Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:10, 10 August 2021

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• 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)

Open tasks

• 6 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 17 sockpuppet investigations
• 14 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 5 Fully protected edit requests
• 3 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 54 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 22 requested closures
• 44 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 6 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Post-closure interventions at RfC

Hi, sysops. I've just encountered something outside my experience and I'm here for advice. Yesterday, I closed this discussion as "no consensus" (on the basis that a majority of 1 editor isn't a safe basis for any Wikipedian decision). Today, Sdkb added a post-closure comment to Template_talk:Fiction-based_redirects_to_list_entries_category_handler which would, if taken into account, reverse the outcome of the RfC, and Paine Ellsworth reopened the closure request on WP:CR. On the basis of my experience of these editors, I don't need to assume good faith because I'm quite confident of it, and so I'm rather minded to reverse the outcome. But I'm concerned that this might not be strictly in order. I think there are good reasons why discussions have an end date after which editors are asked to accept the outcome, and I don't want to start subverting that because we're creating a backdoor into every RfC: it means decisions aren't final. If you were in my place, what would you do?—S Marshall T/C 22:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The RFC-in-question, was opened for 2 months. Those who missed out on it? tough luck. They snooze, they lose. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

But it was closed as no consensus, which means that continuing discussions to try and continue to establish a consensus is entirely reasonable. The people who lose out if we refuse to re-open the RFC aren't really the new people who arrive, it's the people who participated in the RFC (since their views are likely to be given less weight in followup conversations if they don't weigh in again.) A single no-consensus RFC clearly can't bar further discussion on the topic; at best it might raise the bar for consensus slightly, which means new opinions are always going to be considered in some form. (Really this is always true due to WP:CCC; any RFC could notionally be overturned the day after it closed if there was really, really compelling reason to believe that consensus on the page had suddenly flipped. In practice for an RFC with a clear outcome or really high participation the bar for this would be really high because part of the purpose of RFCs is to encourage stability and resolve discussions, but a no-consensus RFC with light participation doesn't have too much force behind it, so I don't think "we just finished discussing this, go away" is a valid tack to take in this case.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you accurately summarize the consensus reached (or in this case not reached) by the editors who participated in the discussion? I'm going to assume yes. It's hardly unusual for there to be a discussion following closure and if in this case the editors involved can find a consensus that hadn't been there before, that's great especially because of the no-consensus close. So in that sense I would re-open the discussion, and I would suggest the CR be marked as done but otherwise not sweat this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, pre-close that discussion didn't really have consensus - some support, some opposition, one "don't really care" argument, no argument clearly more convincing than the other and only a slight numerical imbalance if at all. S Marshall's summary seems like a fair summarization of the arguments. The RfC lasted over two months, enough time for folks to weigh in, so it wasn't prematurely closed. I think reopening or changing the close now that there are additional opinions is a reasonable move. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

A few years ago, after closing RFCs, I was at least twice asked by editors if I would reopen the RFC so that they could insert a statement. At least once, I came to WP:AN and said that I was willing to treat the request as a challenge to my close, which was endorsed. What I inferred is that the editors who asked me to reopen the RFC after closure had been waiting for the close and were planning to make such a request, as a device to game the system. I have no idea how common this tactic is now. It differed from what is being described here in that there had been a rough consensus, and I had closed the RFC finding a rough consensus. But User:GoodDay says, "Those who missed out on it? tough luck." I don't think that they missed out on it because they were snoozing, but because they were playing a game. That is just a comment that may or may not be relevant in 2021. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If it helps to keep the discussion here on topic, the reason I came across the discussion shortly after it closed was that I noticed the close on WP:CR and went to go check out what the discussion was.

With the caveat that I'm obviously an involved party, this discussion isn't one I'm invested in, so I may as well throw in my 2c. I think there's a big difference between a major contentious RfC and an obscure one with barely any participation (as was the case here). For major RfCs, it's important for our consensus system that they have a degree of finality, but for obscure ones, especially with no consensus closes, there's nothing set in stone just because someone places an archive box around them, and I don't see an issue with taking into consideration additional comments when we have them. {{u|Sdkb}}  18:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The goal of an RfC is to gauge consensus, not to enforce bureaucratic rules. For some things (like arbcom elections), we strictly enforce deadlines, but this doesn't seem like one of those times. As you suggested you're willing to do, I'd reconsider your close. I don't think you would be wrong to reverse your close, but I think even better would be to just reopen the discussion, allow another week for additional comments, and let somebody else close it. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that they do not trust User:S Marshall to close this discussion, whether now, or at some point in the future. - jc37 19:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I certainly have full faith in S Marshal's fairness and impartiality. It's a question of appearance. There are people who are looking for any excuse to object to a decision. By reclosing it yourself, you open the door to some yahoo making a fuss about it. Even if the objection is groundless, you waste a week arguing about it. Better to preemptively avoid that by stepping out of the way and letting somebody else re-close it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I could definitely use more input on this point. At the moment, the community seems to be saying to me that, in low-participation discussions that let to a no-consensus outcome, a closer is allowed to reverse their own close so as to permit another editor to !vote. But having reversed their close, the closer might then be disbarred from re-closing it?—S Marshall T/C 21:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

per WP:ADMIN - "...an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." - If you are not involved, you can re-open and re-close a discussion which you have previously closed, as many times as you deem appropriate. - jc37 23:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Well it appears I was missing an important word in my response. I would not reopen the discussion formally. If a consensus can be found through subsequent discussion that too can be a form of consensus no RfC required. That said, if you think it best to re-open (and that's a very reasonable position) I agree with jc that you are not, by rule, barred from re-closing it. But if you take that path I agree with Roy that the best practice would be to let someone else close it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Restarted AfD needing uninvolved editors to establish consensus

Hi all

This is a neutral notice inviting uninvolved editors and administrators to undertake an evaluation of the article Bmcabana SF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is currently at AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bmcabana SF (2nd nomination).

The reason for this notice is that I took the unusual step of closing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bmcabana SF (AFD #1) as a procedural close & restart. This was due to that discussion being unusable to find consensus, due to disruption caused by IP editors & other new accounts. The discussion was further affected by allegations of forged !votes, potential canvassing, and subsequently potential autobiographical concerns, which has made the whole situation even more of a mess.

I feel like this situation, and establishing consensus to 'keep' or 'delete' based on policy-oriented discussion, will be far easier the second time around if participation from experienced Misplaced Pages editors is higher than it was last time; hence me writing this post.

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I had a look at the SPI and uncovered several connected accounts (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Thabo Daniels). Given the multiple recreations and gaming of ACPERM, I have closed the discussion as delete, removed the article, and blacklisted the title across all namespaces. Anyone is free to review my actions of course. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 00:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Help handling batch of redirects from User:T.cal.69

I just blocked a user that was batch destroying stubs with redirects -- is there a way to batch fix these? All the tools I am aware of, do it one at a time, Sadads (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sadads: User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js should be able to clean up this mess quite quickly, just bear in mind it only rolls back edits visible on the contributions page you have open. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sadads: Done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Sadads (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Do we need to revoke talk page access? Mjroots (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sadads it looks like you've blocked for a month. Given their behaviour (both the mass redirects, and the last few edits in their contribs), I'd be inclined to indef, rather than leave the door open for them to come back and cause more disruption in a few weeks. Don't want to tread on your toes though - what do you think? Girth Summit _(blether) 07:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Go for it, Sadads (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Asking for review before implementing the result of a close

I've just closed a somewhat contentious requested move (), whose result in light of policy however appears to be clear to me. I'm generally involved in the topic area, but not on the specifics of this discussion. If anybody thinks I've erred in judgement, please feel free to give me a call (or your finest ton of bricks, depending on your stance). Anyways, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I would advise against a closure by someone involved in the topic area.—S Marshall T/C 10:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that it would be better for somebody not involved in the topic area to close it, especially since you did make 2 comments in that RM in replying to an IP. Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  IP in question here, while I did feel "cut off" by the discussion being closed and would think it would be better if someone else had done it, I think the rationale written in the closure was very impartial and proper. 2600:1012:B02C:5704:B81B:8439:ADC6:C7CB (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Since I'm getting a somewhat contradictory reaction between here and my talk page, and since the only criticism is of the closer and not the close (I'll be more mindful in the future), I'm going to leave the close exactly as is. If anybody feels strongly enough that they want to add a secondary closing statement, feel free to do so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Editors with subject knowledge are well suited to close discussions in their topic area. While the ideal impartial closer would have never said anything ever on the topic, RC's single substantive comment in the discussion doesn't strike me as serious enough to ignore WP:NOTBURO. It's an important discussion on a contemporary topic that befits a timely close, so I'll accept something slightly less than the platonic ideal of a closer. I appreciate that RC took initiative to keep discussion and article development moving. To the actual close, there's a pretty obvious consensus that "hypothesis" is not ideal. Of the two remaining titles---claims vs theory---I think the discussion does lean towards theory, but I think the close would be improved with more detailed discussion of why "claims" dis not achieve consensus. Editors were rather explicit about that title failing NPOV, and while others criticized "theory" on the basis of WP:PRECISION, NPOV has stronger consensus as a core policy (to the point that AT is written to comply with NPOV rather than the opposite). I think the rough consensus call was reasonable, but participants might want a second move discussion to clarify the relative weighting of policies identified in close. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• I thought I had participated in this discussion but I don't see my name there now. Anyway, endorse close. It's very well rationalized and explained, certainly addresses the primary points raised by participants, and is a reasonable conclusion given all of that. I don't agree with Wugapodes about "claims": given the sourcing and the discussion it would clearly be a POV title. This is a highly controversial topic and perhaps shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin at all, and also probably shouldn't have been closed by someone who participated in the discussion even if they didn't really contribute substantively, but if those are the only reasons to fault the close then those reasons aren't valid (WP:NOTBURO). Well closed. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 21:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Movement Charter Drafting Committee

Looking over the current list of people applying to serve on the Movement Drafting Committee, I see that there isn't anyone yet whose home wiki is English Misplaced Pages applying. There's still plenty of time to apply - the deadline is September 1. In my opinion this work is one of the most important things that has ever happened in the Wikimedia movement. We don't just need good people, we need fantastic people serving on this committee because I think it's going to pretty substantially change how individual projects work and how projects interact with the Foundation. So this is my plea for the many fantastic people we have on this project to put their names forward. Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia needs you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

What exactly does this stuff mean? Maybe it's just me but a lot of the pages read really opaque. Is there a TLDR (Simple English-wiki style and no marketing speak) of the whole Movement Charter / Global Council / Drafting Groups / Interim Committees / Movement Strategy / etc stuff? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: this is an excellent point and one I have raised, several times, with the foundation. There is so much going on confusion is bound to happen. Let me try to do my simple explanation in the collapsed box below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Barkeep49, this is helpful. I know it's not written yet, but as an example what kinds of things will be in this Magna Carta (separate from the enforcement portion of the UCoC)? At least to the extent that it will affect English Misplaced Pages. The meta page makes gives me ideas on how it might affect affiliates etc, but not much about what it would mean for this project. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It is very open at this point. In any case, the charter must be drafted before the Global Council elections because it will specify what the authority of the Global Council is. It is difficult to predict how this is going to affect the individual project, UCoC may be or may not be part of it (my guess is that probably not), and I do not think it can specify anything which communities typically decide now on the global level (certainly not policies etc).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Kevin touches on some of how this could impact English Misplaced Pages below but I suspect we'll be told that we need to go through the global council for things like editors using the apps being unable to get notifications. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see. It sounds quite important then. Certainly I'd like to see the problems experienced by editors have more representation in technical decision-making and resource prioritisation beyond the current "make a phab request" and/or "use the annual community wishlist". Ditto for grant-making. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

One thing is that the requirements might be somewhat troublesome for some people who are thinking of applying. " Not be under active sanctions by any Wikimedia project or the Wikimedia Foundation, including events ban. "If that wording is taken literally, it would disqualify anyone under any sort of restriction, including interaction bans.( I have no clue what events ban means) Candidates also have to submit proof of real life identity. I hope that at least one non-admin community member and at least one well respected admin and/or functionary applies, so that ENWP gets representation on the committee. ( Note that if there are 20 or more applicants, there will be a popular election for 7 spots with no more than two members elected from each project.)Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Before the recent disaster, I considered applying (especially since I invested quite some time and effort to get this happened), but figured out that one of the requirements was being active in the governance of some sort of non-profit organization, and I decided not to bother.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter (and others) the only requirements are listed here. I think you're referencing the Candidate Profile which has a "no one can be all of these things" statement. I can say from my application to the UCoC enforcement committee there was a similar statement, I didn't meet all the profile statements and still got chosen. I would not let the non-profit governance statement deter you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I will not apply anyway, I have not yet fully recovered from the medical emergency. May be by the end of August I will be feeling better.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I want to +1 this – we absolutely need the best possible people we can find for this role. The Movement Charter probably has the most long-term importance out of all the strategy work that is happening now and is expected to do most or all of the following:

1. define community-WMF relations, and what the Wikimedia movement is (who it comprises)
2. decide how a Global Council should be composed and selected: e.g. election, appointment by WMF, affiliate selection, etc.
3. define the powers of the Global Council, which could likely include global policymaking authority, ability to represent the community to the WMF, some substantial budget (for staffing the Council and/or for grantmaking), appointment or advisory power over other committees or community bodies, and similar "community representative" functions.

Given that WMF is requiring the global community to adopt a Movement Charter, we really need to get it right. If you're reading this and thinking "ugh, I'd be good at that but I wish someone else does this instead", I hate to break it to you – you are exactly the kind of person we need on this committee. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

If anyone believes that the WMF will really take into consideration whatever this committee decides that could be disagreeing with what the WMF actually wants, then by all means apply. Judging from recent events (from the branding fiasco, passing by what they did with the input about the UCOC, to the current situation with the utter disrespect given to the community questions at the elections (first the community input was completely disregarded, then after much protest the community questions were appended to the bottom of the documentation, far removed from the WMF-approved questions), not to mention things like the IP masking situation), the presence of community members will only be used to claim that whatever they decide is "community-proposed" or "community-supported" and that no further discussion will be possible. Fram (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it the election committee is responsible for that question debacle and that's a group of volunteers. And the UCoC text was written by a committee largely composed of volunteers. And I share your concern about how the global council could be used. Which is one reason I think it so important to get right. If the best people sit it out based on some sense of fatalism it definitely won't happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

At least the move to the bottom of documentation was done by a WMF staffer, not by a volunteer. To be precise, the "Movement Strategy & Governance Facilitator", who I guess will be involved with the Movement Charter draft. Fram (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Drafting is always done by the WMF staff, just because it can not be done by volunteers. (For example, it has to be approved by the legal). However, in the drafting I participated in we (volunteers) provided original ideas and then commented on the draft. The result was typically good. I guess Barkeep49 has more experience with the UCoC, but their experience are probably similar to mine. This is in a stark difference with the example the rebranding where volunteers were not asked to give input in any way (either as a selected organized team, or as a community), and this is why rebranding was such a disaster.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

In some previous rounds of the Movement Strategy discussions the drafting genuinely was done by committee members. But otherwise I agree with Ymblanter, the situation with the strategy process (and I believe the UCoC, though I wasn't involved in that myself) is very different to that with e.g. the branding debacle. (Disclaimer: I am now a candidate for the charter drafting group). The Land (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's a full picture to say the Election Committee is a group of volunteers. I mean it's true, and they're likely excellent volunteers, but it's an appointed body. Apologies for the slightly disrespectful analogy, but it's a bit like a dictator inhabiting the White House claiming to represent the American people because he's also an American... If a person isn't selected by the community, then he doesn't represent the community and isn't accountable to it. Compare the WMF ElectCom fiasco with English Misplaced Pages's Election Committee who are elected - I'd be very surprised if any of them ignored a serious question for seven weeks (and it appears the WMF ElectCom do not intend to answer it at all). Indeed, I remember our ElectCom being highly responsive in 2020, eg with this mess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This was a big deal of a discussion between many parties leading to this decision. I personally supported an concept of an appointed body, just because it will produce the charter faster, probably of the same quality, and the diversity can be adjusted. The only purpose of the body is to draft the chapter, not to make any decisions, and I do not think it has to be elected. There are different opinions of course, quite of few of us participated in the discussions.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

- As Ymblanter says, there was a significant disagreement on the makeup of the MCDC. Because framing is important, despite as aggressive a ratification method as I can get (whether in the MCDC or not), I was one of those on the opposite side of the "pure appointed" route - I wrote the most elected-heavy proposal for the drafting committee. Pharos wrote a more compromise one, and Quim (WMF) wrote the appointed one. He also wrote, the compromise solution that is very similar to the final form, and then a few tweaks were incorporated from feedback from others with an interest. I felt it was a good compromise - it was a huge shift from the WMF's original form, and so I backed it. I am also appalled with ElectCom's complete disregard to communicate - they need to be both elected, and there needs to be a community method to bring them to task for woeful and ongoing failures to communicate. As you say, en-wiki ARBCOM election commission is a less crucial, temporary, body, and is still more responsive. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

One of the problems with participating in drafting a Movement Charter is that one has to believe that there should be a Movement Charter and that this is a "movement." I'm one of those editors who is here to "build an encyclopedia," not to participate in a "free knowledge movement" or any other kind of "movement." Further, I think calling what we do a "movement," or calling any organized activity of people a "movement," equates it with real movements like the civil rights movement or women's rights movement, which is highly inappropriate (and frankly the kind of thing only a very white, very male group of people would do). So I hope anyone representing us on the Movement Charter Drafting Committee would raise the issue of "stop calling it a movement," but I think I'm in the minority when it comes to this viewpoint. Levivich 16:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Much as it may pain me to utter these words, I must say that I am in full agreement with Levivich here. This is an encyclopedia whose content is owned by its writers, not a "movement" owned by the WMF, which only exists to support the projects that have chosen to be hosted by it. This is just one more example of how Foundation employees seem to think that they own the encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely sure what the Charter is going to govern. Will it have an impact on editorial decisions? Sourcing guidelines? Will it govern the creation of new projects? Is it going to advise the WMF on how best to grow the project in regions and languages where the encyclopedia is lacking in content? We already have a separate new "code of conduct" group, so I assume it's not doing that. And it certainly is not going to be filled with lawyers who would be wanting to comment on WMF legal recommendations. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The charter is supposed to describe relations between different groups, such as the WMF, the affiliates, and the projects. It is not going to impact things like sourcing guidelines.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

If this charter is a "who we are, why we are here and what we are doing" document, I wish I could be part of the discussion, but it sounds like this is for foundation people?

Also, does Global Council = over-arching arbcom for all of wikimedia? - jc37 18:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom is not a policy making body. The Global Council will (almost certainly) be a policy making body, though more at the level Ymblanter describes above in response to power. A global ArbCom is a possible outcome of the UCoC enforcement work. There will soon be a chance to give feedback on that very idea and if you have thoughts on whether there should or shouldn't be a global ArbCom I hope you participate in that process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I know I'm one of those darned meta people, but to me this legitimately looks like an attempt by the WMF to involve the community more in issues of global governance. They could full well just continue to handle movement-wide issues on their end or with affiliates, but instead they're taking a committee of (elected) volunteer community members to write up a charter to handle global community issues. And, at the very least, the WMF has lately given a significant degree of freedom to the volunteers involved in these sort of committees. I don't really see sufficient reason for the end-of-the-world type ideas expressed in this section, and though the worst case scenario can definitely be quite bad for community independence, that seems quite unlikely considering the current documentation available on Meta-Wiki. Though perhaps I am too quick to assume good faith with the WMF. Best, Vermont (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Contingency plans

• I've been thinking this for a while, and maybe it's time to stick my head over the parapet and say it: We need an exit strategy. I mean, of course we all hope that the WMF's (many) new directions and initiatives are going to be inspiring and brilliant, but historically they haven't always been, and some of the more controlling aspects of their behaviour are starting to worry me (and others). I think it's only prudent for our community to have a backup plan. Which, to my poorly-IT-literate brain, probably means a fork?—S Marshall T/C 16:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  For reasons I discuss at my essay, Death of Misplaced Pages, I think a fork, even a really organized one that gets a lot of us that are most active, is doomed to fail. This new fork would have to operate for quite some time before it might start regularly appearing above Misplaced Pages in Google results or AI assisted searches. It would take a while for our readers to figure out that Misplaced Pages's quality has diminished. And, if I'm being particularly cynical or maybe just realistic, it's possible some of the readers would never figure out that the information they're getting isn't what it once was. I suspect that if there was a foundation based schism some people would just stop volunteering their time for encyclopedic work, while most of the people who kept volunteering their time would end up returning to Misplaced Pages. We need Misplaced Pages more than Misplaced Pages needs us. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  Even from the early aughts, WikiTheorists recognized that forking Misplaced Pages would be a non-trivial and likely futile task compared to other wikis and FOSS projects. See the discussion at meatball:WikiPediaIsNotTypical from around 2003 (dated by references to the rename of Phase III to MediaWiki which occurred in 2003) — Wug·a·po·des​ 17:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• The exit strategy isn't "fork," it's "revolution." Vote in the trustee elections for trustees who share your views. The community needs to maintain control over whomever owns the servers. If we find new server-operators to replace the WMF, we'll still need to control them, so there's not much point in doing it. Just exercise the control we already have (by voting for trustees who share our views). Levivich 17:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  We don't have that control over the WMF and never will. If the WMF serves us up a shit sandwich, our choices are to eat it and smile, to abandon encyclopaedia writing, or to fork.—S Marshall T/C 17:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  How do you reconcile that conclusion with the fact that we elect a majority of trustees? If the WMF serves up a shit sandwich, one choice we have is to put in different trustees who will serve us a better tasting sandwich. Levivich 17:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  The rebranding was an example of a shit sandwich, and I do not think we have eaten it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  If they served up a particularly bad sandwich, we could just choose not to eat it and play chicken (game) with the WMF. Yes, they have the servers, but I image we've got the technical ability in the community to attempt some work-arounds with the software. Will WMF sink their flagship? I'm not so sure ... Hog Farm _Talk 18:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  North8000 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC) That's putting it mildly. Misplaced Pages is more than WMF's flagship, it's the sole ship which supports them, their ivory tower, and all of their other hobbies.North8000 (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with this in theory. In reality the recent questions debacle shows the difficulties of even being able to figure out which trustees share views on issues we consider dealbreakers when it comes to voting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  ...which, I say, is our fault and not the WMF's. It's a bit of an indictment of the health of community governance that the candidates themselves can't communicate their own positions to us effectively. Or that we don't have enough candidates who can. Fundamentally, we're not communicating well with our own representatives. There's very little participation in the process. But we have a deep well of potential trustee candidates, in my opinion. I would vote for literally every single editor in this thread to be trustee if they ran. But almost no one wants to run (including me). That's the fundamental problem. More heresy from Levivich: We should pay trustees; that will increase the candidate pool. Levivich 18:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'm concerned that only 5 (out of a total of 20) candidates decided to answer at least one community question. I have two possible explanations: 1) they either didn't know about them; or 2) they decided it wasn't important. Both, to me as a voter, indicate a serious communication concern incompatible with the position of community-elected trustee. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  I noticed some of the candidates addressed concerns raised in the community questions in their answers to the WMF-selected questions. Levivich 19:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich isn't wrong about this. There is a figure for which I'd do that job, but it is not zero.—S Marshall T/C 18:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

A strategy for Misplaced Pages to fire WMF might make WMF improve. Including changing the ridiculous by-laws which make the elections a "talk to the hand" situation. Imagine if the US Senate had supreme power over the US. And with a 51% vote they could rewrite the US constitution any way that they wanted. And they already decided that a big portion of the Senate is self-appointed by them, and they decide the election rules for joining their club. And with a 51% vote that coudl expell any Senator that they didn't like. Believe it or not, that is the fundamentally flawed structure of the WMF bylaws.North8000 (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

A thought

I look at this bureaucracy-building at the WMF level, and I'm trying to step back and see "why".

I could presume all sorts of wheel spinning, wool gathering, and people just doing "something" for "feel-good" reasons, or even just to say that they did "something".

But I think that this could possible be more than that. I think the universal CoC is the key to figuring this out.

I am not a lawyer, but I think, if we look undermeath, this may well be about fear of types of liability, legal or even really merely just perceived.

Things like the 230 debates, or that certain social media companies are adding commitees to review content and/or user interaction, in order to buffer against corporate liability, and so on.

But if so, in my opinion we already have oversighters and ombudsmen. Do we really need all this?

We are an encyclopedia project. It's starting to feel like someone out there thinks that we need to become the Federation of Planets. Jimbo Wales is not Hari Seldon, and we are not Terminus, starting the next Galactic Empire.

So what's going on? And is this what we want, much less need? I know I am just one small voice out in the wilderness, but where are we really going from here? - jc37 19:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that what is going on is that many people employed by the WMF think that they own a social media site, and are acting accordingly, rather than realise the reality that their job is to provide support to an encyclopedia that is owned by its writers. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

They do own a social media site. They're hosts for user-submitted content so they're subject to the same legal pressures as facebook et al.—S Marshall T/C 19:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

They are employees, not owners. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Who owns what is a really key point in all this. I will probably expand on this later but we lose sight of who owns the platform (the WMF), who owns the content (everyone), and who owns the distribution system that delivers the content from the platform to the readers (Google, Apple, Amazon, etc.). Each is a separate and distinct role in the knowledge ecosystem (now I sound like I work for the WMF). Levivich 20:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

At least in terms of the UCOC, the staffers involved are very much well aware of their role, especially given that many were volunteers prior to becoming employees. Vermont (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If you're looking at the Movement Charter and Global Council and wondering 'what is the point of these', allow me to summarise - as one of the people who wrote the recommendations that led to these.

Basically, the relationships between all different parts of Wikimedia are something of a mess. The WMF and project communities, including ours, have very different expectations about who is supposed to do what. Even where there is a shared understanding, it's rarely written down anywhere and is easily forgotten on one side or another. These conflicting expectations cause friction, arguments, and lack of trust. There are also not that many channels of communication between different parts of the movement. If the English Misplaced Pages and the WMF need to have a conversation, how does that conversation happen? Not very effectively at the moment. And this is just the English Misplaced Pages and the WMF! When you add the hundreds of other projects and dozens of other Wikimedia organisations, the levels of confusion, unclarity and mistrust grow even higher.

Hence the idea of a Movement Charter to document the constitution of the Wikimedia movement (so to speak), and a Global Council to provide a forum for structured discussions and accountability all round. I hope that helps... The Land (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages heirarchy differentiation

I believe Misplaced Pages will eventually surpass The Bible as the most-copied English-language text, both in frequency and duration. (4021 CE: Scholars confirm Levivich was right.) In thinking about how to preserve and sustain Misplaced Pages in the long term, it's important to understand the difference between the content, the platform, and the distribution. Like Misplaced Pages, the content of the Bible was written by many different people, copied onto many different platforms (papyrus, parchment, paper, hard drives), and distributed by different organizations and people (book stores, churches). With Misplaced Pages:

• The content of Misplaced Pages is the text that the reader reads, and it is what is copied by Misplaced Pages mirrors.
• The platform is MediaWiki, hosted on web servers controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation. In our case, MediaWiki is essentially the same platform that stores the "official copy" (the Misplaced Pages database), that we use to edit that official copy (editing user interfaces like Visual Editor), that we use to communicate with each other about changes to the official copy (talk pages), and that readers use to read the content (the website user interfaces). All of our wikitext, templates, modules, scripts, style sheets, etc., are part of the platform, not the content.
• The distribution – how readers access the content – is mostly via other entities such as Google, Apple (Siri), Amazon (Amazon Alexa), and other tech companies. (A minority of readers access the content via the platform directly, e.g. by visiting the main page at en.wikipedia.org and searching from there.)
• The content community of people who write the content is a self-governing, leaderless, autonomous collective that operates by consensus. This is the part that no one thought would actually work, but somehow it does.
• The content community puts the development, operation, and maintenance of the platform into the hands to the WMF, with results that many (most?) in the community are not satisfied with. The WMF also regulates how the content can be distributed from the platform by distributors like tech companies (e.g., m:Wikimedia Enterprise).
• When the WMF tries to govern the community, the community objects, because the community believes the WMF should serve the community, and that the community governs itself.

"Forking" means finding a new platform for the official copy of the content. And the key to that isn't the WMF or the trademark Misplaced Pages or the domain wikipedia.org or the servers or MediaWiki software, it's the distribution. The fork needs to work with Google, etc., in order for readers to be able to access the fork content. That is, the distributors need to know that the fork is the "official" copy. If Google switches from using wikipedia.org to using wikipedia-fork.org, then the fork will succeed. If not, then a fork will fail. One thing I think we should do for our long-term success is to split up the following, so it's not all under one organization's (the WMF) control: (1) control of donations, (2) control of the database that holds the official copy and regulates access to that official copy (e.g., dealing with distributors), (3) development and maintenance of user interfaces for reading/editing/communication, and (4) representing/supporting/growing the content community. Levivich 21:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you're largely right. But I also see no big incentive for Google to swap. I suppose Google would swap over to a fork if it turned out en.wikipedia.org had reliability issues to the point of making all those "This information is fetched from Misplaced Pages" boxes filled with inaccuracies, and if the vandal/legitimate edits ratio became > 1. There's also the widespread branding of the "Misplaced Pages" trademark, which itself draws contributions, and that would be hard to replace.

It's not exactly the same thing but see Wikitravel vis-a-vis Wikivoyage. It seems it takes a lot of time and energy to sink a ship even when the operator decides to run it into a rock. (that is, dissatisfaction related to long-standing discontent at poor hosting, poor site updates, and excessive monetization and advertising, and eventually, interference by Internet Brands in the community's activities in breach of prior agreements and understandings.) With Wikitravel, I believe the community migrated to Wikivoyage 9 years ago (not before some contributors were sued for "civil conspiracy") and now it's about even in Alexa pagerank. Wikitravel still has better ranking for keywords, especially for the more competitive ones.

Realistically, for a sustainable community-based fork to appear, the WMF would need to do a series of catastrophic failures in every department that led to a situation so awful that the silent majority of the community had no choice but to migrate. And then there would be a test of how long that energy (on a fork) can be retained. At any point a minor concession by the WMF would be likely to draw editors back. Still, the most realistic idea for a fork I saw was at User_talk:Iridescent/Archive_43#How_to_kill_a_wiki. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

LibreOffice managed this transition successfully when it forked off OpenOffice. The tech journalists reported the fork, because it was a big deal and it mattered, and the users soon cottoned on and adapted to the new name. And we have the tools to inform our readers of the switch.—S Marshall T/C 22:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh, I still know it as OpenOffice, I'd search for OpenOffice and I'd head to https://www.openoffice.org and use OpenOffice. The Audacity fork on the other hand.. ~TNT (she/her • talk) 22:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

An alternative arrangement might be to have a "Misplaced Pages Trust" that receives, maintains (invests), and spends donations, under legally-enforceable restrictions spelled out in its trust instrument. For example, the first XXX dollars might be earmarked for web hosting (cf. m:Wikimedia Endowment), and any surplus funds spent only by direction of a separate Editors Union that represents the interests of the content-creating community. The Union can have Working Groups that prepare Resolutions and present them for a vote of the Union membership. For example, Resolutions might authorize the Trust to spend money on short-term projects (like hosting a Wikimania) or long-term projects (establishment of a "Misplaced Pages Labs" that develops software). Under this structure, money would be spent on discrete projects with clear and finite budgets, and only after the community (via the Editors Union) approves it. Levivich 02:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, Levivich, how does your suggested "Editors Union" differ from the proposed Global Council? And do you really think that there's any real chance that a union membership of somewhere around 100,000 people is really an efficient or effective way of distributing funds? Will not the largest blocs of editors (English, German, French, Spanish, Italian projects) not wind up showing a degree of self-interest that pretty much replicates the inequities of the current process? Do you think that the vast majority of editors cares about most of this stuff? I mean...we have a hard enough time finding sufficient good candidates for Arbcom amongst 30,000 regular editors on this project, do you think we're going to be getting a lot of people "voting" on whether or not to invest in (for example) editor development in Kenya, or purchasing licenses to upgrade the Mailman system, or outreach to GLAM institutions in Southern India? Risker (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why it matters if the Union is exactly like the Council or not at all similar or something in between. I doubt the Union would reach 100k voting members (we've never had that many people vote on anything), but there are international unions with 100 million members and they still function so I think we'll be able to manage enrollment. I don't think the vast majority of editors care to get involved in the details of this stuff, and I don't see the majority doing any of the specific things you list, but I do see ~10 editors who would want to join Working Groups that draft Resolutions to have the Trust fund a Kenya Project, a Mailman Project, and a GLAM Project, and I see ~1,000 editors who would want to vote on whether to ratify those Resolutions. Levivich 06:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  So a bit like a Cooperative? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Another aspect of forking is of course that there is a good reason why WMF exist. Even if the project gets forked, none of the users want to go to jail or be exposed to huge legal expenses, and this is why one needs legal. And then one figures out that legal costs money, and one suddenly needs a financial department and a funding department, and then soon we have the WMF 2.0. Even assuming most people who want to fork only want to fork the English Misplaced Pages, if we can not really built reasonable relations with the WMF 1.0 at the times which were favorable for creation of non-profits, why does anybody think the forked project will build thye WMF 2.0 more successfully? I have seen indeed some ideas how it could be done, but I do not think any of those I have seen was in any way realistic.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent proxy blocks

As some folks may have noticed, there has been a major uptick in short open proxy blocks by ST47ProxyBot lately. Now that the block infrastructure is in place, it's time for some explanation. We have had a lot of issues lately with a type of proxy called a "peer-to-peer" or "residential" proxy. In short, unlike normal VPNs (where your internet traffic goes into a datacenter somewhere and is forwarded from there to its destination), peer-to-peer proxies route traffic through normal peoples' internet connections. Some of these are known to the person doing the proxying (for example, some services route traffic through all of their users) while others might not be (compromised devices or shady smartphone apps can turn you into an exit point). Since these exit points are mostly on residential networks, they tend to have rather dynamic IPs, so we can't always perform long blocks on them. A small group of editors has recently been given access to a data feed from Spur () that identifies IPs belonging to some peer-to-peer proxy services, and this data feed is being used to hardblock these proxies both on enwiki and globally. What you need to know:

• These proxies have been a huge issue. I don't want to go into too much detail here per WP:BEANS (though I'm happy to email trusted editors with additional details), but we have had a lot of issues with very nasty folks using these proxies. I have personally dealt with some of them editing as IPs, and I believe the checkuser team can confirm that they have seen abusive accounts using these services. Until now, we've always been reacting - blocking an IP after the fact. Now, we are able to block these IPs before they are abused.
• It's hard to identify these proxies. A lot of existing proxy detection tools won't be able to identify these endpoints as belonging to peer-to-peer proxy services. If you think that one of these blocks was made by mistake, contact a CheckUser or make a request at WP:WPOP (checkusers and several WPOP members have access to a service that can identify them), but we are very confident in our data source here.
• We trust the data. Some proxy-detection services are well-known at WP:WPOP for being questionably reliable. In this case, we have worked directly with Spur to develop a detection method and have spot-checked results ourselves.
• There will be teething issues. This has been a quick turnaround effort to deal with a major uptick in abuse. We've done a lot of monitoring and sanity checks, but nothing is perfect the first go-round. We will be actively keeping an eye on everything and fixing issues as they come up.
• There will be a lot of churn in these blocks. The nature of residential proxies means that devices will move around and dynamic IPs will be dynamic IPs. This means that the blocks will necessarily be short (though the bot can do escalating block durations when it sees proxies pop up on the same IP multiple times) and that something that was marked as a proxy one day might not be a proxy a couple days later.
• There will be some collateral damage. It's unfortunate, but it's true. Some people may not be aware they have one of these proxies running on their internet connection. Some Internet Service Providers use Carrier-grade_NAT (basically, multiple customers behind one IP), so if one customer on a given IP is running a peer-to-peer proxy, a block will affect everyone on that IP. This is nothing new - that's how blocks normally work - but given the scale of the blocks here, there will be an uptick in legitimate editors impacted by this. Editors who are trying to make accounts but are affected by this should be directed to WP:ACC, and existing editors who are affected should request WP:IPBE from the checkuser team (and probably m:GIPBE from the steward team). This will be the source of most "false positives".

Finally, I'd like to give out a lot of kudos. In no particular order: thanks to Blablubbs and MarioGom for getting this effort moving and getting us the data feed, ST47 for quickly integrating the data feed into their proxy-blocking bot, Tks4Fish for getting these blocks applied at the global level, and L235 and TheresNoTime for interfacing with the CheckUser team as we figure this out. I would also like to extend a heartfelt thank-you to the folks at Spur - we've worked closely with them throughout this process and they have provided amazing support. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is cool! I look forward to seeing how the partnership develops and thank everyone for their work on this. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• A wholehearted thank you to everyone involved in this mitigation process. Mz7 (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Many thanks all around! I was indeed wondering why there were suddenly proxy-blocks on so many IPs that have not been actively editing. DMacks (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Awesome work! These proxies have indeed been a huge issue, and I wholeheartedly look forward to seeing how this goes. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• I've spoken about residential proxies a bunch and if this works that's quite incredible, since residential proxies are usually considered a problem that can't really be dealt with. Nice work. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• There are times when I'm amazed to see what my colleagues are getting up to in the background. This is one of those times. This looks like it has taken a great deal of patient work by the people involved, and represents an important contribution to keeping this a safe space for our contributors. Thanks very much to everyone involved. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Good work everybody. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Sensational work, thanks to all those involved. Dealing with rubbish eventually wears out content creators and preventing abuse is very important. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Good work Jeepday (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Kudos to all --S Philbrick(Talk) 11:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks a lot. I have a technical question though I see that the bot blocked today 86.52.135.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), presumably one of the pool. I have this IP on my watchlist, because I had to protect in January Talk:Tbilisi against their disruptive edits. I see, however, that this IP was editing the same page previously, on the same day, as 77.213.98.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 47.37.142.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 86.52.171.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 79.114.104.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). None of them is blocked. Does this mean that the same person was using in the same editing session an open proxy and a normal IP? I thought this is impossible.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• No, they were probably on proxies, although it is often very easy to switch between proxy and non-proxy. These particular types of proxy usually have a very short lifespan, sometimes just hours. You've just spotted one that is more persistent or recurrent than most. I think a lot of us are seeing these. The others will no longer be active. Also thanks everyone involved. -- zzuuzz 20:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  I see, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know the technical details of how the Proxy Whose Name We're Not Supposed To Utter does things, but switching IPs is, in general, pretty easy. I just made two edits to User:RoySmith/sandbox using different IPs. In my case, I just switched between using my cable modem WiFi and my phone hotspot. Just a couple of clicks in a control panel. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. But five IPs would mean five wifi/cables, which seems to me a bit 2 much. However, if we do not need to block these Ips I am perfectly fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Question: Are the block messages and templates clear enough about how a prospective or existing editor suffering from collateral damage can apply for an unblock or IPBE? Can you link to an example? Deryck C. 15:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  These blocks use {{Blocked p2p proxy}}. MarioGom (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (WMF) § IP editing and Masked edits

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

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (WMF) § IP editing and Masked edits. -- Asartea 15:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48

• As a note since there was some confusion, the above is a RFC, not an Legal announcement. -- Asartea 15:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

An administrator really should move the discussion to a more appropriate forum.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive user

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

User:Cubhic124 is engaged in disruptive editing. Also, he labels IP contributions as "Azerbaijani vandalism". The user mislabels edits based on ethnicity, there's a clear battleground for the user here. What Cubhic124 called "Azerbaijani vandalism" was an IP revert of the obscure claim that Azerbaijan massacred its own people in Khojaly despite many reliable sources denying this. There are more examples of his disruptive behavior: 1, 2, 3, 4. He was warned, with no result. I don't think the user's contributions are in the same line with Misplaced Pages:Here to build an encyclopedia guidelines. 185.81.80.200 (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive vandalism

User:185.81.80.200, coming from the authoritarian and xenophobic state Azerbaijan, is conducting vandalistic edits. They are WP:NOTHERE to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Also, two IP addresses, 185.81.81.122, and 185.81.81.147, also from Baku, are conducting very similar edits, and I consider them to be sockpuppets. (Most of their edits have been reverted, so that indicates that they are not here to build a clean encyclopedia either). Cubhic124 (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

1. This goes to ANI
2. Making reciprocal accusations of vandalism/sockpuppetry (dynamic IPs are not socks)/NOTHERE, without really attempting to discuss on the talk page, is unnecessary bad faith.

• Everybody should be given a DS notice/warning if that wasn't already the case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User:JimmyCrackedCorn wishes to return

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

Heard on the grapevine via Reddit, that JimmyCrackedCorn (talk · contribs) wishes to return; he hasn't been here since 2005, IIRC.

Apparently, he regrets what he did in 2005 on here and wants to re-edit productively.

He regrets the Mayor Nagin and the Evacuation By School Buses Controversy article and its debate Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mayor Nagin and the Evacuation By School Buses Controversy.

What should we do about this? --Kathanis92595 (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW, he was never community-banned, just a one-shot user. --Kathanis92595 (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Kathanis92595, who are you and why are you posting on behalf of banned other users? GiantSnowman 10:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm a throwaway account, and FWIW, JimmyCrackedCorn (talk · contribs) wasn't banned, he just can't access his account and apparently didn't attach email. I'm from another website/platform (well, sometimes, Reddit) where some former Wikipedians go (one's active at Reddit's /r/legaladvice and /r/personalfinance!) --Kathanis92595 (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Help:Logging in. GiantSnowman 11:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Robeca5020. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Looking at this other post as well, either you are very keen to rehabilitate previous Wikipedians from various internet forums, or you are a troll. I'll give you three guesses what my money is on... --Jack Frost (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Name censoring

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

Farsi wiki admin Persia and other Iranians keeps censoring the name of Imam Khamenei international convention center even though i keep providing them link to website isf-icc.ir https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Isfahan_international_convention_center&action=history bi (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this happening on the English Misplaced Pages? If so, please link to diffs showing the edits and notify the users involved. If these edits are happening on another Wiki, we can do nothing about it. - Donald Albury 13:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Isfahan_international_convention_center&diff=1037723745&oldid=1037723631 bi (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

"Censored name" is not a valid move rationale. Accusations of censorship are also unnecessary bad faith. If you think the current title is inadequate, and you have sources to back it up in light of our criteria for article titles, then you're free to start a regular requested move, as per the instructions on that page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

you're not supposed to change the name bi (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

according to rules bi (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I haven't moved the article, only copy-edited the lead. ST47's suggestion to put it in title case seems more convincing, wherever this ultimately ends up. I've also put in a move protection request to prevent edit warring over this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Creating the "Chris Chan" article

Addendum: so User:Veverve/ChristineWC is all right, even if relies upon pretty much the same crappy sources as listed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#Chris_Chan? --Calton | Talk 14:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I've deleted the page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Jimi isn't dead, God just asked for guitar lessons. El_C 11:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Help, in getting an editor to sign his/her posts correctly

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

I need help here. Can an administrator help instruct @Beatrix TBS:, in how to sign his/her posts? GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I tried. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Success! El_C 11:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:3RR

An editor Special:Contributions/223.190.37.149 is consciously engaged in a deliberate edit war regarding the same content within the page Kashmir Premier League (Pakistan). Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty Edit warring may be reported to the edit warring noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Reinstate full editing benefits

Good afternoon. Last October my editing priviledges were limited on Misplaced Pages. The parameters of my priviledges were that I could only edit or create pages on subjects who were deceased or business or entities that were defunct. I have adhered to these guidelines since then and was hoping that I could now get my full priviledges to edit all Wikipeda subjects. I believe the original accusations may have been misguided, but I learned from the experience about possible COI and am ready to move forward in an unbiased manner. I love Misplaced Pages writing and would love to do more. Please let me know if this is possible.EllenZoe (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The restriction in place against EllenZoe is a prohibition on editing about any attention seeking entity - no BLPs, no companies, products, bands, non-profits, etc unless defunct. This was imposed as an unblock condition following a block for covert advertising. The administrator imposing the condition at the time stated that Because of this, the conditions of the conditional unblock have to be indefinite; you may be able to appeal at some point in the future, but only after demonstrating significant positive contributions within the parameters of the conditional unblock. Since then, they have written a few articles from scratch - I'm not sure I would classify it as "significant", but it doesn't seem to be UPE. Pinging @MER-C: and @Rosguill: as the administrators involved in the original block. ST47 (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is a slightly odd combo - only 150 edits or so since the imposition, but 4 decent start-class articles. Hmm. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Previous appeal: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive332#My block removed, please. Too soon since then in terms of contributions. MER-C 08:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Note - EllenZoe pinged admin Rosguill (who I won't ping again) here and they politely responded saying they didn't have on-WP time enough to review it themselves. They suggested coming here. But they were able to comment in the last thread linked to above. St★lwart 11:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Jay Edwards (politician)

Hello, I am requesting an administrator to evaluate the edits at Jay Edwards (politician) made by SE45701. The editor claims on my talk page to be Jay Edwards himself: (the editor has since removed the post here). Jerm (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm on my way to bed, but from a very quick skim, I think this needs careful evaluation. That the edits were made by someone purporting to be the subject is an issue; it is also an issue that much of the content they removed was added by an account called OppoResearcher, which edited exclusively political articles for a short space of time between August and October 2020. Something funny is going on. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Straight to 6-month AP2 ECP (logged). I've also asked OppoResearcher to disclose any conflict of interest with regards to their, erm, oppo research. El_C 11:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Neeraj Chopra

Three million views in a week. Cue caste-crusade! Please put it in your watchlists, and warn the editors who are violating WP:BLPRESTORE. Might help to have a message on the talk page that begins, "As an uninvolved administrator...", and possibly the BLP DS stuff? Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Overlap 5! El_C 11:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I've extended the protection length (my own) of the page, from 2 weeks to 2 months, as I highly doubt another ten days will do it. Perhaps semi won't do it, either, but we'll cross that bridge when . El_C 11:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Heh! No duplication detector on RPP? Bishonen blocked two editors earlier, so I am expecting some peace until the socks get autoconfirmed. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Coming soon, right after a Cow Man spam filter (gotta prioritize), but hey, you do get bonus points (in my mind) for any additional overlap # — until some rude admin ruins your streak, that is. El_C 13:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You're on thin fucking ice! El_C 14:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Help cleaning up a block template, please

Template:Uw-causeblock has a problem: it says the stuff about usernames such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Foundation" being permitted twice (as if the template wasn't long enough without repetitions). I just cleaned it up on a usertalk where I had placed it. But editing the template itself baffled me when I tried it. Somebody fix, please? Bishonen | tålk 12:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC).

Proposed text for Civility restriction

Over the many years that Misplaced Pages has been around, one thing we seem to have difficulty with is how to address experienced editors with civility issues.

Battleground mentality, harrassment, insults, various aggression, etc.

I don't think I need to list explicit examples here.

So I've been mulling over arbcom cases, AN/I threads and the like.

And it seems to me that what we are really talking about is the classic "wearing out the community's patience".

So if that's the case, the question becomes then what specifically are we talking about, and how can it be addressed.

Here on Misplaced Pages, while we do have Civility policies and guidelines, we tend to give editors rather broad leeway, with the idea that open, collegiate discussion, and even debate, is better for the development of this volunteer-created encyclopedia project.

We also have many dispute resolution fora available for editors: both content-related and behaviour-related.

When trying civility restrictions in the past, they have had varying degrees of success. For one thing, even with the exception listed at WP:BAN, often the restricted editor feels as if the application of the restriction (whether they are going to get blocked) is very subjective. (I've seem it expressed as 'living in fear'.) And other editors may try to use the restriction as a weapon to use against the restricted editor, and depending on the wording of the restriction, the restricted editor may have little or no recourse.

Now any civility restriction is going to be subjective. ("We know it when we see it".) But there seems a general want from the community for "something" to be done besides outright banning of otherwise good editors.

So here's what I suggest: We tighten the rules - reducing that amount of "leeway" that we usually give. So the restricted editor in question needs to go seek dispute resolution.

Yes, this will seem like in school - going to the teacher everytime someone says or does something that the restricted editor thinks needs to be addressed.

That's by design. after all, the reason that they are restricted is the community feels that they are not addressing such things civilly, themselves.

And I want to reiterate that this should be reserved only for experienced editors. people who know their way around Misplaced Pages, and should easily be able to find the alternate venues in question.

And we should try to keep the duration as short as possible, to allow for a "mending of their ways". If they get used to posittively following dispute resolution, maybe it will help towards a shift in behaviour. And I think we would agree that the goal is to give people every opportunity.

So anyway, I've been trying to think of how to phrase this in policy-like text, and assistance on phrasing would be most welcome, but anyway, here goes:

Civility restriction for experienced editors

Per WP:CIVIL - "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions."

"An uncivil remark can escalate spirited discussion into a personal argument that no longer focuses objectively on the problem at hand. Such exchanges waste our efforts and undermine a positive, productive working environment."

An experienced editor with a civility restriction no longer may talk about any other editor's behaviour except when posting to a Misplaced Pages dispute resolution venue for third party assessment. ("Discuss the content, not the contributor".)

Also, during the restriction, conduct policies such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:HARRASS will more strictly enforced for the civility restricted experienced editor. At an admin's discretion they may receive 1 warning or no warning before being sanctioned. ("Preventative, not punitive".) An editor under this restriction may be blocked for violating this restriction in excalating time frames, per the normal blocking policy.

This editing restriction is considered a type of WP:BAN, and falls under all the applicable rules and restrictions thereof.

This restriction may be applied in escalating durations of 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, or indefinite. A restricted editor may appeal this restriction just as they might any ban.

Thoughts welcome. - jc37 15:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I think something like this could be very useful. I completely support this. Paul August ☎ 16:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards