Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bradv (talk | contribs) at 15:17, 21 April 2020 (→Request reconsideration of topic ban: lifting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

Open tasks

• 12 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 30 sockpuppet investigations
• 6 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 2 requests for RD1 redaction
• 61 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 16 requested closures
• 36 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 11 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Appealing Topic Ban on Sports Articles

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

• All things being equal, NicholasHui, in the world of Tban appeals—or any other—brevity is your friend  :) ——SN54129 16:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• No one is going to read all of this (which you just deleted in a subsequent edit). Consider shortening your appeal to a more concise summary. See WP:NICETRY.--WaltCip (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Please simplify to 1) what you did wrong before and 2) what you will do to correct it. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment on redaction @NicholasHui: You really should have followed WP:REDACT on your deletion, or just started a new request, since now it makes everyone's response look out of context.—Bagumba (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

1. What I did wrong before was I thought I add in the information properly but editors disagree because they believe I was adding it in my own knowledge

2. What I will do to correct it is to use most reliable source whenever I update NHL Hockey player stats articles or other articles in different topics NicholasHui (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are some examples that I will show you that I did before

(Carolina Hurricanes Player stats updated according to the official team stat source)

(Minnesota Wilds Player stats updated according to the official team stat source)

These sources I used didn't provide me a full list of stats on nhl teams because they trade away their players. In previous years when I updated the stats since the 2016-17 NHL season, I thought updating the stats was only adding all the stats from recap only games stats from each game the team played without knowing I could have just simply refer it to NHL.com stats NicholasHui (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Maple Leafs game 2 2018 playoffs stats For this edit here, some of my information did not matched to the official source because I thought that is the way NHL updates its stats.

for the Winnipeg Jets 2017-18 regular season stats here, the information I put in was not all correct because at the time, I disregarded reliable sources, its later fixed by another editor here. NicholasHui (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC) (Keep in mind that even without an account I used, it still counts as my editing regardless whether I edited while logged out.)

I'll let other decide, concerning your topic ban. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I was notified of this discussion by NicholasHui on my userpage, who I think took an overly broad view of the notification requirement. I was part of the discussions that implemented the TBan. For y'alls convenience: here is The ANI that ended in a TBan, whose wording included Lifting of the topic ban will be contingent on NicholasHui's edits and behavior showing that they fully understand WP:V and WP:OR. The TBan was an alternative to an indeff at the time, and seen as a last chance. I currently have no opinion on lifting the topic ban. I do have some questions however about NicholasHui's logged out editing. Nicholas, have you made any logged out edits in the last year? CaptainEek ⚓ 21:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying I made edits while logged out last year? I used edit while logging out when making edits to my archieve page on my Userpage most recent. Another thing interesting was that I had the same habits before back a long time ago before I even used this account when I was editing NHL 2018 playoffs while under the IP address 24.84.228.210 by editing the NHL stats by not most points to least and using only recap game stats. You think its odd that 24.84.228.210 is inactive when I started using an account to continue edit player stats on NHL Canadian teams that time but it clearly had been me editing NHL 2018 playoffs stats before. When I got topic banned from editing Hockey Articles, their was no point for me editing under IP accounts to edit NHL Hockey stats that I was banned from unless you think their was something different about my edit logout habbit NicholasHui (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

According to those 2 IP accounts, you were commenting on the very topic you were barred from. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have zero interest in being involved with the final decision on NicholasHui's topic ban. To comment on NicholasHui's usage of IP accounts, I have noticed multiple Vancouver based IP's interact with my account over the last several months that I could tell that they were used by him. Yowashi (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Well I was too obsessed in looking at your contributions. My apologies. Its just that my mind has been too fixated with your editing. Should have known better next time. (Noting that I previously was not in a habit like this before although I was around on NHL Hockey articles since June 2015, I only started to become fixated with certain contributions since 2019 because over time, I would have been more interested to know how users communicate on my talkpage.) NicholasHui (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Any other comments to say about my appeal? NicholasHui (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• I would have to say, with your behavior here alone, I have no confidence whatsoever that you would not return to your old ways. You seem to just make a mess of things that others have to clean up. Sorry. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to make a mess of things that others had to clean up. Its just that when I updated NHL player stats, I did not realized that using recap game only stats was not the most reliable source. NicholasHui (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@NicholasHui: I would suggest that you withdraw this nomination and perhaps try again after some time when 1) you can succinctly explain what you did wrong before and why the community should no longer be concerned 2) have stopped editing while logged out, which only raises more questions (right or wrong). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: 1) Why the community should no longer be concerned about my topic ban on Sports stats articles is because I finally understood that I should have established consensus at the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey because editors could not agree with the content on player stats. Prior before the dispute when I wondered was I doing the stats hockey update properly? I expect myself to figure out whether or not I done it properly. Even though I realized my own mistake once I was notified by the editors who watched me do it. I corrected. Unfortunately, they disagreed still.

2) I have been editing while logged out with stuff with my userpage archive. The problem is that my mind in the last several months has been too fixated with certain user contributions. I just couldn't help it.

3) I will agree that even though my appeal is accepted, I will try to follow the community's advise that I should try to establish consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey.

4) I am here to make productive contributions understanding that I should cite the sources especially if I add in a lot of details of events or other topics in articles and I will try to stay calm if others disagree with what I edit. Does that sound fair? NicholasHui (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Why did you chose to edit logged out? GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: It was because for one good reason was that I was editing my User archive page. NicholasHui (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Why would you need to edit your own archive page, logged out? GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

To save some flooded information on my user account contributions. Also, you know hockey is really not my only thing I edit on, take a look on my user page of why I have those IP accounts listed on my userpage NicholasHui (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

NOTICE. The editor in question has breached his topic ban and made an edit at 2016–17 Winnipeg Jets season. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I just was a bit too impatient. My mind gave off. NicholasHui (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Reluctantly oppose lifting or easing of topic ban. NicholasHui is well-intentioned but unfortunately, in their eagerness and impatience to edit NHL related articles, they cannot abide with the accepted consensus, editing-conditions and collaborative norms. In the most recent instance this is demonstrated by their editing while logged out because "in the last several months has been too fixated with certain user contributions", and violating the very topic-ban they are appealing while the appeal is being discussed because they got "a bit too impatient." Given the recent and past behavior, which has led to protracted discussions (see this and this in addition to their talkpage) and greatly taxed the time and good-faith of other editors active in the area, I cannot see the lifting of the topic-ban to be in interest of the project.

PS: I have been previously involved with the user as an admin in issuing a block and executing the (community-imposed) topic ban; see the linked discussions for details. Abecedare (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Another thing I should note is some asked before why I have all the IP accounts on my user page? The answer is that I cared what my own editing history was. I could tell it was me that edit those articles before. (Am I wrong?) NicholasHui (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting topic ban: Violating the topic ban while logged out and then violating the topic ban recently while the appeal is being discussed demonstrate a failure to abide by community consensus. — MarkH₂₁ 04:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• @MarkH21: I understand its failure to abide by consensus because I have gone through previous mistakes many times through (understanding past mistakes) since June 2015 when I started to edit Misplaced Pages on NHL Hockey assuming that this one was simple but it was not. NicholasHui (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Wish this request would get more attention. It's not doing NicholasHui any good, being kept in suspense. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The logged out editing, and urge to get back to editing without an understanding of wrongdoing, rubs me the wrong way. I see no good reason to lift it at this time, and several good reasons to leave it in place. CaptainEek ⚓ 23:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• Grudging oppose due to the TBAN violations. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I should note is that from ANI, prior before being topic banned from sports stats articles, they say, "If you wish to discuss the issue of when player statistics should be updated and what sources can be used for the purpose, you should do so at WT:HOCKEY and establish consensus that is compliant with wikipedia's content policies." There are a few reasons why I did not established consensus at WT:HOCKEY prior before being topic banned:

1. I believed that establishing consensus at WT:HOCKEY probably would have resulted in me being banned from editing sports articles anyways

2. I at first assumed that the problem was easy fix and it was not a big deal.

I also must say that it will be hard for me to agree with the abided consensus norm at this point given that I had been editing NHL Hockey Articles in the last few years since June 2015 to March 2019. NicholasHui (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that proposing something at WT:HOCKEY would have resulted in you being banned from editing sports articles, simply for making a proposal? Furthermore, are you now saying that you will find it personally disappointing that consensus will prevent you from editing sports articles, or are you saying that you are going to ignore consensus and edit sports articles in the future even if you are banned from doing so by consensus? — MarkH₂₁ 18:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• @MarkH21: I say that establishing consensus at WT:HOCKEY probably would have resulted in me being banned from editing sports articles anyways because other editors would not have agreed with the editing content, furthermore after being topic banned from sports stats articles a year ago, it was still hard at first to adapt to the surrounding change, like I felt my brain was going really downhill because editing NHL Hockey was a long term goal (its not short term editing I done) I had been doing since June 2015. NicholasHui (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Voluntary IBAN: Elizium23 / Contaldo80

• Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elizium23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For too long, I have been fighting over Catholic topics with this editor, Contaldo80. I have been rude and I have edit-warred and I have failed to assume good faith. I go to confession to a priest and tell him how angry Misplaced Pages makes me, because of Contaldo80. It's not his fault. I have a tendency to be a hothead and this relationship brings out the worst in my personality. I want out. I volunteer for an interaction ban on any articles edited by Contaldo80. It will last 6 months with an option of renewal before the expiration date. Contaldo does not need to volunteer for a 2-way IBAN, that is totally optional and not something I am requesting here. I am requesting that I be held to my word by sanctions if I violate the boundaries. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Elizium23 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't be offering myself for a voluntary ban. Having not edited wikipedia for a while (because of a number of unpleasant interactions with other editors) I was taken aback by your quite confrontational approach on Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church. I think your suggestion that you step back from editing is a prudent one as you've made a very personal attack on me above - about going to confession and complaining to your priest specifically about me. I'll leave to administrators to make a judgement as to whether this falls into personal harassment and should therefore result in a formal block or censure. It's disturbing to say the least.Contaldo80 (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh please. I was complaining to a priest in Confession (which is about the penitent's sins and not others) about how angry I became on Misplaced Pages, not about anything you did. Not a personal attack. The reverse. Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I find it weird and unsettling that you have gone to a priest to tell him how angry I specifically make you feel because of my editing. I really don't think this is acceptable. I actually feel harassed. I'd like an administrator to exercise judgement as to whether this is acceptable behaviour? Thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) And as someone who watched your recent inappropriate actions against Elizium at Talk:Homosexual_clergy_in_the_Catholic_Church#Today's_edits_reverted, I think it weird and inappropriate that you are calling for this. You should own up to the problems of your own behavior, not act like you're violated by someone having a reaction to it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Nat - you evidently have a problem with me. I've been respectful and polite but honestly I think you're starting to get a bit carried away. Following me to this discussion to chip in your two cents is probably over-reach for a non-administrator. Can I respectfully ask you to please back-off. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

So you come to my Talk page as part of your campaign against Elizium and specifically tell me to come see this thread, but then want to squelch me from responding? No. No, you have not been "respectful and polite", you've been attacking Elizium over their taking care of your bad edits while you've been going around boasting about how great you've been in this matter. Your complaining about me having "followed" you to a thread you told me to come see is another example of you inventing a way for you to be a victim rather than taking responsibilities for your own actions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I drew attention to his comments so that you would see that he had become personally abusive and your interventions were not helping to calm that (nor are they still). Discussing me before a priest (a third party) because of my edits is a violation of my personal privacy. I still think this frankly a disgraceful thing to say - and a way to intimidate me.Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussing me before a priest (a third party) because of my edits is a violation of my personal privacy. No, it is absolutely not, and that's an absurd claim. Grandpallama (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support One-way Iban as requested. (Non-administrator comment) --Puddleglum_{(How's my driving?)} 05:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Any such one-way IBAN would be a travesty of justice. At Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church it is Contaldo80 who has been inserting names in contravention of WP:BLP and making personal attacks, and Elizium23 who has been removing the names, in accordance with that policy, and not making personal attacks. Such behaviour has continued above in this very thread. If any sanctions are taken they should be against Contaldo80, not Elizium23. Much as we might admire Elizium23's "turn the other cheek" attitude that shouldn't get in the way of our seeing who is in the wrong here. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you please cite the personal attach I make. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Naming a specific person as gay in a Misplaced Pages article is a tricky issue, especially if we don't already have an article on that person which specifiies their sexual orientation. WP:ETHNICRACECAT says "a person may also not be described or categorized as LGBTQ on the basis of allegations or rumours that have not been confirmed by the subject's own self-identification." In my opinion, this complaint against User:Contaldo80 might be closed if they will agree not to add any more names of individuals to Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church without getting a talk page consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  I have made no complaint at all against Contaldo80. If there are complaints against him, they belong to other editors and not me. This thread was opened as a request for administrators to enforce a one-way IBAN against me. That is my only purpose of opening this thread. Elizium23 (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but to be clear I wasn't the one that added names in the first place. I just restored the initial edit until Elizium clarified why he had cited WP:BLP. It wasn't clear to anyone (except himself) as to where BLP had been violated. If I want to I can just restore the names in the article and attach a source to a mainstream media showing that these priests have publicly come out as gay - this would not violate WP:BLP. The reason why I eventually supported the removal of the text was because a closer look at the article showed that it could not be established that the priests cited came out as gay because of a statement made by Pope Francis. That was the problem. This doesn't resolve the issue, however, that another editor has admitted that they personally discuss me edits with a priest and the feelings of rage this creates in him. This is intimidating me and I don't think this is acceptable. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"It wasn't clear to anyone (except himself) as to where BLP had been violated." That's false. You were the only one who claimed it was unclear, and frankly, with the length of experience you have on this site, it's hard to believe that you didn't understand why the unsourced claim that certain priests had announced themselves to be gay would be a BLP problem. But even if we accept that you're that ignorant of BLP, why, if there was even a question in your mind that there might be a BLP problem, you would re-add the material? When you're wasting people's time with such actions, it should not come as a surprise to you that they have an emotional reaction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't presume to tell me Nat what is "false". Elizium should have indicated where the material had violated BLP - that would have been the respectful thing to do with other editors. The claim that these men are gay is not controversial as they have spoken publicly about being gay (https://novenanews.com/gay-amsterdam-netherlands-priest-valkering-wins-vatican-appeal-dismissal/) Maybe you'd like to be an administrator Nat - who knows maybe you'd make a good one - but you're not one. You weren't even engaged in editing the page under discussion. I have no idea why you think we need your ongoing "insights". I for one am starting to feel harassed and intimidated by you - is that your intention? In the same way that elizium spoke to his priest about me and how "angry" I made him? Contaldo80 (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't presume to tell me Nat what is "false". - Why not? I can certainly understand why you might not want your false claims pointed out. I see no reason why not pointing them out would do any good for anyone but you, and this is a public discussion where you're making false claims. You weren't even engaged in editing the page under discussion. Actually, I've been editing that page since 2013, making me one of the top 10 editors of the page. I for one am starting to feel harassed and intimidated by you I honestly don't care. My job here is not to nurture your feelings. If it upsets you that someone is pointing out the falsity of what you say, you could, I suppose, not say false things. I happen to think that correcting misinformation is a good thing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Review of RfC close by User:Cunard

Wondering if I could request a review of the close of this RfC by User:Cunard here Talk:Electronic_cigarette#RfC:_Article_readability.

Supposedly it looks a specific version of the lead of that article into place. I am not even sure what the RfC was proposing with the dif provided being the fixing of a pipe link.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like the two "versions" he was referring to side by side are seen here. It's easy to compare two "versions" as a single diff, so I'm confused as to why he would present them as separate diffs in which you could not actually see the specific changes, nor expect your average RfC respondent to figure it out. Setting that aside, the line of questioning itself seems to be in violation of RfC guidelines. RfC questions must be "brief" and "neutral". "Version 1 or version 2?" is a brief and neutral question. However that's not how the decision was posed. Instead, users could choose between version 1 by simply taking the position statement that it "is preferable" to version 2. On the contrary, the only way to prefer version 2 was to agree with the a specific, predefined argument written out by the OP, who favored version 1. In other words, your choices were to choose the OP's preferred version or be pigeonholed into making a specific argument written by the OP. There was no option presented to choose version 2 in any other way. This seems like a gamey tactic, whether it was intentional or not. So, given the confusing way the diffs were presented, in addition to the non-neutral way the question was presented, I would move to strike the reading of consensus in favor of version 1 from the close. ~Swarm~ 17:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Doc, it's surprising that you didn't see what the RfC was proposing, because you are the person who asked for it. Specifically: I boldly made a series of changes to the lead, after which the article looked like this. You rejected the majority of the changes and, when challenged, you suggest I try a RfC. I begin the RfC you asked for on the same day, and Cunard closed it 41 days later. You have subsequently claimed that you thought I'd begun a full RfC about a pipe link, but it's hard to reconcile that with the sequence of events. Swarm's allegation that I was gaming the system is ludicrous.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) In terms of closing the questions as presented, there is unanimous consensus in favour of statement 1 and against statement 3. Statement 2 was also unequivocally supported but less strongly. I would have said there was no consensus regarding statement 4 but I can see why the closer did find consensus for it. As for presentation of the diffs and understanding of the questions, the only person commenting who seems to have had any issues was Doc James, who failed to explain his issues in a manner that anyone else seems to have understood. I agree the RfC was not brilliantly worded (and was also not brilliantly attended) although it was possible for editors to oppose both statements 3 and 4 if they preferred version 2. I don't see a need to rip this up and start again, but rather use it as a starting point for a better discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  +1 -qedk (t 愛 c) 18:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: I did not claim that you "gamed the system", I highlighted an obvious, straightforward procedural failure in your wording of the RfC, in violation of the RfC rules, and said that it appeared to be a gamey tactic, whether or not it was intended to be. Rather than becoming defensive, a good faith user should presumably understand the concern of gamey or non-neutral RfCs in a discretionary sanctions area, and acknowledge the problem and pledge that it will not happen again. The concern is rather straightforward, as I explained, and why you would go straight to attacking it is confusing. Regardless, I think it's something that you should take seriously. ~Swarm~ 01:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  You did say This seems like a gamey tactic... any editor would assume you're trying to implicate them if you say it like that. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  Exactly. The RfC was perfectly neutrally-worded; only one participant had any trouble following it; and I categorically reject the allegation that any "tactic" was employed.—S Marshall T/C 08:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• I found a clear consensus for position #4 to reinstate the article version #1 referenced in the RfC. Here are what RfC participants said about position #4:
  1. S Marshall wrote, "Support positions 1, 2 and 4."
  2. EllenCT wrote, "I've already stated I prefer the newer revision of position 4."
  3. Jd4x4 wrote, "I've voiced my opinion for Version 1 in the RfC but the entire reason I involved myself here is because the 'stable' version was painful to read" and "To clarify my position, I agree with Position 1 at the time the RfC was raised, disagree with Position 3, and currently agree with Position 4 should it be decided to revert the lead from what it currently is."
  4. Darwin Naz wrote, "I am opposing position 4, primarily for the Nicotine part in Article 1's lede. This is an encyclopedia and not an editorial or an essay written to persuade readers against smoking."
  5. Yrwefilledwithbugs wrote, "I think I like 4 also, but it's because I believe it has more info which isn't a bad thing; it just needs to be consolidated and/or broken apart some. It's a massive amount of info though which is really difficult to get through"
  I gave significantly reduced weight to the comment by Yrwefilledwithbugs since the account was created on 12 March 2020 and participated in the RfC on the same day. Out of the remaining four editors, three supported position 4 and one opposed it. These editors provided reasonable arguments for their positions. Regarding article version #1, editors liked its readability (S Marshall and Jd4x4), its use of more recent MEDRS sources (EllenCT), and its discussion of nicotine being highly addictive (Jd4x4). Darwin Naz, the only opposer of article version #1, raised a reasonable point about the nicotine part that this is not "an essay written to persuade readers against smoking". Despite this valid concern about article version #1 possibly needing revisions, there was a clear consensus among the RfC participants that article version #1 was a significant improvement over article version #2 (the version of the article when the RfC was created). I therefore closed the RfC as reinstate article version #1. I also noted in the close that more improvements can and should be made to the article. I agree with Thryduulf that "I don't see a need to rip this up and start again, but rather use it as a starting point for a better discussion."

  One editor, Doc James, did not understand to the RfC statement. He was confused about the links to the article versions. S Marshall explained the links to him, after which Doc James did not respond to the explanation. From reading the other RfC participants statements, it was clear that the RfC statement did allow them to explain which article version they preferred. Position 4 said "Article version #1 is preferable to article version #2." Article version #2 was the version of the article when the RfC began. If editors had preferred the status quo of article version #2, they could have opposed position 4 which means no change to the article. The RfC opening statement presented a list of statements and asking editors if they agreed or disagreed with them. The RfC statement could have been phrased more clearly as a yes–no question but that is not required and does not invalidate the RfC. RfC participants could have added more position statements if they felt the existing statements would have inaccurately framed their arguments. RfC participants have done that numerous times in past RfCs. No one did that in this RfC. I see no gaming or even appearance of gaming in the RfC statement.

  Cunard (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Help needed with some moves

• See in https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=950645337 , the section "Moves needing help from someone with oversight". I tried to obey the first move, and it refused "took more than 3 seconds, ran out of time", and it asked me to move the page and its talk page and all its subpages one at a time. So, as a start, I moved Misplaced Pages:Introduction by itself, and it worked, Then I moved Misplaced Pages talk:Introduction by itself and it refused "ran out of time" and system fault, several times. So, to restore to the starting setup, I tried to move Misplaced Pages:Introduction (historical) back to Misplaced Pages:Introduction by itself, and it refused "ran out of time" and system fault, several times. So, to make the page and its subpages work, I copied the current edit of Misplaced Pages:Introduction (historical) back to Misplaced Pages:Introduction by itself. It looks like it needs someone with oversight to obey these moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you're asking about oversight. But if you're getting database errors, you might need help from a system administrator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• The original requested moves were:

  • - - - - - - - - - - - -

  • Misplaced Pages:Introduction (currently a redirect to Help:Introduction) → Misplaced Pages:Introduction (historical) – per Misplaced Pages talk:Introduction#Proposal: Redirect this page and WP:Tutorial to Help:Introduction. Requester Sdkb also requested original target point to Help:Introduction. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages:Tutorial (currently a redirect to Help:Introduction) → Misplaced Pages:Tutorial (historical) – per Misplaced Pages talk:Introduction#Proposal: Redirect this page and WP:Tutorial to Help:Introduction. Requester Sdkb also requested original target point to Help:Introduction. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• I asked about oversight because some of the involved pages had over 3000 edits. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Anthony Appleyard, oversighters don't have any special rights except hiding and un-hiding edits. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Martin Urbanec: Any chance that you might be able to lend a helping hand with these page moves (that is, in your capacity as a sysadmin)? Or would a Phabricator ticket be the preferred way to go? OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @OhKayeSierra: I can surely help. Do you want me to try to move Misplaced Pages:Introduction to Misplaced Pages:Introduction (historical) and Misplaced Pages:Tutorial to Misplaced Pages:Tutorial (historical), right? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Introduction appears to be already moved through... --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Martin Urbanec: Yes. It seems that Misplaced Pages:Introduction was moved without any issues, which only leaves Misplaced Pages:Tutorial to Misplaced Pages:Tutorial (historical). Anthony Appleyard, Does that sound about right? OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• @OhKayeSierra, Martin Urbanec, and Rotideypoc41352: See Misplaced Pages talk:Introduction#Implementation for a history of what has happened. What needs doing is:
  • 1. To restore the status quo ante and bring everything back together that should be together, move Misplaced Pages:Introduction (historical) back to Misplaced Pages:Introduction by itself, and not any talk pages or subpages with it :: it has at least 15000 edits :: no wonder that trying to move it causes snags and system faults.
    2. Move Misplaced Pages:Introduction to Misplaced Pages:Introduction (historical) and all its subpages, if the system lets you do it. Misplaced Pages's difficulty in handling pages with a very long edit history (say over 5000 edits) has been a nuisance to me for a long time.
  • Or, directly move all of Misplaced Pages:Introduction's subpages and talk pages etc to be subpages and talk pages etc of Misplaced Pages:Introduction (historical), but do not move Misplaced Pages:Introduction itself. For a list of the subpages, see https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=Introduction/&namespace=4 and https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=Introduction/&namespace=5. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Making things even worse, Misplaced Pages:Introduction (historical) was moved to User:Misplaced Pages:Introduction (historical). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup...page got locked up in the middle of moves...would have been nice if those involved had read the talk page or at least replied to inquiries.--Moxy 🍁 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Account recovery for non-existing email

I've registered on Misplaced Pages long time ago, and I've forgotten the password. Since then, provider of email address I've used during account creation discontinued the email service - I can't use password reset option. The email address no longer exists. Is there any option to recover the account? Or is my login (which I use anywhere else on the Internet) just unavailable forever? If it helps, said email address was bound to my personal data and I think I would be able to provide some proof that I was the owner of that account.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a311:8044:b380:c244:dfa3:d599:18e3 (talk • contribs)

I am afraid it is lost. I have heard that some accounts have been recovered though if the owners could have confirmed the identity, so that it would be useful to wait for more knowledgeable people than me.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless you were an extremely prolific editor or an administrator this is very unlikely to go anywhere - however you can just register a new account and take up where you left off. — xaosflux 13:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Create a new account and label it as a continuation of your old one, perhaps using {{User previous account}}. Labeling the accounts will help prevent misunderstandings. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

So even though I can provide proof that account is linked to my real life identity, my best option is to register create a new one (e.g. oldAccount2)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A311:8044:B380:34A3:2874:A973:9858 (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not that we won't give access because we don't believe it's you, it's just that passwords cannot be retrieved from the server. Jimbo himself could forget his password and not have email enabled and he would be required to open up a new account. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Understandable, but damn it's frustrating. Every half a year or so I get an urge to contirbute, but original account was registered on and old email in 2010. Misplaced Pages must have been single account that I forgot to migrate. I assume changing email associated with an account is not an option either (especially for user with no contirbutions)? If so, I guess it was worth a shot and the discussion can be closed. Thank you for your help. 2A02:A311:8044:B380:34A3:2874:A973:9858 (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If it's the inaccessible account that has no contributions, then there's some hope once you've made some contributions and become established. —Cryptic 14:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Dmitri Smirnov, RIP

Sadly User:Dmitrismirnov has died (). Please protect his user page and put in place other measures, as described at wP:RIP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Sad news indeed. I've protected his user page. Additional verification is available at . — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Really sad. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Silentmiaow

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

2601:643:C180:4CE0:C0E4:6111:64FA:461A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I revert vandalism and watch potentially disruptive individuals through the filter logs, but I've never seen an IP attempt to add a {{Deceased Wikipedian}} tag onto an editors user page. In this case, the IP was trying to add it on Silentmiaow's user page who has not edited since January 2009. Does anyone have any confirmation whether if this is true or not? Jerm (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Silentmiaow disclosed her identity as (or at least claimed to be) Amanda Baggs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. If you claim to be someone, and if the someone is confirmed to have passed away, it's reasonable to place {{Deceased Wikipedian}} on your userpage, and reasonable to treat the account as compromised if it resumes editing. Probably you told the truth, and if you were lying before, loss of editing access to your account is the consequence. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I found additional verification on their twitter page at , so I've protected their userpage and placed the template in accordance with WP:RIP. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Technical update

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

Hi guys. It's Jeff from the Wikimedia Foundation. I've conducted some technical maintenance updates on the Wikicommons server, as well as some general tweaks to the processing system of both Misplaced Pages and a few other sister projects. There are no issues to report. I don't have anything else to report other than that.

All the best, Jeff. --Garland J P (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Huh - if you are really from WMF you should have an official WMF account. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

And be listed on the WMF staff list. ‑ Iridescent 09:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

While it’s good to have suspicion, he states on his user page he’s a contractor - maybe a little AGF would be useful here as a *reminder* to have the WMF list him. This is a notice admins should be keen to get - that maintenance was performed with no issues - but the two responses so far are looking for reasons to doubt or criticize the user posting... 52.119.101.25 (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I've notified the WMF to see if there was a mixup somewhere. I am fairly certain that even contractors normally employ WMF accounts - we've had some problems in the past with employees that used the same account for WMF stuff and personal stuff - and that rote maintenance would not be announced here (Phabricator is the place, as well as the various mass messages). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This sounds odd, to say the least. Why would someone create an account seemingly with the sole purpose a) of telling us to not contact me about editing concerns, and b) make an announcement here of something that doesn't need to be announced here? ——SN54129 11:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Just did some checking - he DOES have an account on meta-wiki but no userpage, and his user group permissions are set at user over here. As the old song goes "It makes me wonder...." Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 11:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

...all their accounts created at 09:46 this morning  :) ——SN54129 12:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Guys. I'm actually just a troll. I am not a Wikimedia 'contract technician'. I'm just a really bored troll because of the coronavirus lockdown, and I think I am losing my mind. I have done nothing to the 'Wikicommons server'. Please forgive me and block my account. I am sorry for wasting your time. Regards, Jeff the fake technician. --Garland J P (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-free image revdel

I've replaced one non-free image with another, at File:Captain Tom Moore fundraising walk.jpg. Please can someone delete the past revisions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Limits to administrator discretion: GS vs AC/DS

WP:AC/DS places certain limitations on administrator discretion in areas where ARBCOM has authorized discretionary sanctions. Misplaced Pages:General sanctions theoreticaly documents the rules for all discretionary sanctions regimes, including those authorized by the community. However, I am unable to find the restrictions that apply by default to a community-authorized DS regime. Common sense suggests they should be the same as those of ARBCOM-DS, but I cannot find this documented anywhere. I'd appreciate any clarity anyone can lend, and if this just makes it clear that we need to revamp our documentation, so be it. Courtesy ping to @El C and Sandstein:, with whom I was just discussing this (this isn't about them, so not sending a notice.) Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned here, my take is that this is a procedural anomaly that ACDS are subject to, but GS are not. I cannot really explain it otherwise. El_C 17:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if one should merge the GS and AC/DS systems together so that we don't need two parallel frameworks, but I take that would require forcing Arbcom to discharge some of their authority over the DS system. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• As a new editor, I jumped into a bunch of DS areas (because those are the most interesting ones, relating to politics, international relations, history, etc.), and man is it confusing as alllll heck. I would love for the community to make some (relatively minor) changes to make this scheme work better and be easier-to-understand for new editors (and probably experienced editors also), such as:
  1. Combine GS and DS into one "thing" instead of two
  2. Rename that one thing. "Sanction" is one of the worst possible words we could have chosen for this, because (in wonderful English style) to "sanction" can mean to either "allow" or to "punish". It's a word that has two opposite meanings. Also, an editor can be sanctioned, but to "sanction a page" or "put a page under sanctions" doesn't make sense grammatically. Are we "allowing" the page, or are we "punishing" the page? Neither; it's editors who are sanctioned. So rename it to Special Restrictions. That makes sense: a page is under "special restrictions", when it's restricted in a way that pages normally are not. Special restrictions are what GS and DS actually are.
  3. There should continue to be two ways of placing pages under Special Restrictions: the community can do it (a la GS), or Arbcom can do it (a la DS).
  4. The notification requirements should be adjusted to require one user talk page warning before imposing a sanction. Edit notices are great, but not everyone sees them. Talk page banners are great, but not everyone sees them. Mobile users in particular won't see either, but even desktop users can miss them sometimes due to banner blindness. Notifying an editor with a DS notice is OK, but people will forget, either that they received the notice (could be up to a year ago), or they'll forget that a particular page is within a particular topic area. The solution is simple: first time an editor breaks a Special Restriction, an admin posts a formal warning on their talk page ("Page:X is under the 1RR special restriction"). Second time, the editor can be sanctioned (page blocked, banned, whatever). Allow exceptions for egregious or emergency cases. This will ensure that nobody who doesn't know a page is under 1RR will get blocked for breaking 1RR (or whatever the restriction may be), while also ensuring that everybody who violates 1RR or some other Special Restriction is informed of the Special Restriction status in a no-excuses way. Levivich  18:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

     I...I have no snarky reply to this. Wholehearted support for the concept. Room to improve bullet 4, since DS is a lot more than just the imposition of 1RR, but I absolutely agree with unifying the GS and DS systems (and renaming them). creffett (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

     Certainly seems a legitimate set of ideas by @Levivich:. 4 probably would want to be clarified - perhaps first time breaking a special restriction within a category (e.g. post 1932 US politics), which would avoid disputes about people bouncing around on various related pages, action only to be taken on edits made after that warning (egregious aside). Obviously the arbs would probably have to sign off, but I can't see any reason they'd complain if the community wanted to change the name. Nosebagbear (talk)

     There are a couple of minor aspects: CS appeals are purely to AN, not to AE - and I wouldn't want this to change. Additionally, one minor community vs (prior) ARBCOM snitfit was about whether DS allows for the deletion of pages. The community firmly refuted it (and so CS doesn't allow deletion without a normal process), ARBCOM either disagreed or equivocated. Indeed, a couple of failed arbcom amendments were bought on the issue, I think. If that was to be aligned, it might be worth asking the new arbcom their views on that facet. Nosebagbear (talk)

• In terms of the original query, the same restrictions probably make sense (not that anyone has broken any rules, just we should unify to align with DS regs, at least in this aspect). Nosebagbear (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Are we talking about general sanctions vs discretionary sanctions, or arbcom DS/GS vs community authorised DS/GS? Because AFAIK there are arbcom general sanctions which aren't discretionary sanctions. E.g. the 1RR and 500/30 for ARBPIA. Nil Einne (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: My original question was about limits to discretion in the two different discretionary sanctions regimes. ARBCOM general sanctions are far more specific, and the question is less applicable there. So far, no one seems to know of explicit, en.wiki-wide documentation on limits to admin discretion for community-authorized discretionary sanctions. I'm going to ping another couple of policy wonks here: @Calannecc and Xaosflux: any thoughts? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: you too. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: sorry, but this is an area I usually steer clear of. — xaosflux 23:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: I don't blame you. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, Vanamonde93, general sanctions are typically authorized as "standard discretionary sanctions" and modeled after the ArbCom ones. If there are additional sanctions beyond standard DS, they're also typically modeled after ArbCom topic sanctions. There are some differences (how notifications are done is de facto left up to the whim of the closing admin as an example), but generally the rules are the same and you just replace the phrase "Arbitration Committee" with "Community at AN" in WP:AC/DS and remove any reference to WP:AE.In short, WP:AC/DS is still the controlling procedure for the most part, you just replace arb functions with community functions. That's how I've always interpreted it, because AC/DS are the definition of standard DS. Also fixing ping to Callanecc TonyBallioni (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  What Tony said. It is generally up to the closing admin to determine the exact wording of the community authorised sanctions per the consensus model, generally though it is modelled directly on ArbCom's discretionary sanctions system.

  I disagree with others above that merging the ArbCom and community discretionary sanctions system would mean ArbCom giving some of the authority - it would actually mean the community giving up their authority. For example, ArbCom would oversee the whole thing, including when the community decides to impose DS, and community and ArbCom DS would both by enforced at AE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni and Callanecc: That makes sense to me. However, am I correct in my understanding that in the absence of specific wording in the closure, this is not codified? I'm looking through the various GS-authorizing discussions, and the wording is...variable. See here, or here, or here. I don't think this is an academic question. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  No it's not codified anywhere. Discretionary sanctions|This and this are currently as close as it gets. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  So we're bound to the DS formulation if it's in the closing statement, and otherwise only to the extent we choose to be...I don't think I can be bothered to fix that loophole, but this is perhaps something for us to collectively keep in mind when future DS are authorized. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Two of those are fairly old in wiki-terms, but at least for the British measurements ones, it looks pretty similar. As to the ones you proposed in 2019, while you didn’t use the phrase standard discretionary sanctions in your proposal, it’s fairly clear at least to me that’s what you were describing, just authorized by the community and not by ArbCom.I guess my view is roughly that as WP:AC/DS documents standard discretionary sanctions, when community general sanctions are authorized, they follow those rules for the most part unless explicitly stated otherwise. en.wiki tends to go off a common law type of approach to policy, despite our legion of policies, guidelines, and essays.This is especially true for administrative actions since the four main policies on it (WP:ADMIN, WP:BLOCK, WP:PROTECT, and WP:DELETE) are fairly ambiguous and leave a lot to judgement. My view is that since AC/DS establishes a generally followed standard even for community GS, people are normally thinking of it when they’re voting to authorize them, and admins typically use them the same way, unless there’s a consensus that you can deviate from them, you shouldn’t.I think you could probably add a sentence like While not limited by Arbitration Committee procedures and guidelines, community authorized general sanctions ordinarily follow the procedures of standard discretionary sanctions authorized by the arbitration committee, but with the community handling all appeals at the Administrators Noticeboard. Deviation or additions to these standards typically require consensus in the discussion authorizing them unless purely clerical in nature. without much controversy to document this. If it’s objected to, you could have an RfC, but I think that sentence is the unspoken consensus of behavioural norms. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, I was bold and added the above because I think it fits with the de facto understanding and no one here appeared to disagree. If it gets reverted we can have a formal support/oppose straw poll here or at VPP, I suppose, but I think this is a good candidate for "update documentation to match how we normally do stuff without an RfC." TonyBallioni (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  Good addition, Tony. El_C 00:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: Much appreciated; I was intending to do it when I logged back on. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  El C, shouldn't such a change to that page be discussed at Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions not here? Sir Joseph 03:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  Well, right now the conversation is here, so it's best to keep it un-split. But later on, sure. El_C 03:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

File:180px-Ivan-Kozhedub2.jpg

Hi! This file was copied to vi.wikipedia (vi:Tập tin:Ivan-Kozhedub.jpg) where it still is. I wanted to check the source but now the file is deleted as F8 NowCommons. Could someone check what file name on Commons is supposed to be? --MGA73 (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If its not too much trouble perhaps you could undelete File:Jakūn gūsa.png so I can copy that to Commons (it is used in vi.wikipedia: vi:Tập tin:Jakūn gūsa.png). --MGA73 (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The summary was indicated as "German Misplaced Pages", and I know the uploader and would not expect of him a deep understanding of copyright policies, even less 15 years ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see, this is not the question you asked. The name was File:Kozhedub.jpg.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73:, I restored the other file. Please let me knw after you have performed the transfer, I will delete it. I am not willing to transfer it to Commons myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thank you. I copied the file to Commons Now. --MGA73 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I now deleted the file.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of community general sanctions on Units in the United Kingdom

The community authorised community general sanctions to curtail disruption related to systems of measurement in the context of the United Kingdom in November 2014. Since these sanctions have been imposed, no sanctions have been recorded in the log and no notifications of the sanctions have been logged since October 2018 (there were only 4 notifications logged in 2018, none in 2017 and 1 in 2016).

It appears that these community-authorised general (discretionary) sanctions are no longer necessary in this topic area, so I propose that the community ends the authorisation of general sanctions for this topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• For your consideration, a currently occurring MOS discussion. --Izno (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Covered by the MOS AC/DS there, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Of course—I left a DS alert for a couple editors—but I think it indicates conflict that might spill out onto other pages. (I have no particular interest for/against the proposal, but I did think it was amusingly timely.) --Izno (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support 18 months without a logged notification is a good sign the community doesn’t utilize these anymore. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support - even if the MOS discussion spills a bit, I don't think there's any indication of problems in the field to the scale that conventional methods could be considered to be insufficient. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I can't imagine that disruptive editing was being held in check just because of the fear of the GS, and if there have been no enforcement actions and very few notifications I'd be inclined to call it an unnecessary GS. If removing the sanctions leads to a sudden wave of disruption by the feared Customary Cabal and the formidable Metric Mafia (waiting in the shadows to strike until this very moment), well, we can re-authorize them. creffett (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Per the comments on timeliness of this - if people really do think that the MOS discussion will spill out and would be better controlled by the UK measurements sanctions than the MOS sanctions, then I'm fine with tabling this discussion until the MOS discussion is finished. creffett (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Creffett says that "I can't imagine that disruptive editing was being held in check just because of the fear of the GS". So far, that's precisely what's happened.

The biggest problem this is trying to address is a couple of editors who just go from article to article to article, flipping the units over and over and over and over, deliberately against the advice of MOSNUM for no better reason than a strong preference for one set of units. Those editors have gone through articles literally by the thousand, attempting to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI as a means of changing MOSNUM. This damages Misplaced Pages because it means that our presentation is inconsistent. It is disruptive behaviour in and of itself, and the fallout creates further disruption.

This problem has been going on for well over a decade with these editors, and they are still active. And these general sanctions are the only reason why it isn't still happening now. Take the general sanctions away, the problems will come back.

Bear in mind we have in the past seen entire topic areas held hostage to editors insisting every three weeks that consensus might have changed and that we need to rediscuss units again from scratch. Kahastok talk 19:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Kahastok, I believe I understand what you're saying, and I'm clearly not as familiar as you are with the history behind this, but two concerns with what you've said. First, if it is only a small number of editors causing the problem, then GS is a rather large hammer - I feel that community-authorized topic bans would be a better approach than full-on sanctions. Second, I don't think that "that's precisely what happened" is necessarily the right conclusion to draw from the evidence Callanecc presented - if a GS topic area is an ongoing problem, I would expect at least an occasional notification to be issued (not to mention a sanction or two), and we haven't had one since 2018. I feel that "it's not a problem that requires GS" is a simpler explanation for the data than "everyone involved is lying low."

Now, I could see those two statements ("it's just a few editors" and "they're held in check by GS"), taken together, being a reasonable explanation (suggesting that there's a small group of editors who both care about the issue and are familiar with the sanctions). However, that would imply that the group of problem editors are fairly static; I would generally expect GS to be necessary if there were a steady stream of new people joining the contentious area and the community felt that administrators needed the freedom to act quickly on issues in those areas. Compare, for example, DS/AP2 or GS/COVID-19, both of which have steady streams of new editors who want to write about those topics. If that's true, I think the problem could reasonably be handled with targeted community sanctions against a few problem editors rather than full GS. creffett (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I've been calling for community sanctions on the worst of the flippers for over a decade now.

Part of the problem is that the issue is seen as minor because it's not something most people care about. So whenever you go to one of the admin boards, admins just tell you that it's not important. Even when the disruption it's causing is extreme. Even where you have editors deliberately breaking the MOS on an industrial scale. And the flippers take it as licence to carry on flipping. You want to enact community sanctions against the worst offenders, that's fine - if you actually do it. But past experience suggests that that's unlikely no matter how disruptive they are. Kahastok talk 19:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now as untimely. The MOS discussion Izno linked to above started with an insulting and dismissive assertion and has continued to attract heated discussion. I cannot believe that this will not spill over and sanctions may be called for in the near future. If the stable situation that Callanecc refers continues to prevail in two weeks or so, then it may be worth it to release sanctions. At this time when there are so many people cooped up and arguing about minutiae here has become a definite trend, however, I would suggest that it would be more cautious to allow at least that discussion to resolve before releasing the sanctions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I recognise that my response there was poor, which is why I saw no benefit in responding further. However, if you check previous discussions on this topic, you will see that some variant of this is generally where it ends up, almost no matter what I do. You may appreciate that being repeatedly told I am some kind of monster because of a minor difference of opinion becomes tiresome. Kahastok talk 19:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I'm perfectly happy to toll my !vote for a month, so long as everyone is repinged when the discussion is reheld. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't realise that we had any sanctions in place about this, and am very disappointed, but unfortunately not surprised, that people argue about such things. I'm a 62-year-old Englishman, know my height in both feet and inches and centimetres, if I knew my weight would know it in both kilograms and stones and pounds (but would have to work it out to get that American weight in pounds only, which is never used here), and, like every driver in this country, buy fuel for my car by the litre but measure its fuel consumption in miles per gallon (which is not the same as an American gallon). Let's just get on with writing an encyclopedia rather than worry about such trivia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Which is all very well until readers start asking why all the distances that they think of in miles are now given in kilometres, why a Munro is now defined as a Scottish mountain taller than 914.4 metres instead of 3000 feet, why Misplaced Pages is now giving the motorway speed limit as 112.65 kilometres an hour instead of 70 miles per hour. And the answer is because a single editor with a strong POV spent a year doing nothing but flip them all.

Misplaced Pages should not be a vehicle for promoting a POV, on this or anything else. Kahastok talk 19:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean my post to be justifying a lifting of sanctions, if that's what it takes to avoid disruption, but merely an expression that I wish people would get on with more important things rather than disrupt Misplaced Pages in such a way. The UK has a strange hybrid system where some things are measured in imperial units, some in metric and some in both, but it somehow works and I wish people would just recognise that. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Kahastok, and believe that without it the problem that it is keeping at bay will reappear. There is at least one editor who previously did the flipping, and who is still actively searching out the use of non-metric units, and replacing them with metric units - but only in non-UK-related articles - in UK-related articles they are mostly adding 'convert' templates and keeping imperial as primary. If this deterrent was removed, I am sure their old behaviour would start again. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I generally hate the whole idea of general sanctions, but I agree with Kahastok on this particular issue. This is a topic that most people don't consider important but attracts a small but steady stream of obsessives (both pro-metric and pro-imperial) demanding we follow whichever they consider the One True Path. It's not a matter of just a couple of editors who can be individually sanctioned, but of a constantly-replenished stream of new editors who in each case genuinely believe they're Righting Great Wrongs and thus can't be dissuaded by discussion, and it's been an ongoing issue for well over a decade, now exaggerated by sparring between pro- and anti-Europeans who each see the other's measurement system as some kind of embodiment of evil. ‑ Iridescent 10:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I watch areas involving units and the disruption was beyond belief. IMHO the only reason there is quiet now is that the principal participants know they or any socks who take up the cause will be indeffed fairly quickly. The problem with removal is that getting sanctions reinstated would require an enormous amount of disruption because people who don't follow the area will argue that those involved should just discuss whether someone is 5 ft 10 in or 1.78 m or 178 cm. That sounds plausible until you meet the typical Righting Great Wrongs warrior who won't stop until they have fixed every page. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I remember the issues this behaviour caused and I think the topic will always be a potential problem unless sanctions are in place due to the type of people Iridescent mentions. Number 57 23:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not needed now, but perhaps in the future it will come in handy. I don't see the use of disabling sanctions on the topic just to say it's no longer on our books. It doesn't cost anything to have it in reserve. El_C 00:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Even from the cheap seats, I remember all too well this 5000 meter donnybrook that was 16404.2 feet too long . . . let's, not go back. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal to remove DS in this case reminds me of a story I was told be an official in an Australian embassy when I was visiting with the Navy. Apparently there was an intersection in the capital city that was notorious for accidents. So the local authorities built huge signs over the intersection saying "Dangerous Intersection Slow Down" (in the local language). The accident rate dropped dramatically after the sign was put up so much so that the local authority decided the sign wasn't needed any longer and took it down. Guess what happened next? - Nick Thorne 08:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

User made legal threats and Personal attacks on Misplaced Pages

Good day, I am Gharouni an admin in Persian Misplaced Pages (fawiki). As an admin I have recently blocked @Behrouz asbahi sis: in fawiki due to WP:DE and WP:PA for three days. Before that he abused a user and started to canvassing due to deletion of an article for WP:Notability. I tried to solve the problem and explained to this user and the other user of wikipedia policies etc. However, after this user was blocked for 3 days the user made a legal threat against me here that ended up to the useer's account was blocked for one month by another fawiki admin due to WP:NLT. I noticed today this user was trying to complaint against fawiki admins and users in an enwiki's admin talk page. And then calling fawiki admins dictators here. And here Misplaced Pages talk:Contact us. The user's English does not make sense sometimes seeing mentioned edits. However, the user has published an article in English here, I am trying to check citations due to doubt in breach of copyright or copying from source. I appreciate it if you kindly review my complaints and review the mentioned article. Gharouni 00:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

As you can see, this manager Gharouni does not tolerate the review of an article published by me, and at the request of the review by the managers of the English Misplaced Pages, he is somehow suppressing and exercising his dictatorship in the English Misplaced Pages. This is a major problem, and Misplaced Pages executives need to provide oversight. It's not my problem or my article. This is a fundamental problem, and it is far from being the main goal of Misplaced Pages. Behrouz asbahi sis (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC) jeeputer taranet Ahmad252

Attacking other editors as you've done here is never acceptable, and bringing complaints from another project here is even worse. If you come back from this block and persist in such disruptive behaviour, your next block is likely to be indefinite. Nyttend (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Unblock appeal by Ms4263nyu

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

Ms4263nyu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I can't ask the blocking administrator for input, and this is a checkuser block as well... {{checkuser needed}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Unless there is new evidence for sockpuppetry, I support an unblock. The user has contributed constructively; their article Lilie Chouliaraki was been accepted via AFC. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• I’m typically not a fan of unblocks before 6 months, but I see no additional accounts and no definitive IP socking, so I agree to an unblock as a CU, but only if there’s community consensus for it here. Personally I’m neutral. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Regarding six months, I usually agree, and have recently opposed an unblock appeal for this reason. This especially applies if someone is told to wait for six months and fails to do so. In this specific case, the closest the user has received to this is a link to WP:GAB, which contains the advice "Refrain from making any edits, using any account or anonymously, for a significant period of time (e.g. six months), in English Misplaced Pages." This might not be sufficient to justify concerns about the number of months waited. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, from what I can tell it wasn’t that egregious. Hence my saying the community can decide how to handle it :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Old editor - haven't edited under an account for over 6 years - but this very edit I'm making would possibly be considered "abusive". Unless there is evidence that this person was logging in/out to appear as two separate users, **a mistake does not make it abusive**, even if that mistake was made multiple times. If this user remains blocked, not only will it discourage IP editors to return to contributing, but it will discourage new editors from registering altogether given they could be blocked simply for forgetting to log in once or twice as "abusive". Absurd how WP has taken this stance both towards prolific editors (wrt arbcom rulings and "warnings" recently) and newer editors - there won't be any left if everyone keeps all this up. 52.119.101.25 (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Not relevant to this unblock, but if you’re going to be actively contributing to project space, yes, you should log in, especially as you don’t have a static IP (from looking at the public range contributions and the fact you said you’re on mobile.) I’m not blocking because you’re clearly here in good faith and not intending to be abusive, but a big part of the reason we strongly encourage people to register if they want to contribute to internal discussion is that it’s extremely difficult for many people to track dynamic IP contributions and the way we remember people is typically by names not numbers. So yes, mistakes happen. I never block on good faith mistakes. If you’re going to consistently comment on the internal workings of the English Misplaced Pages at dramah boards, however, you really should have an account. This from the guy with an “I support IP editing” userbox. Anyway, thank you for your contributions, but just a bit of background as to why we don’t particularly like logged out editing in project space. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow. You assume mobile means “on a mobile network. This is the first edit I’ve made from a mobile network - the others were my static home IP. Tons of anti-AGF - the entire Provo m which can makes me not want to come back. Congrats TonyBalloni?l, you’ve proved my point. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s not anti-AGF to interpret it as mobile internet. I’m not familiar with your ISP, so I read it in a natural way to me. There also seems to be a post from you, in good faith, a few months ago on a different IP (assuming there’s only one person on your range who edits AN anonymously.) I explicitly said you’re here in good faith. I just explained why policy favors those who have accounts editing project space with them. It’s easier for people to recognize. Anyway, as I said, not particularly relevant to this unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Why would you think this person was editing from a mobile network? Check the WHOIS; the first IP belongs to SYNERGY BROADBAND, while someone using a mobile network would have an IP belonging to a mobile provider, such as AT&T Mobility LLC for the second IP. Nyttend (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I did, which is how I got the range to look at contribs for, but it’s not an ISP I’m familiar with and I read this as saying they were on a mobile network rather than device. There are a lot of random ISPs that offer a variety of services, so I didn’t see any contradiction. My home ISP currently also provides my mobile service, so it’s not that big a stretch if someone says so and it’s an unfamiliar ISP. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Literally anyone else would assume what Tony did. Just because you decided to WHOIS and figure out does not mean everyone else is stupid to read it like a normal sentence. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Unblock. A review of the edits reflects that Ms4263nyu's first edits from an IP were to expand comments that were already signed under her username. It seems likely that this was an inadvertent error by an inexperienced editor and not intended to mislead anyone. This makes it easier to accept that the only other edit by the IP, on the same AFD two days later, was a product of the same error. I recognize that the blocking admin is not here now to explain why he blocked. However, based on what I can see, a reminder or warning to avoid editing the same discussion from both a registered account and an IP would have been sufficient. Escalating immediately to an indefinite block was draconian, excessive, and disproportionate to the usual block length for a first offense of even intentional socking, which I do not believe this was. And even if one did agree the block was warranted, the four months of "time served" is a sufficient sanction. (Note that although I am a checkuser, I have not used any CU tools in reviewing and commenting on this appeal.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock - Per NYB, it's realistic to believe that they were simply editing in good faith while logged out, with no intention of socking. It does seem that someone trying to maliciously sock in order to vote stack would not try to simply log out and vote from an IP that they had already been editing their own signed comments from. They explained that it was simply an error on their part but I'm not even sure if you could call it that as the user would have had no way of knowing that what they did was wrong, as there were no attempts to communicate with them whatsoever. What's worse, they explained the mistake at the time of the block but went completely ignored. As current CU evidence yields no concerns of socking, I think it's safe to AGF here and unblock with apologies. ~Swarm~ 03:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as a premature WP:SO request, and as they have failed to disclose their use of alternate accounts in an attempt to influence an AfD. ST47 (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @ST47: I am sorry but I do not understand the basis for your position. The editor acknowledged the logged-out editing at the time of the block back in December. Moreover, no one ever told him or her that waiting for six months for the "standard offer" was required—nor should it be. (It bears mention again that WP:SO is an essay, not a policy or a guideline, and in any event it applies only to community-endorsed blocks or bans, not to ordinary unblock reviews.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Newyorkbrad: I'm particularly interested in the account Special:Contributions/Biancalu123, which showed up to support Ms4263nyu's AfD and hasn't edited since. Evidently it wasn't necessary for them to use socks in order to get that article deleted, since the AfD garnered some legitimate support. However, their choice not to disclose that other account - whether it be sock or meat - seems dishonest. ST47 (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
      • @ST47: Thanks for the quick reply and helpful explanation. I invite Ms4263nyu to respond to this comment, on his or her talkpage. I see that the block notice from December referred only to logged-out editing as opposed to socking through another registered account, but since Biancalu123's first edit took place after the block, that doesn't prove anything one way or the other. I don't know if you CU'd Biancalu123 but it looks like it would be stale. Interestingly, however, the second of Biancalu123's two edits was to delete his or her "delete" vote and comment on the AfD. If Biancalu123 was the same editor as Ms4263nyu, then I would still support an unblock for four months of time served, though less emphatically than before, and with a one-account restriction going forward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock Current indef block serves no preventative purpose, and per WP:NOTBURO I see no reason to be a stickler for 6 months in this instance. TonyBallioni performed a CU that found no evidence of socking since, and the user's actions that led to the CU block can easily be considered good faith mistakes better handled through warnings as NYB and Swarm mention above. I have absolutely no reservations about unblocking. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock - per the GF reasoning coupled with not seeing how our indef block (or waiting another couple of months) appreciably protects the encyclopedia or the community. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock - this honestly does read to me as a good-faith screwup rather than bad-faith use of logged-out editing, and per TonyBallioni the CU log looks clean, so in the name of AGF I'm willing to extend some rope. No issue with it being 4 months per ToBeFree's comment, NOTBURO, etc. I'd strongly recommend that Ms4263nyu read WP:LOGOUT, but I'm willing to support unblocking. creffett (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The user is continuing to evade their block at this time. Clearly they have not learned that logging out in order to evade a block is sockpuppetry. @TonyBallioni: does your statement overriding the checkuser block still stand? ST47 (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  ST47, are you referring to the self-reverted comments to this page? Then please be specific, because I have seen these and my opinion remains the same. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  ST47, I suppose my view is that this was only related to the appeal, was self-reverted, and was open, so I don’t see it really as being private information from a CU block perspective. To me, it’s a question for the community on that specific point unless there’s something else going on. I think it might be worth pinging previous participants if you think it changes their view. Like I said, I don’t think it’s a privacy policy violation since they admit it’s them in the edit. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  I still support unblocking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Per TonyBallioni's suggestion, ping @Nyttend, QEDK, Swarm, and Creffett:; notifying Talk:2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:B0 User talk:2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:B0 and Talk:52.119.101.25 User talk:52.119.101.25. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  My support is definitely weakened, but I am willing to assume good faith here (that the editor thought that they were expected to reply here - supported by the fact that they did identify themselves as the blocked editor) Ms4263nyu: stop editing while logged-out. That is what got you blocked in the first place. If you feel that you need to respond to something or provide a comment post it to your talk page and someone will copy it here if needed (but please, do that only if it's really important or if you are directly asked a question). If you continue editing while your main account is blocked, then you're rapidly going to run out of good faith from the people supporting your unblock. creffett (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  +1 Ms4263nyu isn't trying to be deceptive, they're just making some blunders that are obvious to us but may not be obvious to a casual editor. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

  (Sorry Wugapodes, I forgot to ping you – and messed up the IP pings above.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

  Ping Nosebagbear as well, I keep mixing their name up with Newyorkbrad who had already commented. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

  IPs can’t be pinged. P-K3 (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

  If the IP edits were solely on this page, I might be less inclined in the judgement of the editor, but not concerned that they would cynically and willfully choose to evade the community judgement. I could of course be wrong, but I don't think that to the degree, yet, to overturn my !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Unblock per everyone above - Their reasoning on their talkpage seems plausible, Also as noted above the IP at the AFD was expanding on his comments and not !voting or trying to be deceitful,

Inregards to them using an IP here - I'm in agreement with Wugapodes this seems more like an editor making accidental blunders than someone actually trying to be deceitful,

All in all as per AGF I support unblocking although it should be emphasised to them that they should stop editing logged out otherwise they're going to find themselves back where they started. –Davey2010 14:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Unblock – not every instance of logged out editing is "abusive". I'm not convinced this was a good block in the first place. Levivich  15:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock. Another chance seems fine, even though the request can be seen as a bit early TonyBallioni, I think there is consensus for unblocking, so please feel free to go ahead. El_C 15:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Notification of global ban proposal who were active on this wiki

English: This is a notification of global ban discussion against PlavorSeol, persuant to the global ban policy.

You are getting notified because they have edited on this wiki/blocked on this wiki.

한국어: 이 안내는 전역 추방 정책의 규정에 따라 PlavorSeol 사용자에 대한 전역 추방 논의를 알리기 위한 안내입니다.

이 사용자가 이 위키에서 활동한 전력이 있거나, 차단된 바가 있기 때문에 이 안내를 받게 됩니다.

— regards, Revi delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

HTTP => HTTPS in Template:MathWorld_HTTPS_in_Template:MathWorld-2020-04-18T00:34:00.000Z">

Hi, y'all. Sorry to bother, but I couldn't find an appropriate forum to raise this issue. I posted a note at Template talk:MathWorld, but seeing as the template hasn't been substantively edited in two and a half years, I thought I'd try to raise a flag in a more trafficked place.

Currently the template points to http://mathworld.wolfram.com/. This should be upgraded to use SSL: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/. This is a security issue. In this day and age, unencrypted and unauthenticated connections should not be used if at all possible.

On a side note, I noticed that Misplaced Pages:Contact us doesn't include a section on contacting Misplaced Pages about security issues. While I realize that the SSL issue here isn't earth shattering, IMHO Misplaced Pages should have a dedicated channel for reporting security issues with Misplaced Pages's site (in general). Many other organizations have specific points of contact for security.

My two cents, 64.246.159.246 (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)_HTTPS_in_Template:MathWorld"> _HTTPS_in_Template:MathWorld">

On second thought, maybe it's a good idea to make a systematic review of all templates. Check whether external sites are being sent via HTTP vs HTTPS. 64.246.159.246 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

IP 64, if you had tried to edit the template, it would have provided you a page that said you could not edit it due to the protection, and provided a link to request an edit on the talk page from there, which would have put it in a queue for processing. I'll take care of fixing it now. --Izno (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Security issues with the software (not the case here) can be reported at phabricator.wikimedia.org. Information for developers is linked in the footer, labelled "Developers". I'm afraid a more prominent "security issue" report link would cause people to create phabricator tasks for http links in templates. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Introduction page move

Hi, we need some help closing this discussion because the system keeps throwing database errors in our faces whenever we try to move some pages. Misplaced Pages:Introduction and Misplaced Pages:Tutorial are supposed to redirect to Help:Introduction.

Here's how it currently looks:

• Misplaced Pages:Introduction is at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages:Introduction (historical) (blame me for forgetting to remove the "Misplaced Pages:") - needs to be at Misplaced Pages:Introduction (historical).
• All of the original revisions to Misplaced Pages:Introduction are located at User:Misplaced Pages:Introduction (historical). These need to be histmerged with Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages:Introduction (historical).
• Everything else is at the same place as it always was.

How do we get around these database errors and resolve this? Anyone else wanna take a shot at moving the pages in one attempt? Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

At this point I think we should ask meta:System administrators to handle this request. I tried moving Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages:Introduction (historical) which only has a handful of revisions, but even that raised a database error. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I got it as far as Misplaced Pages:WIntroduction (historical) through intermediary steps (and lots of leftover redirects) but it keeps throwing errors after that. I've filed a Phab task. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Revision history sitting at User:Misplaced Pages:Introduction (historical).--Moxy 🍁 11:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I've just now tried to move Misplaced Pages:WIntroduction (historical) to Misplaced Pages:Introduction (historical), since the extra "W" obviously doesn't belong long-term, but even doing that produces a quick database error. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

However this gets resolved, please leave a redirect upon your page move. Yesterday, I undid about two dozen page redirects that were broken and in danger of being deleted. If you leave a redirect with your page move, than those original redirects can get corrected by one of our helpful bots. Liz 18:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point. There's no long-term reason to retain the intermediate redirects, like WP:WIntroduction, so I would be inclined to move without redirect, but I wouldn't have thought of the redirect-fixing bots. Nyttend (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Request reconsideration of topic ban

To an uninvolved administrator, I was a prolific editor of COVID-19 as the outbreak progressed. There was rapidly developing sources around the mode of transmission. You can see that I originally created and developed the transmission section and worked for many weeks on its improvement and readability. It became controversial around the world "exhale" in the sources, leading to a prolonged RFC around the wording, which resulted in a new consensus advocated by myself. Prior to this there was what I would have termed an edit war between doc james and myself, because we were repetitively changing content. We mostly worked together, and would always come to agreement eventually, but sometimes without the necessary discussion because it wasn't being discussed well at the time. I was told that I was threatening an edit war, but in fact all I was doing was notifying that a protracted arguable edit war was in progress. I then considered resigning due to wikistress.
I returned because the technical words "airborne" and "respiratory droplets" were still being misunderstood by editors and the general reader.
When further edits were immediately reverted by Doc, I was aiming to get a forced block when I did an intentional edit war which led to the topic ban and a 72 hour block. I didn't know how to get a block on request. Because I was not well at the time, I requested a 2 week block over email and on my talk page which was granted and now expired.
Doc James and I achieved further consensus over email and this stands in the article. I apologise for my actions and recognize that this was a "spectacularly bad idea" as per User:Bradv. Doc James supports me returning and awarded me a barnstar. Would appreciate anyone reconsidering the topic ban. Please see my talk for further info. --Almaty (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Almaty. I am an administrator whose previous involvement with the main coronavirus articles has been minor, so I don't think I am involved, but if anyone disagrees I will step aside. I knew nothing about this particular dispute until now. I am very concerned about you saying that you were "aiming to get a forced block when I did an intentional edit war which led to the topic ban and a 72 hour block". That indicates to me a very recent inability to deal with the stress of editing highly important articles about current life-or-death matters. That is perfectly understandable, but if you want to resume editing in that topic area, I think you need to do a better job of explaining how we can be reassured that your editing will not be similarly disruptive going forward. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I can explain that. I am a doctor, and I was working far too hard simultaneously on wikipedia, and the edit war occured at 4:30am in Australia. I am no longer doing that and I needed to sleep, which is why I wanted the block. I went about it the wrong way. I now have familiarised myself with all the recommendations around wikibreaks and how to get a block wikicoded. As I state on my talk page, I no longer have the opinion that any of the COVID-19 articles require bold edits, and as you would note from my edit history, I did many bold edits which were stressful. I will not be doing so again. --Almaty (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Also please note that during the edit war my only comments were "many people disagree" and "there is no time" on Doc James' talk page. I think it is relatively clear from this, considering I know to a limited extent many wikipedia policies, that I was aiming to get a block. I also asked for the ban, but what I really wanted was an enforced wikibreak. (I didn't understand the difference between blocks, bans, topic bans and wikibreaks, properly at the time). I didn't know how to go about it at the time, and now I do. Having said that, I think this unlikely to occur in the future due to the amount of consensus that has been achieved around the mode of transmission, both prior to and during my much enjoyed (and if i may say so deserved) wikibreak. Thanks User:Cullen328 --Almaty (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Almaty, which I appreciate. I am going to wait for other editors to comment before coming to any conclusions. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Ping User:Doc James (if he has time to comment, he already has done so on my talk) and User:FeydHuxtable who as my "wikignome" both support me returning. --Almaty (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

After reading recent posts on your talk page, Almaty, I am reassured that you have been a long time positive contributor and have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. I cannot possibly understand the stress that frontline health care workers like you are experiencing. I hope that we can come to an agreement that allows your topic ban to be lifted. Be well. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I hadn't been aware of I'd forgotten about* this issue until today, but having examined it (including Almaty's talk page), I'm happy to supporting lifting the topic ban. I can only imagine what the stress is like for front-line workers, and I thank you Almaty for your efforts (and everyone else working to halt this thing). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

(*Memory of a goldfish. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC))

• Unsure - the firmly positive comments by Doc James on Almaty's talk page factor very highly in ending a TBAN way earlier than I would normally support, but obviously everything that @Bradv: said at the time was accurate (indeed, I'd probably have used somewhat stauncher language) - I see he was pinged on the talk page but hasn't yet commented further - I'd be interested in hearing his viewpoints before making my final position. (Addendum): in line with being preventative, a major concern is that which has already been somewhat discussed above about whether Almaty will fall afoul of the same issues again. He (?) clearly knows how to avoid it going forwards, but it's a question of whether the methods will be utilised in the heat of moment. @Almaty:, could you cover that? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with some hesitation. You need to learn to back away and go outside some and smell the roses a bit, mow the law, anything that isn't work or Covid related. With Doc James's blessing, as well as your own clearly stated understanding of the problem, I'm willing to support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, I strongly support mowing the law...oh, wait, that isn't what you meant. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support I was aware of this dispute at the time and it seemed specifically focused on mode of transmission of COVID-19 which is a subject that, as far as I know, has been resolved. It was pretty heated and involved threats of "going to the media" which give me pause. But I support this if Doc James does (and I'd like to hear from him). Almaty has made a lot of contributions in this area and if the dispute was singularly focused on this one disagreement which has been resolved, I think he should be able to return. Just be aware, Almaty, in the future, any threat to go to some public venue about an editing disagreement on Misplaced Pages will not be resolved in your favor. Remove yourself from a dispute if you reach this level of stress in the future. Liz 18:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Am happy to see User:Almaty return to editing the topic area. How to appropriately cover the spread of COVID is definitely complicated and not something that only we have struggled with. Reassurances that they will take a break when needed are sufficient. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment A couple of weeks seems very short compared to most topic bans. I'm concerned that issue seemed stress related (and there's nothing wrong with that!). But what has been done to reduce that stress? I hoped to see some examples of the user editing fruitfully in other areas, or on other Wiki's, but since the block, I don't see much other mainspace activity. My inclination is to think that if it is stressful to edit in this area, then don't edit in this area. (now off to hit the whiskey, so I can sleep properly ... ). Nfitz (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Lol. In all honesty, the whisky you refer to may have been a factor. As it has been for many doctors on the front line - tough times! No whisky for me going forward --Almaty (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: clearly knows how to avoid it going forwards, but it's a question of whether the methods will be utilised in the heat of moment. The heat of the moment was when I was medically unwell, terrified about the pandemic reaching Australia soon (luckily it hasn't, the lucky country) and trying to do the best I could for wikipedia. But then I realised it was very late at night, with work tomorrow, and all my edits were being reverted, i was stressed for numerous reasons, and starting to become medically unwell. A consensus of them now stand. But the last edit war leading to the topic ban really wasn't about a content dispute from my end, it was intentionally getting the block due to wikistress as I said. Still, a "spectacularly bad idea". A better idea would have just been to go for a walk. (I had been self isolating myself too). Thats higher than our rules here. --Almaty (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Per my discussions with Almaty on their talk page, Doc James' support, and the comments here, it's clear this topic ban is no longer necessary. I will go ahead and lift it. – bradv🍁 15:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

IPv6 block oddness

Looking at 2607:FB90:2840:F19C:58E9:3552:CAC8:CAA5 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I see two edits at Talk:List of concentration and internment camps (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) which are block evasion by TruePatriot1776. The contributions for the IP show only one edit, though there are clearly two on the talk page. 2607:fb90::/32 is blocked locally for a year and also globally locked. So no edits should have been possible from that IP. This looks weird, what am I missing? Guy (help!) 10:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The older edit was made by 2607:fb90:4a34:9254:58e9:3552:cac8:caa5 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Curiously the two IPs have the same pre- and suffix, the difference being in the third and fourth group. The local block was imposed after the edits, the global one even later. Favonian (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Is sand biotic

Sand could be both biotic and abiotic because biotic is remains of dead organisms and sand includes stuff that's been decomposed for millions of years. It could also be abiotic because sand isn't a living organism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 𝕃𝕦𝕥𝕫𝕦𝕩 (talk • contribs)

That is not a question that administrators can answer (at least not in their capacity as administrators). The place to ask would be Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Science. See also Biotic material. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

And, 𝕃𝕦𝕥𝕫𝕦𝕩, please change your user name to be something in the script used by your native language, or at least some human language, not these unicode characters. I tried to leave you a message on your talk page but was prevented from doing so, presumably because you were using these strange characters. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Sheeat, sorry Phil B., I just went and created it! Yes, this stylized font is very pretty, but hardly conducive to communication. ——SN54129 18:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Links work fine for me. EEng 18:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to work OK now, but when the talk page didn't exist I was prevented from creating it. I don't remember the exact error message that I got, but it was about illegal characters. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Did it say something about the title being blacklisted? That's what I get now if I try to create User:𝕃𝕦𝕥𝕫𝕦𝕩. Maybe Lutzux is a naughty word in Sumerian? EEng 21:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't match anything in the Basic Multilingual Plane, thus is not allowed by the filter, and why they probably need to change their name, as this is probably going to break other things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User has been notified. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Copy vio

Can an admin please take a look at the copy vio tag pasted on Skateboard that has been there for almost three weeks. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee 15:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I am also seeing a few entries at Category:Requested RD1 redactions that have been there for a few weeks as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

On Skateboard, the supposed source https://www.slideshare.net/ramprasad338/power-skate-board is not a match for the removed content Diff of Skateboard. So I did not do the revision deletion. Have you got a source that matches the removed material? If not, the revision deletion request should be removed.— Diannaa (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa, I think the request can be removed. It looks like the copyvio detector saw content on that source that was most likely copied from Misplaced Pages. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay that's it for now. The backlog of cases has been cleared.— Diannaa (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

LuK3, I removed it. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Self-requested closure review: RfC on race and intelligence

I closed the recent RfC on race and intelligence (diff and permalink. This has been challenged on the grounds that the close required three admins; I shouldn't have discounted new accounts that are SPAs; and that because I wrote WP:BLOCKNAZIS I am involved in regards to the matter of race and intelligence, and that as such closing is a matter of administrator misconduct. I have reproduced my close below for easy reading:

First: I discounted opinions from new editors who have not been active on the English Misplaced Pages outside of this topic. I believe that was within my discretion and is relatively normal for administrators and other experienced editors to do.

As to the discussion between established Misplaced Pages users, there was a lot of text but two of the most salient lines of discussion were whether or not being a minority position within academia corresponds with being fringe, and on a more procedural note, the scope of this RfC and the broadness of what it was defining.

In closing we are supposed to be guided by the English Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. My understanding of what this means is that we look to the policies and guidelines for principles to define how we act, and we trust our editors who are familiar with them to reach their conclusions based on that. In this case, the relevant princple from WP:FRINGE is this: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. and it is in light of that guideline that I read the RfC.

Having read the positions of this RfC twice, I find the following points:

• There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Misplaced Pages's definition of a fringe theory above.
• There is no consensus right now in this discussion on the question of how to discuss non-genetic research, theories, and conclusions surrounding race and intelligence.

Taking some liberty as a closer, if people want to drill down on the last point, I would suggest an RfC with multiple sectioned proposals that are specific.

To address the three concerns raised:

1. I shouldn't have discounted votes of users who are SPAs. This is fairly routine and WP:Discard states: If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. We rely on the policy judgements of experienced Wikipedians when closing discussions, not accounts that are unfamiliar with our broader policies and guidelines.
2. A three admin close was required: a three admin close is never required, and is usually a bad idea because it ends up being one person defending it when people get mad and challenge it. I have been on this project a while, am familiar with most of our policies and guidelines, the history behind them, and how they are applied, and I've been an sysop for three years. I think I'm qualified under policy to close.
3. I'm involved because I wrote WP:BLOCKNAZIS: the involved theory doesn't work here because first, that's the main part of the essay I wrote and it is about blocking holocaust deniers and and people who put Nazi imagery on their user page and the like, not about blocking users for debating sourcing. I also wrote WP:CRYRACIST which makes the point that using accusations of racism against people on topics that are debate, such as race and intelligence, is a personal attack and will not be tolerated as a way to stifle debate. I did not write WP:RACISTBELIEFS and my additions to that essay are to my knowledge solely about administrative actions to actual neo-Nazis and not to call people racist to stifle talk page discussions.

I'm fine letting the community review my close. I expected someone would bring it here since it was very heated, so I'm opening it up to community review. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Anything that has gotten this much traction at Arb and everywhere else should have been closed by three people. Not necessarily admin, but three very experienced editors. That says nothing of the closing rationale, which I haven't poured over, but as a matter of procedure, closing it unilaterally was bound to cause problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree to disagree. I think three people would have caused more, in addition to likely causing the RfC to be prolonged for a significant length of time because no one wants to touch it. I've been involved in panel closes before, they don't add much and I think we've become over-reliant on them recently, which is why I don't mind doing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Tony, thanks for taking this on. It is really very much appreciated. And you're right - your word, or any admin's word, stands on their own. As far as I know all admins are equipped for a job like this. It all depends if they mind doing a job like this. Maybe brand new Admins would not be ready - this I don't know. I just assume any Admin who is willing to close an RFC is probably equipped to do so. And there are very sharp non-admins who could also do this. (copied my comment from Toni's talk page).

Hey, maybe that is what you should call your talk page - Toni's talk page - and then in parenthesis you can add (fah-get about it!) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think any RfC closed by an experienced admin adheres to policy. Now, it's one thing to ignore an emerging panel and then closing unilaterally, anyway, as was the case recently. But seeing as no such panel was likely to form any time soon, the closure seems like an appropriate action to me. Having written WP:BLOCKNAZIS does not make TonyBallioni involved, in my view. El_C 01:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• There was a rough consensus that a 3 admin panel was required to close this RfC, see this archived discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure/Archive_29#Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#RfC_on_race_and_intelligence. Why did Tony not consider this? My other concern was did Tony just skim over the RfC because he made no attempt to summarise the core arguments. The RfC included a 2020 survey of experts published in Intelligence (journal) that found that only 16 percent of experts regarded I.Q. gaps between races to be fully explained by environmental factors, with 43 percent saying mostly genetics and 40 percent saying mostly environmental factors explain the gap. TonyBallioni has now stated that the the minority academic viewpoint is the majority viewpoint and the majority academic viewpoint is the fringe viewpoint. If Tony is going to do the close then at least consider the arguments alongside WP policies in his close.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• (I !voted "yes" in the RFC.) This was a long discussion and thanks again to Tony for diving into it. I think it was a good close. I strongly disagree with the notion that this RFC either "required" or "had consensus for" a panel close. We don't require panel closes for difficult RFCs; there are difficult RFCs every day; we don't have the resources for it; there's always a backlog at ANRFC; and finally, if it's not important enough to list at WP:CENT then it's not important enough to take up the time of multiple closers. I also strongly disagree with the suggestion that an editor is involved or biased because they edited an essay about Nazis or racism. If the title of the essay was WP:NOHEREDITARIANS, then it might be a different story. Levivich  01:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• I do think TonyBallioni is involved as he commented on the talk page of the No Nazis here saying: racist POV pushers will be blocked, but quickly blocking someone for being a nazi is somehow on a different level than your standard race and intelligence POV pusher (or insert other racist POV pusher here). This sounds a lot like he is saying Neo Nazis are worse than the type of editors who have the “wrong” POV on race and intelligence (like the ones who voted no in the RfC he has closed) but both should be blocked. I do not know how much more involved or even COI you can get that this comment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see how any of that makes TonyBallioni involved — and I, myself, am uninvolved with regards to this subject. El_C 01:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• This doesn't seem to make Tonyballoni involved. Also, it seems to be an attempt to impugn Toni as an Admin to claim that he is involved more than once. Toni's track record about being policy minded should suffice and override any concern that he has BIAS. I really don't see a consensus for a three admin panel in that discussion. I see a bunch of participants and I see ancillary conversations about a discussion at RSN. I see claims of WP:BIAS that will automatically occur if only one admin closes. I see what appears to be an IP contacting some admins on their talk page about closing the RFC. I also see some editors essentially delineating requirements for the closing admin. I know what I would call this type of behavior - but I'm not going to say it here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• TonyBallioni is involved because he has edited in the topic area and has articulated a clear POV, ignored a rough consensus that a 3 admin close was required and did, in my eyes, a substandard close that did not address the sources, arguments against policies. The close actually shows no proof he did anything more than skim read the RfC. I am not saying that is what he did but the close gives no evidence one way or the other. It is not a high quality close which is what this topic area really requires.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Editing the topic area does not make one involved with respect to this singular topic of dispute. The close does not need to address the sources, "show proof," or anything of the sort. It is supposed to evaluate the consensus (or lack thereof). Also, you continuing to imply that they "skim read" the discussion is an unwarranted aspersion. A panel close was not required — you repeating that it did does not make it so. El_C 01:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think Tony has ever edited Race (human categorization), Intelligence, Race and intelligence, or History of the race and intelligence controversy, so I'm not sure that he's even edited the topic area at all. Diffs? Levivich  02:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) See my response to the IP user whose claims you are repeating. I am one of the few administrators still willing to be involved in the race and intelligence topic area. I have blocked people in it before, and yes, there are racist POV pushers who show up there and they are blocked. It's not a surprise that as one of the more active administrators in policy areas, that I've written my views on what policy requires in one of the areas I am active. If you look at the actual conversation being cited, I am arguing that we should not lump people together with nazis and block them.One of the criticisms I have made of that essay is that people are too quick to discount the views of others as racist and use accusations of racism to stifle discussion. I wrote WP:CRYRACIST in response to that. The idea that someone should be blocked for having a good faith disagreement on sourcing is something that I've actively argued against both in writing and in my decisions at AE, and yes, I've blocked people for calling other people racists without good cause. There are many valid criticisms of me, but I'm pretty evenhanded and consistent on this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Then why did you not address the core point of dispute in your close that the RfC question had this year already been asked in a survey of experts in a reliable source (which came to the opposite conclusion of your close)? How are we meant to implement the RfC without you addressing the source and declaring the source to be acceptable or not? Are you saying only reliable sources that agree with your close are reliable? There were lots of reliable sources that dispute your close and you ignored all the evidence in your close which is deeply unfair to the editors who spent many hours and all they asked in return was a fair weighing of the arguments. Your close was not a normal close, it looks like a duff close quickly put together, with no analysis of several core points of dispute against policy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I explained that in my close: policy guides us on principle and we trust the participants of the RfC who are versed in policy and how to apply it and sourcing requirements on Misplaced Pages to come to a conclusion. The underlying question was one of what met WP:FRINGE's definition. You argued strongly for one position. Some others agreed with you, but many others didn't, and also gave their views on the sourcing and what the scientific consensus was. Ultimately, the other side had consensus on the genetic question. People can and do disagree in good faith, and it isn't the job of the closer to decide who is right. It is not the job of the closer to evaluate the reliable sourcing. It is the job of the participants in the discussion. On the whole, they disagreed with your analysis.Anyway, I've responded to the concerns here in a manner that I think is in accordance with WP:ADMINACCT, and I've already written quite a lot, so I think it's best that I step back and let the community review. I'd suggest you do the same. The discussion was so intense and no one wanted to respond or close because of the length and the response to every argument. Let's try not to repeat that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• This was not a normal RfC, but the close was appropriate. You cannot dictate the terms by which it is closed, Literaturegeek. That is not a recipe for a successful WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. El_C 01:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I just want to be assured that a WP:SUPERVOTE has not occurred like what happened only two months ago in the AfD (where a duff close was written that did not address the arguments against policy) in this topic area that a 3 admin panel (appointed by a deletion review) overturned it from delete to keep. So there is history for my concerns.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• There is no indication that a SUPERVOTE has taken place here. As an uninvolved observer that is my assessment. Hopefully, that reassures you. El_C 03:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Well, I read that RfC from top to bottom and numerically the yes side won by a small margin but most yes voters argued from an original personal opinion, they produced no survey of experts that the no side produced, the no voters had two surveys that supported their view. I can’t help but think if you had weighed the strength of the arguments in your close they would not support your close and I would like a 3 admin panel close to ensure a fair close which was a consensus you also did not pay attention to before taking on this role. If you gave a strong high quality close I would better be able to accept it. Anyway it is what it is.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I've already expressed my opinions on this matter here, so instead of repeating myself I'd like to call attention to TonyBallioni's comment, "I expected someone would bring it here since it was very heated". This is similar to Spartaz's initial "delete" close in the AFD, in which he stated, "There is, however a lot of heat, and its seems pointless enacting the consensus until the inevitable DRV." In Spartaz's case, the community strongly objected to the discussion being closed in a manner that the closer knew full well would generate additional drama instead of a resolution.

After this had previously happened just two months ago, how could TonyBallioni possibly have thought it was a good idea to do the same thing? Like Spartaz, he clearly knew that his closure was going to be disputed and generate additional drama, but chose to go ahead anyway, even with the benefit of hindsight looking at the fallout that resulted when Spartaz did this. Whether or not TonyBallioni is truly biased or not is somewhat beside the point - if he knew from the start that he was going to be accused of bias, he should have withdrawn as a potential closer and let someone else handle the task, just as SilkTork previously withdrew for the same reason.

So now we're back in the same situation we were in two months ago with the AFD. And I think the outcome that's needed is the same outcome that eventually happened last time: for the discussion to be re-closed by an admin (or preferably, team of admins) who trust themselves, and are trusted by the community, to assess all of the arguments presented in the RFC, and to close it in a manner that won't be suspected of imposing their own personal opinion(s) on a community discussion. 2600:1004:B103:626E:68A2:83EC:91F:A19 (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 the two situations are not the same, that discussion had a {{closing}} on it, and the logistics of the team close were in the works. There was no evidence that any specific admin was even considering volunteering to be part of a team close in this case. Any admin that closed this in a way that certain participating editors didn't like was going to be accused of bias, that's more or less inevitable in contentious cases like this. There is no credible evidence of involvement or other reason to suspect lack of suitability as a closer.Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Tony's close accurately reflects those !votes that were based on substantive analysis of the sources. Those that are seeing his closure as challenging the notion that intelligence has a hereditary component have either not understood the closing statement, or have not understood the contemporary sources present there. I see no reason why a three-person panel would do any better here, and I see no evidence that the need for such was established beforehand. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• I just don't see the consensus that he came to. By my count it is some 24 Yes votes to 20 no votes (discounting 3 in-between, who supported some of the RfC's statements but not all and discounting some 8 SPA accounts). By and large most of the 'Yes' voters cited almost nothing to support their assessment, instead seemingly relying on gut feeling. The close does not address the source currently under discussion at RSN (about which a large amount of the RfC was spent discussing and which most directly answers the RfC's main question). This in particular should have been discussed in the close. This should have been a clear No consensus close, but somehow Toni saw it as a "yes". I'm not really sure why. I think that it was pretty clear that everyone asked for a three admin close beforehand, though I notice now that the "yes" !voters are perfectly happy with a single admin close in their favour... hypocrites. — Insertcleverphrasehere _{(click me!)} 02:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Insertcleverphrasehere, that last part is inaccurate and uncalled-for. Both "yes" and "no" !voters were on both sides of the panel-close issue. I was a yes voter who was always against requiring a panel close. This was discussed at WP:ANRFC and in the RFC thread. Levivich  03:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Insertcleverphrasehere, really, hypocrites? It is unwise to engage in personal attacks on the Administrators' noticeboard, to say the least. You can take that as a formal {{uw-npa4}} warning, by the way. El_C 03:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  If you want to go the number route, "weighing of opinions by established editors familiar with policies and guidelines" gets you somewhere around 25-17/18 with several more nuanced comments that don't easily fall into a group. Nose counting is hard which is why it's never done on it's own. That's around 58%, which isn't so overwhelming it automatically passes by our general numeric standards, but is well within the range where it could pass. The arguments from the "in-betweens" seemed to acknowledge a scientific consensus while also arguing for nuance. That nuance can occur on talk pages still, and the Misplaced Pages definition found in FRINGE is explicitly stated as broad. Given the rough consensus that you have a scientific consensus one way where the opposite position is far outside the mainstream, and that the policy is intended as broad, I think we have the level of support needed to make a close in a content RfC that isn't trying to establish a new policy or guideline but rather implement an existing one. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding the claims that Tony violated ADMINACCOUNT because the close required three admins; shouldn't have discounted new accounts that are SPAs; and that because wrote WP:BLOCKNAZIS, I do not find support in the listed discussions or relevant policies and guidelines. I'll leave the analysis of the RFC-proper to those uninvolved others who have already commented. --Izno (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Izno, Nobody has stated Tony should have included SPAs, that is just silly. I am afraid that TonyBallioni seems to be misrepresenting the comment on another board. The IP editor never mentioned he should not have discounted SPAs, the IP editor just mentioned SPAs in the context that the close appeared to be based on a numerical count rather than an analysis of the strength of the arguments. Tony should strike that anyone is arguing for SPAs to be included in his analysis and he should add to his first post the core concern here to his above first post and that is that there is a concern he did not weigh the strength of the arguments in his close, otherwise this community review is tainted by reducing the quality of those disputing his close. I would ask Tony to strike and reword his above message to fix what appears to be a misrepresentation.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's tweaking verbiage to get to the point that everyone's argument should be equal, which isn't what WP:NHC says, nor is the concept that numbers are completely irrelevant what that says either. The idea is what does the bulk of informed, established editors who are aware of the policies and issues at hand agree on, and the closer doesn't decide who is right, which appears to be what you're going for. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Not sure if you are implying, by your “going for” wording, that I am pushing for a biased outcome to the RfC review. I consistently wrote, long before you did the close, that I wanted a 3 admin panel to guard against a biased close WP:SUPERVOTE that this topic area has recent history of. I hope I did not misinterpret your ”going for” comment. You don’t have to reply. You are correct that numbers are not irrelevant (they are important) but the quality of the arguments against policy carry the most weight.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The vote from Sinuthius is a good example of why I think there is a problem with your approach. Sinuthius was tagged as a SPA, but he also quoted a source that directly addresses hereditarianism's level of support in academia (the Areo Magazine article), and no one else in the RFC had previously mentioned this source. Two non-SPAs who subsequently voted "no", Jweiss11 and Tickle Me, said "per Sinuthius" in their votes. But you seem to be saying that since Sinuthius was a SPA, this source mattered less than it would have mattered if the person who originally posted it had been someone else.

The reason Jweiss11 and Tickle Me said "per Sinuthius", instead of citing this source directly, might have just been because Sinuthius voted before they did, and they did not want to repeat what he had already said. It isn't reasonable to discount certain sources based on who originally posted them, especially when later comments from others are indirectly referring to those sources. 2600:1004:B10C:92A0:FD9F:20BD:FBCF:9414 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Looking through the discussion, I think Tony's close accurately assesses the rough consensus there. Writing an essay on a barely-related topic doesn't make someone involved. Nothing there makes me think a panel closure is required and honestly I doubt you could find 3 people who would touch this in a reasonable time frame anyway. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse As a long-time WP:FT/N regular I have been observing this gnarly RfC while choosing not to get involved. I do not think the arguments that TonyBallioni is involved have merit (and ironically, seem to come exclusively from involved participants in the RfC). Fair close, and TonyBallioni is to be commended for grasping this nettle. Good admin'ing. Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse This was a good close. Closers are not supposed to decide the issue for themselves as some of the above commenters that seek to re-litigate the issue appear to believe, but to assess where the rough consensus of the participants is.

1. The concerns of the first point seem to be based on the mistaken premise that it was incorrect/abnormal for a close to assign minimal weight to the !votes of SPAs, but it isn't at all, in fact that's the way we usually do things. Further, the relevance isn't particularly high in any case as the arguments presented were for the most part considered anyway as essentially everything stated by the SPAs was also repeated by others.
2. The second point of concern appears overwrought. Would it be nice to have panel closes on all contentious RFCs, absolutely. Is it necessary, no, and there is nothing in policy to suggest otherwise. Maybe if the logistics of a panel were in the works and volunteers had stepped up it would be different, but there was no evidence for that here. Doing a proper close is time consuming. Anyone who's glanced at the backlogs recently knows that we lack sufficient experienced closers to handle the volume our processes demand. Honestly, kudos is in order for stepping up and sorting through that mess of a discussion to reach a well-reasoned close.
3. The third point is grasping at straws. I agree wholeheartedly that involved should be construed broadly, and that it is important whether using tools, closing contentious discussions, or taking similar actions to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but the connection that objectors are drawing between edits to those essays and this close is so oblique that if a similar standard were universally applied no one would be able to close anything. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Even without evaluating WP:INVOLVED, the optics are not good when the OP of that RfC first dissuades SilkTork from closing it, then there is a discussion about a three-admin close but TonyBallioni goes ahead and closes it before that. TonyBallioni has a history of administrative actions in the topic area, atleast dealing with Captain Occam, who primarily was a "race and intelligence" editor. ANI had an unblock request for Captain Occam in January 2020, in which I thought TonyBallioni's comment constituted a personal attack. TonyBallioni stated that the appealing user is a pseudoscientific racist without presenting any diffs. If he's resorting such attacks when discussing his administrative actions in the topic area, then it's also likely that he has strong feelings about it, fulfilling WP:INVOLVED to the letter as well. --Pudeo (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Briefly adding: I don't think TonyBallioni shouldn't do administrative actions in the topic area, but closing the RfC like this was a poor idea especially from him, after SilkTork had backed off and three admins were discussed. RfCs/AfDs are always a farce when closure becomes playing musical chairs. Fundamental changes to a topic area that has had discretionary sanctions for 10 years shouldn't happen like this. Overturn to no consensus would be an acceptable result, which would still allow classifying specific authors as fringe case-by-case. --Pudeo (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus per Insertcleverphrasehere. If anything, putting aside the optics and inevitable controversy in this, the points made by those in opposition seem slightly stronger than those in support, as they were more evidenced and contained details of reputable publications and authors expounding the theory. Nobody is arguing that the theory is a majority one or that it should be promoted in Misplaced Pages's voice, and I don't personally think there's any link between race and intelligence, based on my understanding of the science. But I wouldn't have closed the RFC this way myself because the case that it is an outright WP:FRINGE theory rather than a minority theory was not conclusively made in the discussion, and many eminent Wikipedians argued otherwise. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• TB was perfectly entitled to do a single admin close. The only required exceptions are spectacularly rare, where the wider community has decided beforehand it will be required. Their actions re SPAs were also reasonable. I'm not really aware enough of their actions in the field to make a judgement on involved. Fringe is indeed broad (some might say overly so), but I'm not sure whether this falls into it or just about makes it into being a minority opinion (not one that I share, to note). Certainly one side were making much better arguments, so I think at worst it would be NC, and might well be suitable either way. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear - Given that consensus is determined by the strength of arguments, if one side were making much better arguments, then shouldn't the RfC have closed with consensus in their favour? A no consensus close makes no sense where one side has the weight of arguments heavily on their side – although you haven't articulated which side had that advantage. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude:, was about to say you were taking my paragraph out of context until, thanks to your note, I realised I that I forgot the fairly fundamental addition of "better arguments on average". If no removals were occurring, then the weight of justified !votes would lean to the current close position. I haven't, however, reviewed how that holds up after SPAs are removed (in effect, to avoid double removing them), so that's why I went for a fairly ambiguous position. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear by the sounds of things I think you should consider reading the RfC from start to finish and discount the SPAs who are clearly marked (one or two were disputed but you can read that as well there) and then make a decision of no consensus or decide if you feel that the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ side carried the RfC.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse close as the backbone of the argument against the close—WP:INVOLVED and the SPAs—completely miss the point of what has been argued. Also endorse per Nosebagbear (Certainly one side were making much better arguments, which is, all things being equal, the sole arbiter of consensus at those discussions. Not per Nosebagbear's other suggestion that at worst it would be NC, and might well be suitable either way, however, which would be, in the colloquial, a cop out in the face of consensus. After all, AfD closers are not in the business of making the majority happy. Or anyone, for that matter—as this discussion indicates  :) FWIW, very few editors from the AfD itself seem to be overly concerned by the close, although not that the concerns raised are of course lessened by that—more of an observation. ——SN54129 13:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

SN54129, are you sure that you're correctly understanding Nosebagbear's statement that "one side were making much better arguments"? The comment immediately before his, from Amakuru, made the point that "the points made by those in opposition seem slightly stronger than those in support, as they were more evidenced and contained details of reputable publications and authors expounding the theory". When Nosebagbear said that one side was making better arguments, he might have been referring to Amakuru's preceding statement that the "no" votes were generally better justified than the "yes" votes, although Nosebagbear's statement was ambiguous so it could be interpreted either way. 2600:1004:B10F:2086:59A4:D34C:4402:41E8 (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

My comment was deliberatey nuanced. Please sign in under your original account. ——SN54129 13:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an account, and it isn't possible for me to use one. Can we please not get sidetracked? This discussion is about whether TonyBallioni's closure of the RFC was appropriate. 2600:1004:B10F:2086:59A4:D34C:4402:41E8 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• The close probably causes more problems than it solves, it's too vague to provide any guidance for article content and assigns weight to a bunch of biased and opinionated arguments. Also gives a pass to those with poor conduct during the RfC: a great deal of bludgeoning and focus on contributors rather than content. Should never have been closed as either Yes or No, there are prominent and qualified critics who directly address the merit of research in this area and separate the sheep from the goats. Their views are what should help establish content for the article, not some mythical "consensus" of editors. The close is generally what I argued in the RfC, that FRINGE has some application, but it's disappointing in the lack of specific guidance. The expectation that we look to the policies and guidelines for principles to define how we act, and we trust our editors who are familiar with them to reach their conclusions based on that is belied by the RfC itself and unlikely to prove correct. fiveby(zero) 14:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Close seems fine. I'm not involved with this discussion; just commenting because while I agree with most of those endorsing the close here, I want to defend the idea of a panel close in general (this is not an argument to overturn). A panel close isn't because a single admin can't do the job or even because the close would be any better or different at all. The point of a panel close is to cut down on this, and what I'm sure will be several more threads in various venues related to this subject. It's to cut down on relitigating, as well as attempts to attack any particular admin's background. The WP:INVOLVED comments are way off the mark, but regardless of whether Tony is ok fending them off, in a panel close those comments don't go as far because the whole close isn't at one person's feet. In sum: close is fine, but with a hotly contentious, high-participation RfC, panel closes are very useful to cut down on hassles afterwards (for the community and for the closers). — Rhododendrites \\ 14:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move by article subject?

User:Ivanchukvasyl is claiming to be chess Grandmaster Vassily Ivanchuk and has requested a move of the article to his preferred spelling, Vasyl Ivanchuk. There is some discussion at the RM as to whether he is the real Ivanchuk. What is the correct procedure here? Does the account need to be blocked as a possible impersonator? P-K3 (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

There's an email address buried in one the bottom paragraphs of Misplaced Pages:Contact us/Article subjects. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This was at WP:UAA (Special:PermanentLink/951789227, Special:Diff/951789295). I wouldn't object to an {{uw-ublock-famous}}. Ping Justlettersandnumbers. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Beetstra/Spam-whitelist

I am working on the Timeline of asexual history article and came upon a book that I can not find a URL link to. No matter how hard I try, can't find one. Obviously, I can't go out and get a copy at my local library, so after a request on Twitter, a user in the Ace community uploaded it to docdroid.net. I wasn't aware of the website, nor aware it was on our blacklist. Anyway, it is, of course, blocked. But, this is the only copy available online with the chapter I need to link. Now, I am clearly not trying to violate copyright, I am trying to link to that particular chapter, but let's not get off topic.

I took it to the Spam-blacklist board were it was defered to the Spam-whitelist board. This is where it gets interesting. After posting there, ((u|Beetstra}} replied with this snarky post included was this link.

Now that link shows you were the book is available at local libraries. Libraries that have been ordered closed, because they are deemed non-essential by local and state governments due to a global pandemic. Beetstra also said "people can find it in their nearest library". My reply was shocked, yes, and snarky as well.

But to that he replies not that he royally screwed up, no. He doubles down, saying yes, I know, it makes it utterly inconvenient that you have to actually go outside (which, I also know, is now also not possible). DUH!!!

I made a point in my reply of saying "I can find no information regarding "Association Press" outside of the YMCA (which I doubt is the same), so I am having trouble believing that the copyright is still in effect for a company I can't even tell even exists." To which he replies "that copyright is with the writers, and up to 50-100 years after they die." This is true...if it is renewed. Since I can find no evidence of this Association Press (and clearly Beetstra took no time to look between his snark) I am having trouble finding that a copyright actually exists.

Unfortunately, I am brought back to my previous statement, I am clearly not trying to violated copyright (nor was that Ace community member) in linking that particular chapter, I am trying to show the reader that the chapter does indeed exist (when no other source (ie: Google Books, Springer, JSTOR, among others) where the reader can view the cited and quoted portions.

I believe that Beetstra did not take the time to view my arguement and given the current climate of the world (ie: global pandemic), his answers were very poorly worded, thought out, crude, and to the everyday editor/reader could actually get them killed by making them "find in their nearest library", which is the last place officials want us at right now.

I ask that my request be reviewed and Beetstra's behavior also be reviewed. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:11 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

I have informed Beetstra of this discussion via ping, as well as here and here to cover all bases. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:15 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards