does appear that General Sanctions are defined in pretty much the same manner as Discretionary Sanctions. I've struck that part of my comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree and have argued the same before - two similar yet (confusingly) different systems is needless bureaucracy Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with combining the alert systems into Template:Alert, provided the documentation of the template makes clear these systems are distinct. ~ Rob₁₃ 16:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be fine with setting up WP:AN/GS, which could also handle appeals in a more structured way if those ever happen. Right now there doesn't seem to be a clear way to request GS enforcement besides ANI, which of course defeats the point of community authorized discretionary sanctions in a way: its not as streamlined. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I'm fine with a new board, but it should be structured in some way (though it may need 2-3 different templates for enforcement/appeals/complaints); unstructured complaints are handled as well as possible at AN/ANI and I don't think a new forum will help with that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support with moderate enthusiasm. I think a parallel system would be useful. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• I would prefer lumping in with AE to reduce bureaucracy, but would accept a new board begrudgingly. I've been reminding various patrollers that summary deletions of pages where the creator has an undisclosed financial conflict of interest and tendentiously resubmitted drafts at AFC are available under the blockchain sanctions if they ask me. There should be a centralised venue to report these -- ANI doesn't seem to be the best fit. MER-C 12:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• If it could be merged with AE, but with it's own non-Arbcom-dictated process, that would be idea. However, Arbcom is usually not receptive to having their creations messed with. Assuming that's the case here, I would support a similar enforcement venue (WP:GSE?) to provide structure and a wee bit of decorum.- MrX 🖋 15:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• I think we should minimize the confusion and send these reports to WP:AE. Most people probably can't tell the difference between AN and ANI; how will they tell the difference between AE and a GS-specific noticeboard? We should organize Misplaced Pages's bureaucracy in a way that simplifies work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• @Alex Shih, Doug Weller, KrakatoaKatie, and Newyorkbrad: Pinging a few Arbcom members to see if we can discuss expanding the scope of WP:AE or if that's a total non-starter. I agree that having one board to handle requests for all discretionary sanctions enforcement would be a lot easier for editors. They don't care (or know) if the discretionary sanctions were authorized by Arbcom or the community. --NeilN 14:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• The first, best, choice should be to centralize discussions at AE. There also needs to be a rationalization of notice requirements and procedures between DS and GS that implement DS. I would suggest expanding the DS/alert infrastructure to support GS/DS; not because it is the best option but because it is the simplest way to get things integrated. Alternately the community can come up with a simpler procedure and convince ArbCom to change DS to fit. This would, in my opinion, be the better option since the DS notification system is, frankly, an over-engineered nightmare of cognitive dissonance. Regardless, handling GS at AN it ANI would be counter-productive to say the least. Jbh 15:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'm going to talk to the Committee/clerks about allowing community sanction discussions at AE. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I responded to Kevin's email, but I also want to give some thoughts here. I think sending these to AE would get quite confusing. All of our instructions surrounding AE include notes that decisions can be appealed to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA, something which is not true for general sanctions. Also, arbitration clerks can theoretically clerk AE and sanction editors there as a clerk action. While they generally do not, in favor of allowing administrators to clerk AE, they could. I suspect the community wouldn't want arbitration clerks having jurisdiction over general sanctions discussions, which is what would happen if we allowed general sanctions discussions at AE. The best thing about general sanctions is that they are community-imposed and managed, which is the ideal way to resolve any dispute, as far as I'm concerned. We're moving away from that if we send reports to AE, which is a noticeboard under the control of the Arbitration Committee. I want the Committee to be doing less when it comes to dispute resolution, not more. We're better-suited for things the community genuinely cannot handle, such as review of administrative conduct (until/unless a community-based desysopping policy emerges), privacy-related issues, managing the functionary team, etc. ~ Rob₁₃ 16:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • How many arb clerks are not administrators? Wouldn't they need tools to sanction anyway? Natureium (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
      • @Natureium: Five clerks (including myself) are not administrators. Most sanctions (like topic bans/etc.) don't strictly require the tools to impose, but I think what Rob is referring to is the authority of the arbitration clerks to maintain order on arbitration pages. Non-admin clerks can't impose discretionary sanctions, but if someone gets disruptive on the AE page itself (or any page that begins with WP:Arbitration), the clerks have some reserve authority to ban that person from editing the AE page under the procedures and ArbCom decisions. I don't think this is something that really comes up; in my nearly-three-and-a-half years, we have never exercised our authority on the WP:AE page. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I also responded to Kevin's email and I'll echo those thoughts here. General sanctions and arbitration sanctions are definitely not the same thing. General sanctions are enacted and enforced by the community using community processes, and discretionary sanctions are enacted and enforced by the Arbitration Committee when community processes have failed. If GS enforcement is sent to AE, that enforcement discussion is effectively being taken out of the community's hands. I think it's kind of a lazy way out if community decides to formulate sanctions and then community decides to have the Arbitration Committee deal with them. I believe AN is pretty well equipped to handle GS enforcement; it's (usually) less vitriolic than ANI and it's widely watched. Set up another noticeboard if that's desired, and let's have some ideas for DS alert rewording or revamping if desired, but leave the Committee out of community sanctions enforcement as much as humanly possible. Katie 21:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly support doing at GS and DS at AE. All of these "sanctions" exist for the same reason; to quell/prevent disruption and to deal swiftly with it, when it happens. We already have the infrastructure for the latter at AE. We may need to tweak the name of AE to something like "sanction enforcement" or the like. We probably need an RfC to do all this; I understand that the OP was just about starting the discussion and I am grateful for it being opened. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think I can speak for the Committee when saying it’s a hard no to doing arbitration enforcement on a non-arbitration page. We need jurisdiction over the enforcement of our past cases. ~ Rob₁₃ 00:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: Rob, I think you may have expressed that backwards, the question was not about doing Arbitration enforcement on a non-ArbCom-controlled page, it was about doing non-ArbCom enforcement (i.e enforcement of community-imposed General Sanctions) on an ArbCom-controlled page (i.e. AE). Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: Jytdog talked about renaming AE as something different ("sanction enforcement"). I'm saying that will not happen, since it must be under WP:Arbitration to be within ArbCom jurisdiction. ~ Rob₁₃ 01:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13 and KrakatoaKatie: There's no room for assuming admins and clerks will exercise a little bit of common sense here? An editor adds a request, an admin or arbcom clerk can mark it as falling under arbcom sanctions or community sanctions. Admins are going to go through the exact same process anyways. Arbcom sanctions are enacted by arbcom and requests for enforcement are dealt with by admins. Community sanctions are enacted by community and requests for enforcement are again dealt with by admins. --NeilN 01:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not interested in weakening the clerks' ability to act on arbitration-related pages by bringing in non-arbitration activities and setting up some kind of rules about when they can/can't act as a clerk at AE. If we're going to be setting up such a divide, why not have an alternative noticeboard to minimize the confusion, bureaucracy, and jurisdiction issues? ~ Rob₁₃ 01:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Topic Ban appeal

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

Good day (or whatever it is for you),

hereby, I am appealing my topic ban once again. I was „indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to automobile and units of measurement of any kind, broadly construed.“ Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Misplaced Pages community. Back in Spring 2017, I created a controversy surrounding the use of SI units in Misplaced Pages automobile articles that lead to a devastating conflict during Summer and Autumn. Now, one year later, I consider my own behaviour unreasonable, stubborn and sort of obsessive. I have wasted months desperately attempting to change consensus, ending up fighting against several other authors – which led to the topic ban and even a 6-month-block. Frankly speaking, it was stupid and did not only cause days of frustration for just myself. Therefore, I wish to apologise to everyone who was involved back then. I do not intend to return to my old behaviour and I am willing to accept the concept of consensus. Before drastically changing or even attempting to change well established ways of „how to do it“ I will ask other editors. At this point, the topic ban is not required anymore since I do not wish to harm any further. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Impossible, sorry. You were originally indefintely topic banned in July 2017. In October you were blocked for 24 hours for violating that ban. After what can only be called either selective deafness or pushing the boundaries, Boing! said Zebedee extended your block six months. You also had your talk-page aces revoked. So, in fact, the only reason, for all intents and purposes that you have been able to adhere to your topic ban is because you were blocked? I think this is one of those cases, where, although officially you could (as you are doing) appeal within six months of it being issued, in fact, I think we would want to see six months of editing in uncontroversial areas. In other words, demonstrate that you can edit outside of the problem areas without a block enforcing it. Let's say: the next appeal no less than six months from today? I propose that, but, no problem—the community may say otherwise. Fiat justitia ruat caelum. —SerialNumber54129 15:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Too soon. You were blocked for topic-ban violations on 2017-10-09. That block was for six months. There was a subsequent block, on 2018-05-01, but that was by your own request and definitely not something that should be held against you. My concern here, though, is that since 2017-10-09, you've made no edits to articles at all. As such, I don't think we have any significant evidence of you editing constructively. I want to be clear, I am saying "too soon" rather than "oppose". I'm glad to see your comments here, they indicate that you are a good candidate for having the topic ban lifted at some point. --Yamla (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• I concur with Yamla. I'd like to see a few months of positive contributions to articles. I think they are knowledgeable, and have potential to be a solid contributor, but I'd like to see some evidence before lifting the topic ban.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

In my defence: Virtually every article here contains units of measurement. Therefore, I feel like I cannot edit Misplaced Pages without violating the topic ban. This means that I have adhered to the topic ban by not editing Misplaced Pages at all. Just a quick reminder: The block in October was imposed because I had asked user:1292simon to refrain from adding Original Research to the article Flathead engine which was then considered automobile-related. I had not expected the ban to be this strict. Since I really do not want to violate the topic ban once again, I have stopped contributing. I do not want to risk another block and I cannot see where the boundaries are. To give you an example: I am working on engine articles a lot and the original Diesel engine was not designed as an automobile engine. In fact, due to it's technical limitations, it was impossible to use the Diesel engine as an automobile engine. (To make it easier to imagine, I am talking about something like this). So, initially, the Diesel engine was not related to "automobile". However, since working on the article flathead engine led to a block, I expect that editing the article Diesel engine would also lead to a block. To be fair, I am exaggerating this by using this example, since starting in the late 1920's, Diesel engines became popular as engines for lorries which are definitely automobiles. But what if there is something else? Just a tiny little something somewhere in an article that I might not even see? Would you consider that a topic ban violation? I mean, there are just too many things that are somehow related to the topics that I am currently banned from. Accidently editing something that has some unit of measurement somewhere or is somehow related to automobiles would be a reason for another block. No matter whether it is an accident or not. (And consider that people would hardly believe me when I say that it was an accident.) At least, that's what I think is the case, correct me if I'm wrong. Therefore, I don't think that it would be a reasonable idea to start editing Misplaced Pages at this point with the ban still in place. Maybe you have not seen this and I admit, it's hard to believe something that is in German (I suppose that most of you do not understand German), but in the German language Misplaced Pages, I am contributing almost every day and other editors mostly consider me a good author. I am known for high-quality articles and properly cited sources. In fact, I am even a Mentor for new users. I mean, why would I be a Mentor if I was a "problem user"? I admit that I have made a mistake by completely ignoring consensus. I thought that the rule "sources > opinions" would apply here. But it turned out that I caused actual harm and I regret that. Actually, I have learned that those people who I thought were hostile, are reasonable editors. I even found myself working together with Andy Dingley on Commons; he helped me categorising my photographs properly. Yamla, you have said that I am appealing too soon – I think that almost 12 months later is not too soon. During the time period in which I was blocked, I have learned a lot and while I have not contributed to the English language Misplaced Pages, I have created several high-quality articles in the German language Misplaced Pages, two of them being featured articles. Yes, it might seem like nothing was going on in the past few months, but my mindset has changed. Definitely. I think it would be nothing but appropriate and fair if I stayed away from automobile articles for a while voluntarily in case of an unban. I neither want to harm nor annoy anybody, I would definitely re-start Misplaced Pages slowly with editing occasionally. Maybe I find some minor mistakes here and there which I would correct, maybe there are new things I am interested in. I'd also like Alex Shih to comment since he was involved in the process back then. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Johannes Maximilian, I think you interpret the ban too broadly. Look at WP:TBAN. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is not only forbidden from editing the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as...weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not. Yes, tons of articles have measurements in them, but parts of those articles not dealing with measurements aren't covered by your ban. For a random example, Van Wert County Courthouse has measurements of area (infobox) and the height of a statue, but as long as you don't touch those parts or add something measurement-related or automobile-related, you have no more restrictions on this article than anyone else. Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Responding to ping. The appealing too soon refers to appealing too soon after the previous declined appeal, particularly when this new appeal doesn't really address the points raised in the previous appeal. Like I mentioned before, if you cannot write in a more concise manner, you are still going to frustrate everyone here. For the record, I would support suspending instead of lifting the topic ban on the condition that it may be re-imposed by any uninvolved administrator with good reason at any time. The slow edit war over not redirecting User:Jojhnjoy to your new username however is really bizarre, but I suppose it's not explicitly against policy; although it can reasonably interpreted as evading scrutiny. Alex Shih (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: There are many unconstructive edits that are not against any specific policy but fall under various rubrics like disruption, incompetence, and NOTHERE. At a minimum his wanting to say that he's retired on that page instead of the redirect causes problems for other editors if they try to follow a link from his former username. I've warned the editor to leave the page alone, and I'll enforce my warning if necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Too Soon You caused a lot of unnecessary drama that was only ended with a long term block. I am glad you recognize this and your opening statement accepting responsibility is encouraging. However, I have to agree with those who think this is too soon. Come back next summer (2019). For the record you are not prohibited from editing articles that contain units of measurement in them. The TBan only applies to articles where units of measurement constitute a substantial aspect of the article or attempts to edit actual UM in an article. If you want to improve RMS Titanic, which does contain UM, i.e. her gross tonnage length beam etc., no one is going to ding you as long as you stay off those statistics and don't start counting rivets or port holes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think some of the comments here are understandably confusing Johannes Maximilian and will come back to haunt everyone. If the topic ban is to be interpreted as all edits related to automobiles and all edites related to units of measurement, both broadly construed, then Johannes should not be able to edit the UM in the Titanic article. If one administrator says he can but another doesn't know that and blocks him for violating his ban, how is this Johannes's fault? Unless we want to change the ban, it should mean what it says.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend, the ban says „broadly construed“; what is that supposed to mean in the first place? How broad is it? You are saying I am interpreting it too broadly. In the past, I had interpreted it the opposite of "too broadly" – and I was blocked. I really want to be more careful, but thank you for your reply. Alex, well, you are right that I am not really being concise, but trust me, you are not the only one who has told me. I appreciate your suggestion of suspending the topic ban instead of lifting it at this point and I think that this is a good idea. My old username was horrible and I prefer to abandon it. My "old" edits are still visible under Special:Contribs/Johannes_Maximilian so I cannot evade scrutiny, even if I wanted to. But I understand that one could reasonably interpret it as evading. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Just for clarification, in my comment above I pointed to the Titanic article, I am stating that JM may not edit any units of measurement. As long as he stays off that, he is free to edit or discuss the rest of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Ad Orientem, I misread it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree this is premature and that the best way forward would be to edit in areas not covered by the topic ban, which is almost all the encyclopedia. The OP was blocked in October for violations of the topic ban, that block expired in April. The OP has only made a handful of edits to Misplaced Pages since, apart from topic ban appeals these were all in user or user talk space. The topic ban doesn't cover all articles containing units of measurement, it only covers articles which are about units of measurement or edits which add/change units of measurement in other types of article. "Broadly construed" just means that the OP isn't likely to be given the benefit of the doubt in ambiguous cases and can't use hair splitting to justify making edits which arguably fall under the topic ban. If someone can show through constructive editing that a topic ban is not needed then the topic ban is likely to be lifted. Hut 8.5 13:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Please don't forget that the ban also covers "automobile"; automobile means something like "moving under own power" and that covers any kind of vehicle as well as things that are related to that. There are so many things that can be found in a vehicle that could be related to "automobile". I could start contributing again – but who guarantees me that editing articles like Diesel engine for instance would not get me blocked? What if some editor who has no idea sees me editing and asks an administrator who has also no idea to get me blocked? Laymen would most likely associate Diesel engines with "automobile" because they don't know that the Diesel engine was never designed for automobile use (which is something I cannot even blame them for). In fact, the section of that particular article that describes the air-blast injection is quite poor and I have got plenty of books lying around covering that topic. I could contribute a lot there. But I believe, that, even if I cite a source that clearly says that air-blast injection cannot be used for automobiles, some people would still say that it is a topic ban violation and I am very sure that someone would block me. So I'd rather not edit at all. Anyways, any support for Alex Shih's proposal of suspending the topic ban? --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• You're wikilawyering this into the ground. Automobile has a common meaning. You shouldn't make any edits related to automobiles. The edit you hypothesize about diesel engines would be included. Really, what difference does it make that diesel engines were supposedly never designed to be used in cars? The point is they are. There are huge areas of the encyclopedia that are not even remotely related to automobiles that you can edit. I get the sense that the only articles that interest you are those covered by your ban. I don't favor a suspension of the ban, btw.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• That is exactly what I mean. Air-blast injection has nothing to do with automobile. And yet you are saying it is covered by the ban. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

But well, this doesn't lead anywhere, to make this clear, I am not going to make an edit related to air-blast injection. As you have said, it was a hypothetical thought I have brought up to explain my point. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your topic ban covers any edits "relating to automobiles". I'm struggling to understand how anybody would think that a type of engine widely used in automobiles does not relate to automobiles. Hut 8.5 16:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Air-blast injected engines cannot be used in automobiles. Just take a look at the edit I made at 16:36. If you happen to know German and still have questions regarding this, feel free to ask them here. But I think we should stop this here since the example I have made doesn't seem to make it easier for you to understand what I want to express. We would end up wasting too much time. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of TBAN - The Wikilawyering is strong with this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per this (removed) diff; I'm not sure whether this is incompetence or wiki-lawyering. Either way, it doesn't demonstrate the competence or temperament for me to support lifting restrictions. This editor also appealed their sanction in April (before a rename) and should be prohibited from appealing for at least 6 months, with a note that if they do not make constructive edits, their appeal will be declined again. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wall of text you don't necessarily need to read:

Need help tidying edit history on prominent article

(Please see here for background -- it's a long and varied discussion, but for this topic, look for the comments from me and from Czar.)

A week or so ago, I restored the previously-deleted version of this article. The article was getting covered in the news, and I felt it would be helpful for the news-reading public to have access to the earliest versions of the article, which were deleted. However, there was an unfortunate side effect, pointed out by Czar: the new edit history tended to lead to the erroneous conclusion that they (Czar) had deleted the article, when in fact it was another Wikipedian. Czar described to me how to restore the condition I had found it in, and last night at about 3am New York time, I tried to do so: re-delete the entire article, and then click through 815 checkboxes to restore only the revisions that came after the initial deletion.

However, when I clicked "restore," I got an error message: "Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem..." I believe restoring so many revisions in one click is what lead to a problem, as the site seemed to work fine other than that.

Could a more technically-minded admin please advise if there is another way to accomplish the same goal? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your restore went through properly, as you can see at Special:Undelete/Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. —Cryptic 17:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you are correct...sorry for the false alarm. There are two restore buttons, and I thought the one I clicked to make that happen was a full restore of all revisions. Using the other button is what lead to the error described above. Still confused by how the software is supposed to work, but glad to see the article is now as it should be. Thanks Cryptic. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Captain Occam unblock request

Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I blocked Captain Occam in April as a normal admin action based on this AE request. While it was an normal admin block, I think it should be reviewed by the community since it took place with the consensus of uninvolved administrators. I am neutral on the outcome of this unblock request. The unblock request is as follows:

As I've said in a few other places, I accept that my block itself was valid, and if it had been a standard one-month AE block I'd have waited it out rather than trying to appeal. However, considering this was my first topic ban violation, I think that a one-month block (or three months, which is now how long it's been) would have been a more appropriate result than an indefinite one.Blocking me for a month had been the initial consensus in the results section of the AE report about me, until MastCell presented his argument that I should be indeffed based on what he thought my motives were, which shifted the direction of the discussion to make the outcome an indefinite block instead. This matters because MastCell probably is an involved admin with respect to the R&I arbitration case, and shouldn't have commented in that section. Shortly before my block I discussed this matter via e-mail with a member of ArbCom, Euryalus, and Euryalus offered to send MastCell e-mail advising him to refrain from further participation in that section of the report. I don't have the space here to present the evidence for why he's an involved admin (and my interaction ban prevents me from discussing some of it in public), but I've shown this evidence privately to Penwhale and I invite his comment.Since the decision to block me indefinitely instead of for a month was based largely on an assumption about my motives for helping to set up the psychometrics task force, I think it's important to point out that this assumption was incorrect. I'm not sure how one is supposed to go about proving something about their thoughts, but there's one piece of evidence that seems to have been overlooked: Everymorning, who created the task force and did most of the work setting it up, has a perspective about intelligence and behavioral genetics that's very close to the opposite of mine. If my goal had in fact been to advance my point of view on those topics, it would have made no sense for me to help set up a task force with him in charge.At the time, it didn't occur to me that my involvement in this task force would be viewed as a topic ban violation, because I assumed that the scope of my topic ban was the same as the scope of the ARBR&I discretionary sanctions. (That is, "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed"; the edits for which I was blocked involved human abilities and behavior but did not involve race or ethnicity.) As I said in the request for clarification that I made shortly before being blocked, now that I more accurately understand how the scope of my topic ban is interpreted, I intend to avoid all content at Misplaced Pages related to psychometrics or intelligence for as long as my topic ban is in effect. I didn't understand this about my topic ban in March, but now that I do, there isn't a danger of me repeating this particular mistake. I'm also open to the idea of disabling my Misplaced Pages e-mail feature, if the community feels that this should be an unblock condition.My interests at Misplaced Pages are pretty eclectic, but other people can get an idea of what I'd edit if unblocked based on my editing history from January 2017 until I became involved in the psychometrics task force this past March. I edited articles related to religion, video games and books, and my editing history going forward will be similar to that. If I can muster the time and energy for it, I also hope to eventually raise William Beebe to FA status, having previously turned this article from start-class into a GA. (See the article's edit history from April 2010 to June 2011.) In the past I've also been one of the main people maintaining that article, so even if I never manage to get it up to FA status, I would like to at least continue making Wikignome formatting edits as I did here. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm opening this up for the community to review. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Captain Occam has pinged Penwhale and Everymorning, but not @MastCell and Euryalus: I've done that now, as I think they may well want to comment. Bishonen | talk 19:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC).
  • Bishonen, I changed it to no pings here (they were pinged in his talk though) and notified MastCell. Thanks for pinging Euryalus. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose unblock after having read the April discussion that led to the block and the associated evidence. Bishonen's observations back then were especially persuasive. Cullen Let's discuss it 19:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Noting CO's response here per his request, see this diff: . TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I am utterly unimpressed with that "explanation". Captain Occam observes while defending his ally: "However, he also loves to provoke people on social media, and he seems to enjoy how others react to his making those sorts of Nazi-related references." We do not need trolls posing as Nazis editing Misplaced Pages, and we do not need editors who defend those who engage in such reprehensible behavior. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - CO has been a perennial problem each time he's been given some ROPE, and there's absolutely no reason to expect that his behavior will be different this time around if he were unblocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Misplaced Pages does not need another warrior using the project to push a favored point of view. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I'm neutral on an unblock, for largely the same reasons given by the oppose votes so far. If an unblock happens, the TBAN should be on subjects related to race or intelligence, which is far broader than the DS area of race and intelligence. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Noting CO's response to power~enwiki: - Penwhale | 02:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm still neutral. While the email-harassment issue that originated the complaint is sufficiently dealt with by the block so far, and there are less than 250 edits since 2011 (and nothing too problematic in them), the other defenses presented are so awful I can't support an unblock. Complaining that an admin is biased in your unblock request is a great way to get it denied (if there is private evidence, ARBCOM will have to deal with it), and claiming that a person isn't a neo-Nazi but is simply an online provocateur is not a reason for that person to edit Misplaced Pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Note that I consider myself involved in the current request because CO contacted me via a RL friend of mine. There are... a few things I'd like to point out: There are two things that CO wants dealt with by the the current unblock request: (1) an actual unblock appeal, and (2) consideration of MastCell's involvement with regards to the topic area. With regards to the unblock appeal: I'm neutral (because I consider myself involved). With regards to MastCell: After seeing what CO has shown me, I think MastCell should refrain from performing admin actions in the topic area. My observation of the whole situation is that while CO probably wouldn't mind being unblocked (perhaps with more restrictions as per power~enwiki's suggestion), he wants to have the latter dealt with as a higher priority. I would ask that this request is not closed so early so that both can be discussed at length. - Penwhale | 02:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Why are we allowing an editor who was blocked precisely for hounding and lawyering and using offwiki communication to pressure users he disagree with away from the one topic that he is interested to use his talkpage request to hound and lawyer against an admin that has opposed him and his agenda in several instances with the decided effect of pressuring that admin away from the topic? His block was not based on Mastcell's argument but on his own behavior. Which he now continues.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing about his unblock. I guess I didn't say that I would still have been neutral w/r to the unblock even if I weren't involved. That being said, what he has shown me does lead me to believe that MC should refrain from using admin powers in the area. - Penwhale | 04:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• CO knows full well that a variety of off-wiki sites are available for harassing editors and there is no need for WP:AN to be used for that purpose. If an editor in good standing has an issue with another editor, the first step would be to discuss it on the the talk page of the person in question. If warranted, an editor in good standing could then post a new report here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm lead to believe, from what I was shown, that CO had a rough time determining how to do it w/o violating his IBAN w/ MathSci, namely because CO believes that MC is using admin powers in support of MathSci while being involved. Again, I feel the issue is complicated by the fact that CO believes MC's involvement changed the consensus of his block. - Penwhale | 04:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Please do not proxy for a topic and interaction banned user. If you believe MastCell should be sanctioned, start a new section and present your evidence. Otherwise, do not smear editors in good standing with someone believes bad stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't care about his block. (Frankly, I'm also not very happy that I'm constantly messaged, but that's a different thing.) The argument for MastCell's involvement is really weak, but it'd go like Trev makes this edit → Trev blocked within 30 minutes of NE Ent making an AE request with no other comments by MastCell → MastCell was privately contacted by Mathsci for dealing with editors under IBAN/TBAN in the area → ... I disagree with CO's sentiment that MastCell is always on Mathschi's side (this is such an example).
• That being said, MastCell doesn't have to (and I don't feel that strongly about MastCell's involvement), but if MastCell would voluntarily not use admin tools in the area just so that CO doesn't have a bone to pick, we'd be done here (this would also bypass any WP:INVOLVED argument). As is, one of the (weak) reasons for the appeal is exactly of that; removing that as a possible reason allows any sanction against CO to be on a more solid ground. Also, when is calling someone involved in a topic area smear editors in good standing? In my opinion, it's like how {{DS/alert}} is a notification that doesn't necessarily imply any wrongdoing. - Penwhale | 08:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

If MastCell were to do that then we would in effect have allowed a banned user to exact vengeance on one of his opponents after being banned *and* to continue to exert control over who edits in the topic area that got them banned in the first place. That is a very very bad idea. His very unblock request is a violation of the conditions of his topic ban - he should have no influence on the topic area what soever, includding in determining who is "involved". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock per NOTBURO and ROPE. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• How does NOTBURO apply? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not taking a stance on this either way, but I'd like to point out that this is hardly the case where ROPE would apply either. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Request narrowing of ban

I would request the narrowing of the ban that was imposed on me, so that it would include only high schools. This is the only place where I fell amiss of the community, on three issues: poverty-related background, religious post-nominals, and spiritual activities. I came into the dispute thinking that policy and guidelines controlled content questions, and that administrators would judge the merits of the arguments in the end. It was only at the end of the dispute that I learned that content issues were settled by a vote. I fully accept this now, and I will be wiser in defending or letting go of my edits in the future.

Failing this request, could I receive permission to merge my deleted material below onto the ten websites listed, with possibly new references. In these cases I was going by the principle that institutes should be moved to a separate article when they take excessive space in the university article. And when reviewers accepted these articles (and many more) I thought that they found the institutes notable in themselves. In the future I have the benefit of what I learned from the 34 proposed deletions of my articles this year.

Here to Regis University; here to Fairfield University; here to Boboto College; here to Creighton University; here to Hekima University College; here to St. Xavier's College, Palayamkottai; here to Thiruvalluvar University; here to St. Xavier's College, Jaipur; here to Catholic Church in South Africa; here to Immaculate Conception Church (New Orleans). Jzsj (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This editor wasted enormous amounts of volunteer time due to their stubborn refusal to accept consensus and our well-established guidelines. He mentions a small example above: he persisted with his notion that adminstrators adjudicate content disputes despite being told that is not the case repeatedly, and he continues to confuse consensus with a "vote". The worst disruption was in connection with Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School only because he chose to dig in his heels there. I lack confidence that he will not begin disrupting other articles about educational institutions if the topic ban is narrowed. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Rather than being "told ... repeatedly" that administrators do not interfere in content disputes, this issue was muddled by repeated suggestions that I appeal to administrators, and it was generally the same few people who tried backing up their insistence with general references that were not specific or probative. I thought that this would end up in some form of mediation where an administrator would look at all the evidence and see that the three issues involved were religious issues and there was nothing specific that favored those who opposed me. The focus never seemed to me to be on the issues but on a few who opposed me producing the votes, and that is what I thought an impartial administrator would see after looking over all the evidence. Also, please explain what you mean by "the worst disruption"; that seems misleading to me since it as the three issues at Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School (which I listed at the top here) that were the topic of the whole discussion. Jzsj (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose-Unconvincing.∯WBG 03:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Can you be more specific? What part of what I say do you need me to support from the pages referenced above? Jzsj (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose User is already blocked twice for violating his topic ban regarding education and schools. And he has already got a narrowing for his ban, as he is allowed to enter the discussion when school-articles he created are nominated for deletion. It is clear that Jzsj completely missed the message of the ban. The Banner talk 18:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• ... or as he works on dozens of articles he might inadvertently edit one that pertains to the school ban, broadly construed. Jzsj (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (Non-administrator comment) There is more than 200k of discussion directly related to this editor's threads at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School/Archive 2. It was probably the single largest time suck I've been involved in at Misplaced Pages. And even in this relatively short thread requesting loosening of the topic ban I already see traces of some of the same problematic behaviour (walls of text, pointing the finger at others, and requesting that those not agreeing with him explain things repeatedly or in more and more detail). As with Cullen, I am not confident that loosening of the topic ban would not result in resumed disruption. Meters (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Jzsj, per WP:OFFER, the earliest you could have asked this, had your behavior been impeccable, would have been September 7. Due to your blocks, that is now December 3, 2018. You've not been properly informed of the standard offer. Now you have. Suggest you withdraw this as premature. John from Idegon (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Salami tactics

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

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Salami tactics

I am requesting admin attention at this MFD (and MFD is as contentious as AFD) for three reasons:

1. Off-topic personal attacks between author User:James500 and User:Hijiri88 who appear to have bad blood.

2. Personal attacks by User:James500.

3. The silly claim by James500 that at 30 Centigrade it is too hot to coMpose a reply. Go to the library. He may be trying to confuse Americans who use Fahrenheit, but that’s 86F. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no intention of editing that MfD again and have not edited it for some time. I have no wish to interact with the other user again. If you want me to provide diffs to support any claim I made, I can do so, but I think it would just re-escalate something that is already over, as far as I can see. I cannot "go to the library" as I am housebound due to illness and that temperature is more than I can bear. James500 (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment this seems like a standard inclusionist-deletionist argument. James500 is very inclusionist, though for some reason he doesn't use the standard bolded keep-delete !votes at AfD, preferring non-bolded "Oppose" or "Notable" votes when he supports keeping articles. Overall he is possibly the most quixotic AFD participant since Unscintillating. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Oppose" does not mean "keep", it means "anything but deletion". It just means that a target for redirection or merger exists, but I haven't checked for notability. The closest thing that I could write would be "redirect or merge or keep" with no preference expressed. I am not quixotic. As a general rule, I am the one finding the sources when others do not seem to know how to use a search engine properly, I am the one checking the academics' GScholar h-indexes for WP:PROF when no one else looked, and so forth. I do a valuable job at AfD and you are lucky to have me. James500 (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @James500: You'll want to read WP:FLOUNCE a few times. Keep that ego in check. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• I have to say "It's warm outside" is one of the weirdest rationales for opposing an MfD I've ever seen. Reyk _YO! 06:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It was crushingly unbearably hot inside as well. It was the longest hottest heatwave for some time. The Metreological Office has been issuing health warnings because of this: . It has been that bad. James500 (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't consider it to be an off-topic personal attack to point out that the essay under discussion is representative of a battleground mentality that its author has demonstrated in other recent, closely related, discussions. I specifically cited diffs claiming a grand deletionist conspiracy to destroy the encyclopedia, a claim that was until yesterday repeated on the page in question. If other editors consider it a personal attack, I will bow to consensus, apologize, and not repeat those kinds of comments.

I do not consider this a "deletionist vs. inclusionist" debate, because I do not consider myself a deletionist: if a page written by a self-identified deletionist that made similar polemical attacks against other users, I would have !voted the exact same way.

I do consider James500's remarks about me to be personal attacks, but not ones that rise to the level of AN yet, and I think it should be my prerogative to report such things when they involve me. I've seen enough drahma come out of this MFD already, and I don't want to spend any more time thinking about it (it was bad enough that I was reminded about literally the worst thing that ever happened to me in nine years editing Misplaced Pages).

Can someone just close this?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(On what should be an entirely unrelated note, I grew up in Dublin, Ireland, where the maximum forecast temperature today is 21℃, which is I understand quite hot for my hometown, so I have almost no natural tolerance for heat, and currently live in Osaka where the minimum temperature tonight will be 26℃ and tomorrow at around noon it will climb to 33℃. So I have probably more reason than almost any other editor of English Misplaced Pages to complain about the heat -- the only others with more would be people used to an Irish-style temperate climate who currently live in the desert -- and I agree it makes no sense to do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC) )

I once had to defend myself against a completely frivolous edit warring allegation in the middle of Australian summer, where temperatures can often exceed 42 degrees, and the only things I had to complain about were the wikilawyering and malice of the litigant, not the ambient air temperature. So I'm not super impressed with "I object! It's 30 degrees outside!" Reyk _YO! 08:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I ran a brief Google check and found that the difference between Dublin and Osaka is rougly the same as the difference between Osaka and Riyadh (I was a little surprised to see that Riyadh is apparently hotter than Cairo...). That's what I was referring to with "the desert". I assume that "often exceed 42 degrees" refers to the inland areas that could reasonably be compared to Riyadh in terms of climate, but I'm barely capable of Googling the current weather where I am, let alone looking up average temperatures in multiple regions where "how's the weather now in X" won't work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, if you're in a country that is used to hot summers, with everywhere having AC and whatnot, you're probably far better equipped to deal with 42℃ then us poor Brits are with 30℃. It's not easy. Fish+Karate 12:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I have closed the MfD as consensus to userfy. It's about 12 hours early, but I think the debate has run its course and all that's going to happen now is more yelling. Ritchie333 12:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologes

Hi all,

I have been working up some suggestions for the policy and associated advice on apologies in dispute resolution. I am not an Admin, so I am wondering how in practice you handle the issue. Would any of you be able to reply to the two specific questions below?

• WP:CIVIL states that an apology can not be demanded. Are there any occasions in practice when such a demand does get made and have to be met? For example if an editor is required to withdraw a direct legal or personal threat, can – or should – their retraction ever be required to include a sincere apology?
• There must surely be times when a sincere apology, following an escalated incident, would reduce the level of sanctions likely to be imposed. A request for such an apology might inevitably carry the implied threat of worse sanctions if it were refused. Would that count as a "demand"? How is such a situation best handled?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• By definition, there is no such thing as a forced sincere apology. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I've seen many many instances where people were told "you should apologize". I am always a little wary of these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like it when people are told to apologize. A forced (or requested) apology shows only that someone is intelligent enough to realize an empty apology will serve their goals better than egotistical stubbornness. I may be more cynical than the typical admin, but you can at least count on the fact that I won't harass you to get an insincere apology. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Userpage and talk page protection request

A recent CU has determined that I have been recently IP editing in breach of WP:IPSOCK but some other accusations have come up. As such, I am currently not to edit Misplaced Pages and am requesting a protection of my userpage and talk page closure until I am officially permitted to edit by the arbcom or checkuser. If my account gets blocked, please leave the user email feature on as I am currently in contact with checkuser and may need it to contact them later on. But until then I am not to interact or receive message on Wiki of any kind and so would appreciate my talkpage be closed as well. Nothing else is needed. Thank you for your assistance.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog