Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.180.237.226 (talk) at 16:13, 7 April 2019 (→Talk pages consultation 2019). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog Stats for pending changes trial Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases Category:Misplaced Pages semi-protected pages User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js in case I need it User:Risker/Mauricie

Notes

{{subst:W-screen}} {{subst:User:Alison/c}} Misplaced Pages:SPI/CLERK and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Indicators

Note to self: Research Laura Muntz Lyall (or persuade one of the Riggrs to do so), consider writing an article about the Forster Family Dollhouse in the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Some day.

[Listeria Bot

Please post below

A kitten for you!

Thanks for stepping in!

Dbarthelme (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• That sort of coatrack article is very problematic. People confuse "I can source this statement" with "This statement should be in this article". Or perhaps it's not really confusion. Always happy to eradicate such nonsense. Risker (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Jeremy Kyle

Hi,

Thanks for protecting it. I did wonder about doing that myself but it doesn't usually get that sort of vandalism so I had left it for the time being. Hopefully there won't be any more like that, if there is then I'll extend it to extended confirmed protection. The trouble is, he's the sort of person that's always going to attract vandalism.

Thanks again!-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the advantage of not really knowing much about this guy allows me to take the 30,000-foot view. That kind of nonsense isn't okay, regardless of how much of a jerk an article subject may be - and refer back to sentence 1, I really don't know. Risker (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not even that he's a jerk, it's because he's a talk show host with a past that includes things like a gambling problem. So now because he has a go at people on his talk show who have problems like gambling etc, people think he's a bit of a hypocrite and the guy really isn't that well liked, well not in the UK anyway.-- 5 albert square (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Heh

Heh, I assume you got what I meant by now, but just to be sure: I do have the system email enabled. I just have emails for pings and talk page messages disabled on en.wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the penny dropped after a few minutes - ironically when I opened my email and found a bunch of pings. Sorry about that! Risker (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You good :) As I told another former arb a few weeks ago, I value our good working relationship, so I have no problem with ever being called out by you if I’m being dumb. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Template Deletion

@Risker: Hello there. Can you please recreate Template:Japanese episode list/sublist? There are still numerous articles that rely on using that subtemplate, and this is one of those articles that have pretty much been destroyed by the template deletion. At the very least, if the Japanese episode template shouldn't be recreated, then all of its functions and parameters should be fully merged into Template:Episode list/sublist (and probably redirected as well), and then every article currently employing the Japanese episode list/sublist template needs to be adjusted so that they use the "newer" template. Can you please restore the template or merge the two, so that the affected articles can work properly? Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi LightandDark2000 - this is now restored. Or at least I have pressed the right buttons. However there isn't much there, so I am not sure what additional pages may be affecting things. I'm almost inclined to revert the whole pile of deletions. Let me know what else you need, although I may not get to it for several hours. Risker (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you please also restore the template's documentation page in the meantime? It would probably help effort with merging (and also understanding parameter functions) for that template. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Done, LightandDark2000. And now I really have to go to bed, but I'll check for messages when I arise. Risker (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: This is my fault. I'm the one who placed the CSD template on these pages. I thought they were all taken care of as part of the convert/merge. Sorry for the issue and thank you for catching it. Risker sorry for causing you a headache and thank you for resolving the issue! --Zackmann (/_{What I been doing}) 17:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries, Zackmann08 - it was a very complicated discussion, and one involving so many subpages. Just glad that interested editors were watching what was happening an were able to respond quickly when a correction needed to be made. As I note, I'm happy to restore anything else that will help to resolve the convert/merge issue. Risker (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Risker, when you get a chance, we can now safely delete Template:Japanese episode list/sublist as all article transclusions have been removed. --Zackmann (/_{What I been doing}) 04:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Giant steps

Steps taken at time? Hope little Risker referring to steps taken by Bishzilla! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 19:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC).

Bishzilla! Hello! I am sure your steps would indeed be giant ones - we little editors would never be able to fill your shoes. Very nice to have you come by and visit my page; I consider it a great honour. I may find myself in your neighbourhood later on this year, and perhaps we can find an opportunity for a bit of socializing. I trust you not to breathe fire in my general direction. :-) Risker (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

That would be nice. I had a lot of trouble restraining Bishzilla from posting and boasting directly at WT:ACN. Mind you, I don't blame the old girl for being proud of the block she placed ten years ago. Something of a high point in her wiki-career! Bishonen | talk 19:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC).

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For moving a particularly big mountain. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your review of Misplaced Pages:Identity verification

I am available to talk as you like. I appreciate any response you have. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

We'll keep it onwiki, I've responded on the talk page. Risker (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Checkuser at RFA

I wanted to follow up a bit on the comment I made at WP:ARBN, where I stated Checkuser is routinely used during RFAs and you responded Checkuser is *not* routinely used during RFAs; in fact, such checks are very rare, and normally are well-substantiated in advance, often at WP:SPI or potentially as a private discussion at the checkuser mailing list or between two or more checkusers. I'm concerned that you have the impression it is commonplace and routine. followed up by You're the one alleging that checks are routinely being performed, so it is up to you to substantiate your statement. I've gone and pulled together some points to back up my statement.

I checked a few recent RFAs. In the Enterprisey RFA here is Bbb23 removing two votes from socks, who they later blocked. In the JJMC89 RFA here is Bbb23 again removing three sock votes, all of whom were later blocked (I think with KAGFan2018 however a checkuser was probably not run). In the Galobtter RFA Bbb23 removed two votes from socks, who turned out to be the same one if I understand the SPI report correctly.

I could go on, because like I said, this is routinely done at RFA. I hope this helps you understand my position a bit more, and why I would make such a comment. I didn't say that such activity was bad or negative, just that it was common. I'm thankful to Bbb23 for his hard work cleaning out socks. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

"I didn't say that such activity was bad or negative" Yes, you did. "I found another example of Bbb23 running an improper check, but I will not share that publicly due to privacy concerns." 1
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

In that one specific case, in my opinion, the check wasn't warranted. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hello Mr Ernie. I am traveling now and will respond on my return next week. If other CUs drop by to address your concerns, they're more than welcome to do so here. In the meantime, perhaps you'd like to give some thought as to what is attracting sockpuppeters to participate at RFA; three out of the last three having had confirmed socks is pretty concerning from my point of view. Risker (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

I award this is to you for all your amazing abilities to tackle difficult situations and enter into unfamiliar territory. You have the enormous power to spread positivity, perhaps as a consequence of your years of experience and obedience. You have shown excellent signs of mediation and your showcase of civility, patience, and boldness makes you deserve more than this simple token. May you succeed in real life and do something greater for the sake of the majority. Hope we cross paths one day. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Misplaced Pages, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Misplaced Pages:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged Blades 05:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

If you were British, you would be a Remainer :)

Primefac's RfB

The following questions were removed without explanation. On being asked to provide an explanation the editor refused.

Additional questions from 92.19.174.36

19. A CheckUser noted that the page Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/**** *** *** **** (about which the consensus is that it is an attack page without diffs supporting the allegations and should properly be deleted) has never been reviewed in accordance with policy:

There is something of a backlog in the review process (probably not helped by the lack of instructions). See *** *** ****&diff=721161605&oldid=719945186 thesecomments and this thread. I have marked this case as active. Please keep in mind to keep it updated. -- zzuuzz 18:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The link is to abuse by Jayron32. Further abuse by him will be discussed later. On behalf of the Foundation, Maggie Dennis stated (14:49, 29 November 2016) "...they can review the particulars in case action is possible or necessary and, if needed, confer with our legal team." Maggie has been supportive throughout - her Meta talk page (29 December 2016) noted:

Two independent observers, Anna Frodesiak and RedPanda25, have certified that the page is scurrilous criminal harassment.

Action was taken to implement the consensus by way of a discussion at the MfD talk page:

I propose the deletion of this page. It is a spoof report Special:Diff/706678161#Why Do We Need Something New?. Its originator, Elockid, has now left the project, while Sunshine, who provided much of the content, appeared before the Arbitration Committee in January charged with abuse. 78.145.31.82 (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This morning's Daily Telegraph reports:

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said people who create false profiles ... could face charges including harassment. New draft guidelines published by the CPS set out how prosecutors should take tough action against anyone who attempts to humiliate or undermine someone else by publishing false information online ...

"... an online footprint will be left by the offender."

A CPS spokesman said the guidelines cover the use of false online profiles ... which are set up to publicise "false and damaging information".

For example, it may be a criminal offence if a profile is created under the name of the victim with fake information uploaded which, if believed, could damage their reputation and humiliate them," the spokesman said.

... "This may amount to an offence, such as grossly offensive communication or harassment."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.33.254 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

A deletion request here is unlikely to succeed; for legal disputes you could try contacting the Wikimedia Foundation. The page you refer to wasn't created for harassment, but to document a suspected pattern of disruption and to be linked to, to provide context when dealing with it. I wouldn't call what is documented there "abuse"; it should probably be moved into user space or into the sockpuppet investigations case. Are you ****:**** *** *** ***** or not? Peter James (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Whether the page was created for harassment can be determined by what it says. It starts off

She routinely edit wars with Jc3s5h ...

The overarching reason why we are here is to provide the public with factual information. If you look at Jc3s5h's contributions you find s/he added the following claim at 11:44, 11 May 2016:

the Gregorian calendar ... moved Washington's birthday a year and 11 days to February 22, 1732.

It didn't. Under the calendar reform, eleven (not 376) days were removed. Wednesday, 2 September 1752 was immediately followed by Thursday, 14 September of the same year. 109.154.44.14 (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This page is currently being used for ongoing harassment by administrators who admit to being involved:

Thanks! Vote and I have a long, tedious history. Favonian (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.77.52 (talk)

In his next two posts, Favonian lets slip the motivation behind his actions:

It's what it does, time and again. Can't blame a troll for trying. ;) Favonian (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Attention is what the species craves above all. Apart from that: malice is its own reward. Favonian (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor speaks out against criminal harassment

ping|BethNaught|Mike1901|Timothyjosephwood|Samtar|Ritchie333 This might be the strangest edit war ever. An IP editor who may or may not be a sockpuppet leaves a comment on Ritchie333's talk page, someone removes it, they re-insert it, this continues, then I re-insert it, and then it gets removed again. In all of tis no one has actually responded to the IP's concern. PikachuRP25 16:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

ping|Samtar|Mike1901 All that is true, but what everyone is missing is the comment itself. They raised a legitimate concern. And about me being an alt account, I will confirm that. PikachuRP25 16:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

ping|Samtar|Mike1901 Okay, this truly concerns me. This is obviously the same user, but again, they are very convincing. Can you help me with this?

1. Are the LTA reports really criminal harassment?
2. Was the comment by Zzuuzz really a threat?
3. Was Mike1901’s comment “an expression of support”?

What is going on here? Thanks, PikachuRP25 19:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Seeing that the discussion was trending to "delete" our old friends Samtar and Favonian wiped it off the page. Jayron32 then protected. An editor remonstrated:

Jayron32 appears to have WP:CIR issues. First he links to a sex book in a discussion about air pollution and then he claims that nominating a page at MfD is "inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked."

Jayron32 made a crude joke about "lubrication of the jackscrew assembly" in a discussion about an air crash which killed hundreds of people and also commented "I like my beer like I like my women: frigid". He was still at it in a discussion about birds on Thursday when he commented "I've always enjoyed a White-throated swallow." It's disgusting. Eventually Xaosflux removed the indefinite protection.

The discussion continued at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion, but not for long:

... Just delete. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller, who thinks he knows a lot about calendars, is heavily involved here. In 2010 he protected Islamic calendar to prevent an irrelevant, offensive picture with a spurious caption being removed after a consensus was reached to remove it. The article remains protected to this day. In May 2015 an editor removed from Common era the false claim that Dionysius Exiguus made a mistake in calculating the first year of the Christian era. The change was fully sourced but Doug tag - teamed with someone else to restore the misinformation and remove the reference. Instead of making a case at the talk page for the removal of the reference he prayed in aid Future Perfect at Sunrise with this post:

I'm involved in reverting ... at Common Era. I don't know if given the three blocks if you think anything needs to be done. I'm not going to be concerned too much about it though. Block, protect, or ignore. Your judgment, your choice.

Since when? The cycle is BRD, not BR-run-to-an-administrator-to-stab-another-editor-in-the-back. Looking at the three blocks, all by Future Perfect at Sunrise, they seem to relate to tendentious editing by the same people. Future Perfect at Sunrise didn't bother to reply, much less discuss their conduct with the IP, but clobbered it with a six month block. Forward to June 2016 and it was Groundhog Day revisited. An editor adds a link to the Astronomical Almanac and Mojoworker removes it, replacing it with a deadlink under the uninformative edit summary Vote (X) for Revert. Mojoworker then embarks on an edit war to keep the Astronomical Almanac reference out and the deadlink in, for good measure adding the ridiculous claim that the Anno Domini era dates from the Creation. After more argy - bargy Future Perfect at Sunrise swoops in, restores all the nonsense and protects the article for three months. A number of articles are in a sorry state because Future Perfect at Sunrise has protected them:

• Solar time (indefinite) - makes the amazing claim that -6 is greater than +14.

• Equation of time (December 2017) - includes the nonsensical phrase "equation of centre", claims the equation of time is zero at date of latest sunrise (1 January, the actual date is 25 December), claims it reaches its maximum value on 3 January (actually 3 November) and minimum "half a year later" (actually 12 February), defines the ecliptic as "the path of the Sun seems to take in the celestial sphere", and claims the vernal equinox falls most often on 21 March (the date given previously was 20 March). In the complete 400 year cycle beginning in 1753 the equinox falls on 20 March 256 times and on 21 March only 104 times. From 2007 to 2101 it does not fall on 21 March at all, and it will fall on 20 March every year from 2136 to 2175.

• Tropical year (December 2017) - contains the amazing claim that "the actual timing of official midnight is based on UTC" despite the fact that the European Union and practically every civilised country bases it on Greenwich Mean Time, also the remarkable (and false) claim that sixteenth century astronomers had measured the rotation rate of the earth and found it to be irregular. How did they manage that, given that their most accurate timepiece was the sundial? We are also told that the tropical year has "a duration of. (Astronomical Applications Dept., 2009)".

• Adoption of the Gregorian calendar (March 2017) - incorrectly claims that Greece uses the Gregorian calendar following removal of sources confirming that it uses the same calendar as its established church (because it issued three anathemas against it in the sixteenth century). 80.44.160.131 (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

As the consensus firmed, SpacemanSpiff splashed down to remove the "delete" !votes and Ad Orientem took off for RfPP at 04:32, 10 December 2016 with a request for protection, which was granted. You then took action to ensure the Community consensus was respected. At 15:10, 10 December 2016 you created the page Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/**** *** *** ****:

Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/**** *** *** ****

Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/**** *** *** **** (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · abuse/**** *** *** **** Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose the deletion of this page. It is a spoof report Special:Diff/706678161 section "Why Do We Need Something New?" Its originator, Elockid, has now left the project, while Sunshine, who provided much of the content, appeared before the Arbitration Committee in January charged with abuse. 78.145.31.82 (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be great if we could figure out a way to get them to leave and not come back. I don't think that is going to happen. - GB fan 17:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Vote {X} for change has an inexhaustible supply of IP addresses. Just delete. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

At 15:16 you created Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/**** *** *** **** with the following heading and copied the content over:

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/**** *** *** **** (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) - (View log)

Primefac (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

As the page had been created by Elockid, you placed a notice of the discussion on his talk page at 15:16. You tagged the AfD for speedy deletion and it was deleted G6 at 16:09. You then became aware that Ian.thomson was doctoring the discussion. Compare the archived version with the previous:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/**** *** *** ****

Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/**** *** *** **** (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Um, speedy keep for obvious reasons. Socks don't get to nominate their own LTA for deletion. Sro23 (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The allegation that an editor has impersonated a member of the Arbitration Committee is yet another example of criminal harassment. How can a post signed by an IP be "impersonation of other users"? It can't, obviously, and equally obviously Ian.thomson removed Doug's post because it supported deletion. The "speedy keep" is a bad faith close - taking the matter to ANI for review. 86.141.140.220 (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

When you became aware of the misconduct, instead of reporting it you participated in a cover-up. IMHO, instead of being promoted to Bureaucrat you should be sitebanned. At 18:18, you requested semiprotection at RfPP. The IP responded, Samtar removed the response and protected. Editors should be advised that the various pages which were interfered with are all redlinks - i.e. the evidence has been hidden. MfDs do not get deleted. The logs of MfD's go back fifteen years. There are thousands of them. There is only one redlink (which you can inspect at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/December 2016). Thus the page being discussed wasn't deleted but the deletion discussion was! How could this come about? If you look at similar discussions it was the other way about:

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ananny

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ararat arev

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Handpolk

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Kitten Vandal

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer (2nd nomination)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/North Carolina vandal

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/SummerThunder

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels 2

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels/Appearances outside of the English Misplaced Pages

Contrary to Sro23's claim, the North Carolina vandal initiated the discussion but his contribution was not deleted and neither was the discussion - the LTA page, however, was. In fact, 70% of the LTA pages were deleted compared to NONE of the discussions. Will you now do the honourable thing and withdraw your candidacy?

A

20.

There's one loose end to tie up - who deleted the incriminating pages? At 10:33, 11 December 2016 Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted the MfD. His log entry was G5:Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. At 10:34, he salted it. Were you aware that, in order to hide content detrimental to him from the Community, he had averred that you are a blocked or banned user?

A

Hello 92.19.173.101, I have participated in that RfB by voting, so am recusing myself from anything to do with the reviewing or clerking of it. — xaosflux 15:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)