Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:29, 29 May 2015

Archives

Older 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Jan - Mar 2012 Apr - Jun 2012 Jul - Sep 2012 Oct - Dec 2013 Jan        2013 Feb        2013 Mar 2013 Apr       2013 May        2013 Jun 2013 Jul         2013 Aug        2013 Sep 2013 Oct        2013 Nov        2013 Dec 2014 Jan       2014 Feb       2014 Mar 2014 Apr      2014 May       2014 Jun 2014 Jul        2014 Aug       2014 Sep 2014 Oct       2014 Nov       2014 Dec 2015 Jan       2015 Feb       2015 Mar 2015 Apr      2015 May       2015 Jun 2015 Jul        2015 Aug       2015 Sep 2015 Oct       2015 Nov       2015 Dec

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Talk:Acupuncture#Allergies

You said you'll review the sources and conclusions at Talk:Acupuncture#Allergies. Can you update us on your progress? Or at least tell us how long it might take. -A1candidate 15:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

• Foundation elections: Board candidates share their views with the Signpost

• News and notes: Swedish Wikimedia chapter organizes simultaneous Wikidata contests

• Traffic report: Round Two

• In the media: Grant Shapps story continues

• Op-ed: What made Misplaced Pages lose its reputation?

• Featured content: Four first-time featured article writers lead the way

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Page level restrictions

Hi Zad68, Apologies for the interruption. My inquiry is with respect to the page level restrictions that were placed here. When looking through the WP:DS policy page, I noticed that the set of page restrictions approved for discretionary sanction are: "semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)".

While I admire the intent of what we are trying to achieve, based on the Discretionary Sanctions policy, I am concerned that this new sanction is not valid. To quote another editor, It is especially important for this particular talk page, because it's so widely watched, that it should stand as a positive example and avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

I look forward to your thoughts on this aspect. Many thanks. - Ryk72 13:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative suggestion that would reduce the disruptive repetition of previous discussions? Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy (WP:BURO + WP:IAR), so even if there were no rule permitting these restrictions, they can still be imposed provided the decision has consensus. In the case of discretionary sanctions, "consensus" means whatever is agreed by a brief discussion of admins at WP:AE. The "especially important" quote above is puzzling because that was made in a particularly unproductive section at gamergate talk where the author of the quote has kept the thread active for six days after it was closed by an admin. In the six days, no proposal regarding improvement of the article has been made, yet the section drags on. That ties up the time and energy of productive editors who want to both monitor activity at the article and its talk, yet also contribute in other topics. WP:ARBGG was intended to stop disruption—it is not a tool to ensure everyone is nice to each other while discussing the same points over and over without limit. Editors with an interest in the encylopedia regard such activity as disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72 the WP:ARBGG Sanctions available section provides surprisingly wide lattitude for administrator judgment for enforcment, it says I may apply "any other appropriate remedy". I feel the 500/30 minimum is an appropriate remedy. Thanks for your concern... Zad68 14:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zad68, Many thanks for your response; I genuinely appreciate it. Is the section of the WP:ARBGG Sanctions available this one, 1.2 (vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.? (my underline). Thanks again. - Ryk72 14:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to. Zad68 14:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response; again appreciated. I believe I understand the reasoning. - Ryk72 14:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72 you're welcome. Zad68 14:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zad68, Apologies for the interruption again; the restriction seems to have "kicked the hornets' nest" a little bit, so I'm sure you have lots of others asking questions too. If you could, however, clarify if the restriction as it applies to the Talk page is:

a) a ban on editors with less than 500 edits / 30 days from commenting on or otherwise editing the Talk page; meaning that the standard BANEX exemptions apply, but also that such editors may be blocked for violations.

or

b) a page level restriction enabling editors to override WP:TALK/WP:TPO by refactoring (removing/undoing) other editors comments; meaning that BANEX exemptions do not apply, but also that editors will not be blocked for violations.

I checked the log but I'm still unclear, though I think it's likely the latter. (lack of clarity likely my failing rather than anyone else's). See here for some additional context.

Thanks in advance. - Ryk72 23:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not have a constitution or a thousand-page list of rules, so there is no need to precisely document every nuance of a gamergate restriction. What is known is that the topic required an arbitration case, and pointless repetition of settled issues is ongoing. I do not know what scenarios are envisaged in the above (someone with less than 500 edits or 30 days experience is required to revert BLP violations?), but whatever occurs, WP:AE is available to discuss any amendments that are required if a problem arises. No one is going to block a new account who makes a couple of inadvertent errors. Johnuniq (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zad68, Apologies for the interruption again; but there seems to be some confusion. This edit shows an editor requesting sanctions (blocking?) of another editor based on their good faith, on topic, editing of an Article Talk page, which is in "violation" of the newly implemented "page level restrictions".

This would seem to indicate that parts of the community are assuming that the restriction is a) a ban on editors with less than 500 edits / 30 days from commenting on or otherwise editing the Talk page. Could you confirm that this is an accurate understanding of the restriction implemented or if these parts of the community are in error? As always, thanks in advance. - Ryk72 13:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies if the question seems more pointed than it is intended to be. I'm just concerned that editors will be expecting certain admin actions (including sanctions), where perhaps they shouldn't be. I figure it would be better if everyone knew what they could & should expect. And yes, I do sincerely apologise if I seem to be one of the bigger "hornets"; please WP:AGF that I really do care about the project - Ryk72 13:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, sorry, I'm traveling on business today, and so can leave only a brief response at the moment, but I will cover your several questions: As the notice, the remedy applies to the article and its Talk page. It is limited to those two pages, it isn't a "topic ban." Johnuniq has it right, it isn't completely necessary to try to pigeonhole the remedy, but as with any other editing restriction, the usual exceptions apply: edits that revert obvious vandalism or obvious BLP violations are OK, experienced editors should be familiar with that. Editors that don't yet meet the 500/30 qualification and somehow miss the editnotice may be reverted, but please leave a courteous edit summary. If you'd like to go the extra mile you can even take the discussion to their User Talk page. If an editor persists in ignoring the restriction, you can report them to WP:AE for what should be prompt action in a clear-cut case. Zad68 14:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zad68, Thanks for the response. Good luck with the business trip. - Ryk72 14:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

ARBGG DS page restriction

Hi Zad68, I have a few notes for you:

• ACDSs are no longer logged on the main case page, rather on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log; let me know if you'd like me to update it.
• It'd probably be easier to see if the restriction on new accounts editing was boxed in a more prominent manner on Template:Editnotices/Page/Gamergate controversy; you can use {{ivmbox}} or something similar for that effect.
• I'm not certain about the validity of the restriction, as from context, the quote once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning. from above applies only to sanctions against individual editors, but I think I won't submit a formal clarification per IAR.

Everything here is written in my personal capacity and explicitly not in my capacity as an arbitration clerk nor on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

L235 thanks I will fix it. Zad68 02:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

L235 I tried to fix the main article editnotice and now that second one doesn't appear at all, do you have any advice? Zad68 14:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Try using {{Ivmbox |1=This article and its Talk page may not be edited by accounts with fewer than <big>'''500 edits'''</big>, or by accounts that are less than <big>'''30 days'''</big> old. Edits made by accounts that do not meet these qualifications may be removed. (Such removals would not be subject to any "revert-rule" counting.) | 2=File:Commons-emblem-issue.svg | imagesize = 50px }} . --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

L235,  Done, beautiful. I think my error was trying to use {{editnotice}} instead of {{ivmbox}} like you suggested, I thought using editnotice would be more proper, but the {{DS}} template itself uses {{editnotice}} under the covers and I think the page processing software only shows the first {{editnotice}}. Thanks for your help! Zad68 17:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:L235. You raised a question about the validity of the 500-edit restriction on Gamergate controversy. There are precedents for page-level discretionary sanctions going back many years. See for instance Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Log of article-level discretionary sanctions. These restrictions apply to all editors. Someone doesn't require an individual notice before they are expected to obey the restriction. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction. "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." (Note the phrase "without warning"). In practice editnotices and talk page notices are usually applied to the article. It is assumed that anyone who chooses to edit the article has been adequately notified. In practice it is common to forgive a person who claims to be unaware of a page-level restriction, at least the first time. EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, you are correct that 1RR is a valid use of discretionary sanctions, as it was specifically authorized by WP:ACDS, which states that semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists) are authorized. However, a blanket prohibition on editing based on edit count and account age was not specifically authorized. Zad68's contention above was that WP:ARBGG#Sanctions_available, any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning authorized the blanket prohibition based on edit count and account age, but in context, that clearly referred only to sanctions on specific editors, as it was preceeded with once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic. In any case, I won't be pushing for an amendment from the Committee; it was just a passing note. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC), minor edits made 00:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC).

EdJohnston, the problem is that this prohibition does not apply to all editors, but instead disenfranchises a very large percentage of existing WP editors and all people outside of WP, while allowing other editors full access. Our usual approaches either remove the ability for all editors to comment (the rare full protection on a talk page), or provides a barrier that is easy enough to surmount if you are serious about making contributions (autoconfirmed). This is neither, as the barrier to entry is now very high for new editors, and nonexistent for others. The examples you give are quite different, in that they apply equally to anyone who might contribute. - Bilby (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, not sure if I should be posting here or making a new section (not even sure if I should be bothering Zad's talkpage at all with this, but whatever, there's discussion here), but I've thrown up a post on the Village Pump to discuss the issue in a place where editors with fewer than 500 edits/30 days wouldn't be violating an arbcom decision to discuss the same arbcom decision. Feedback (positive or negative) is appreciated! Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Zad68 02:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts

I think the "registered + 500/30" qualification is supported by the existing intent and language of the ArbCom ruling such that one doesn't even have to reach for the IAR card. Semiprotection is a "registered + 10/4" minimum qualification; 500/30 is a bit further down that same road. If you accept the argument that was made to me that most edits are made by IPs, the move from "unregistered + 0/0" (no restiction) to the existing and well-supported "registered + 10/4" qualfication excludes more potential editors than the move from 10/4 to 500/30. And as EdJohnston pointed out, there are other restrictions like the 1RR that apply to everyone, even those who haven't edited the page yet; 500/30 isn't different in that respect either, and the kind of restriction isn't without precedent.

I'd like to point out the two real benefits to Misplaced Pages with the 500/30 restriction: First, I think we'll see better arguments overall, because I don't see that the 500/30 restriction really advantages either "side" here. In considering this restriction, I did think about "Will this advantage those who feel the article is unbalanced against their 'side'?" and the answer I think is truly No: Those who come to the article looking to change it but who are inexperienced in Misplaced Pages's content rules shoot themselves in the foot by making clumsy suggestions or repeating well-worn arguments and get turned off by the experience. As a result their arguments are made poorly and don't receive follow-up. If those editors started out somewhere else first, they'd understand why certain changes or arguments aren't appropriate before even getting to the page, saving themselves and everyone else a lot of time.

Second, if the account is that of a SPA or meat/sockpuppet, their goals aren't aligned with ours, and so it works against WP to accomodate them. I'm happy to see the cost-of-entry for those accounts increased dramatically.

The bottom line is that current conditions have made the GGC article and its Talk page arguably the worst possible place for a truly good-faith brand-new editor to begin their WP editing career. An editor who really is interested in furthering Misplaced Pages's long-term goals won't be turned off by having to edit in other areas first for a few weeks. We have to remember that Misplaced Pages isn't a debate club or a government-sanctioned free-speech zone, it's an encyclopedia written by individuals who volunteer their time, and that preserving volunteer time and providing a pleasant working environment are very important.

Anyway, those are my thoughts here. I think the page-level sanction is supported by both the existing intent and wording of ArbCom, and is truly in support of Misplaced Pages's goals. Between my AE closing notes and here, I think I've written all I'd need to to explain my action, and I don't really plan on arguing it here that much more. If there's an editor who still questions it, they should (I imagine) open an WP:ARCA request asking ArbCom to clarify whether my action is indeed within the scope of the remedies available, and I'll participate there. Zad68 02:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• At some point in the past the Committee was asked (informally) whether the list of page restrictions at WP:AC/DS was restrictive or just examples and they said that it was intended to just be examples (I think they intend to clarify this during the the next housekeeping motion in the coming months). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, the third point was just passing note; I don't intend to do anything about it. Will there be any response to the first two points? Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Oops, didn't see the reply. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• So there's an additional "no new accounts" restriction on Gamergate, which appears to be a reasonable reaction to the problem there.

Now how about Red Pen's battleground mentality, which was the topic of the three enforcement requests opened, yet has been ignored completely? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Andy, take the issues you have with TRPoD to the appropriate forum or leave TRPoD alone. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder in that link: Red Pen being let off from 6RR abuse because his friends share his same biases too. Now he's been whitewashed at AE too (three filings, all showing clear evidence of the battleground behaviour he's been admonished for before). For enforcement of the arbcom judgement against him that's the appropriate forum.

Zad68 - why close an enforcement filing against Red Pen (and with evidence) with new restrictions on others, but no mention of Red Pen at all? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth please don't do that, it comes across as poisoning the well, Andy's question is legitimate.

Andy I did review the diffs, but not just as listed by the filer, I reviewed them in context on the Talk page. I was indeed leaning toward a mild sanction, but the AE request also got a comment from another uninvolved admin, and an arbitrator who was active on the original case just a few months ago, both of them calling for no action. I reviewed the GG case work page, the first set of diffs provided for TRPoD's behavior there, and the second set of diffs added later, and compared them to the diffs the AE filing had. Reviewing all of this, in my judgment, no action was a reasonable result. I will say, though, that with the new page-level conditions in place, if that sort of behavior continues, I'd argue for a sanction. Zad68 15:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

So if I understand this correctly, and you've looked at the full context of the talk page conversations, yes? I did too. I assume you would agree that there was no vandalism, or personal attacks, or BLP violations, or incivility, in the diffs that were posted? The major problem on the talk page, requiring a nearly unprecedented level of protection, is that the new editors politely disagree with the current article and those who wish to protect it. You're right that there's a problem on the page, but I feel you're absolutely incorrect with your solution. True, the 30/500 level of protection was applied to the Nagorno-Karabakh article, which is probably a sensitive topic due to the deaths of nearly 40,000 soldiers and the displacement of over one million civilians in the Nagorno-Karabakh War. What's more, a user in that AE request actually posted proof that there was a coordinated effort to disrupt the Misplaced Pages article. Gamergate controversy is an article about a series of offensive tweets and outraged articles that resulted in zero deaths, zero arrests, and zero injuries. It's almost comically irrelevant for the amount of attention it has received, and the silly editing wars it has spawned. In addition, no one has actually posted proof that there is an ongoing effort by Gamergate supporters to disrupt the article. As for this deadly serious problem of "being disagreed with by new editors," I have a solution: Welcome them. Invite them to read the archives. Point them to an WP:RFC that answered their question previously (like these: ). Ask them if they have any specific edits in mind. If an editor can't handle that simple interaction, the editor can always ignore the comment. Heck, I do it all the time, because talk page conversations are not compulsory. What editors absolutely should not do to new editors, because it goes against everything Misplaced Pages supposedly stands for, is bite them, mock them, taunt them, or silence them. I mean, this remedy is blatantly disregarding two of the five pillars. You say Gamergate is a bad place for new editors to start their careers, yes? But isn't that just shifting the blame onto the newcomers? "Don't edit here, because the established editors are pretty vicious." I would urge you, as others have done, to reconsider this remedy. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages as well?

Good morning. I'm writing to express my concern about the sanction you've imposed on Gamergate talk pages. You've essentially invented a new type of page protection (dodrant-protection) that lies somewhere between semi-protection and full-protection. I think that while this may be a swell idea for the article pages, it is wholly inappropriate for the talk pages. After all, these are talk pages --- talking about improvements to the article is what they're for. We can hardly keep up our "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" values if we deny users the opportunity to even discuss controversial articles.

We just don't protect article talk pages. We don't even semi-protect them. It contravenes the protection policy. Please reconsider. HiDrNick! 13:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

HiDrNick actually Talk pages do get semi'd sometimes, it's unusual but it happens. I was involved in getting Talk:Autism semi'd due to long-term disruptive editing from an individual who was using IPs. That Talk page is still semi'd, although I'd support removing the semi now.

As to your question whether this goes against the principle that Misplaced Pages is an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", truly it doesn't. Many many pages are protected, many editors are topic-banned or blocked, or fully site-banned. IPs have significant restrictions on what they can do compared to established, registered users: they can't create articles, rename pages, upload images, edit templates, use Twinkle, !vote in RFAs, etc. Anyone can still edit the GCC Talk page, it just takes a bit more work to do so than it did previously. Remember that the first principle is that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and rules are set up to further that purpose. Zad68 15:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Already, this sanction is stifling reasonable discourse on the talk page. I have no dog in the GG fight, and while I admire any admin who tries to shape things up in any of the DS areas, this over-broad protection could set a nasty precedent. Editors, all editors, need a place where they can work in good-faith to collaborate on article improvement. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. HiDrNick! 16:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it stifling reasonable discourse? I'm looking at what happened subsequently at the article Talk page here, and also what happened at the User Talk page here. Nothing is going to be perfect, and that's for both options of doing nothing and doing something. The question is whether the option we're currently trying is better. Zad68 17:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe these restrictions are onerous. Restricting edits to accounts that are at least a month old and have at least 500 edits demonstrates that these accounts weren't created solely for the purposes of editing the GamerGate article. This is one article out of 4+ million other articles that are available for anyone to edit. This restriction discourages SPAs from diving into one of the more contentious talk pages on Misplaced Pages. And as there is no deadline on Misplaced Pages, any edits from an account that was just created today will be just as valid as they will be on June 18th. This just provides them with an opportunity to learn about Misplaced Pages policies and practices by getting experience editing less divisive articles.

And, as has been said, these restrictions can be lifted whenever they are judged to not be of any value. Liz 22:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The diff linked above by HiDrNick shows what might reasonably be considered a partisan SPA removing a good faith, on topic discussion of article content. I'm not sure if This restriction discourages SPAs from diving into one of the more contentious talk pages on Misplaced Pages can be considered an accurate description; and I really can't believe that this is what was intended to be covered by the restriction. - Ryk72 10:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, I am not saying either way whether I would classify the editor whose diff you're providing as an SPA or not, but Misplaced Pages doesn't prohibit editing by SPAs. What Misplaced Pages does prohibit is disruptive editing behavior like WP:IDHT, persistent WP:BLP violations, and misunderstanding or misapplication of content policy and guideline like WP:RS. Liz is correct where she says "This restriction discourages SPAs from diving into..." (my emphasis): SPAs can edit the article but they can't dive into it. Zad68 14:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Zad68, J0eg0d has only made 78 edits but has repeatedly posted to Talk:Gamergate controversy today. He has received notices informing him about the restrictions but if he continues to post on this article talk page, further action might be necessary. Liz 01:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

• From the editor: Your voice is needed: strategic voting in the WMF election

• In focus: The awful truth about Wikimedia's article counts

• Traffic report: Inner Core

• News and notes: A dark side of comedy: the Misplaced Pages volunteers cleaning up behind John Oliver's fowl jokes

• Featured content: Puppets, fungi, and waterfalls

• In the media: Jimmy Wales accepts Dan David Prize

• WikiProject report: Cell-ebrating Molecular Biology

• Arbitration report: Editor conduct the subject of multiple cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Linking to the subpage for 'Discussion of notice'

Thanks for your recent closure at AE which took care of a puzzling question. While perusing your message, I couldn't figure out what you meant by 'the subpage'. I guess it is Talk:Gamergate controversy/Discussion of notice. Could you modify your closure to include that name explicitly, or at least give a wikilink? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem EdJohnston I put a link into AE discussion pointing to the subpage with this edit, if that isn't sufficient let me know, no problem for me to add more, I'm always happy to do things to make the jobs of the admins patrolling and reviewing AE easier. Zad68 14:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

500/30 Restriction

Hi, Zad68,
Did you intend for this editing restriction to apply just to the article Gamergate controversy and its talk page or all of the associated GG articles like Brianna Wu? Thanks for any clarification you can offer. Liz 10:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Liz, the restrictions are page-level restrictions specific only to the main article and its Talk and article-specific subpages. Actually that article itself is FULL protection through September 20, so that's quite a step up from what's at the Gamergate article, but the Talk page has NO protection. Interesting.

I don't see the same kind of history at Brianna Wu as at the Gamergate article so I don't see a reason to apply the same page-level restrictions there. There's apparently been a blip of Wu-related activity in the news so that's caused a few recent discussions, but before that it's been quiet. A few apparent BLP violations on the Talk page were redacted. So things are "all systems normal" there, let me know if you think things are starting to get out of hand. Zad68 14:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I'll revert my edit.

The issue right now regarding Wu and Gamergate are editors who demand to see "proof" that Wu received death threats, otherwise it is "alleged threats" and this content regarding this subject should be deleted. This demand involves second-guessing reliable sources who say she did receive threats and constitutes original research. But the subject keeps coming up again and again lately. Liz 16:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Liz, OK that seems like a very run-of-the-mill BLP content dispute, should the article say "X happened to Living Person Y" or "Source says X happened to Living Person Y"? Why not take the proposed phrasings to WP:BLPN? Should get sorted out there quickly and then you all can move on to other stuff. Zad68 16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll bring your suggestion to the talk page. I went to revert my edit but there have been a lot of edits in this interim period, some by the editor I reverted. Thanks again. Liz 17:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(Semi-? whatever)protecting user talk pages without even reading the supposed 'harrassing' edits

Do administrators / whoever can protect pages really do this? That's pretty cool. I must suggest this to people. In case of a feud, just claim harassment, and the opponent is automatically silenced. The way it is in real life, too, apparently. But this is literally the first edit of mine today in which I didn't make a suggestion how to improve Misplaced Pages, so I shall end it now. ~~~~

In fact, I used the API to find the timestamps of Fir's report and your reaction (at the latest! and that's counting the ban/block in itself, and not the *decision* to ban/block), and the difference is 49 seconds, and that's assuming favourably that you were notified of it instantaneously.

664309764: "timestamp": "2015-05-27T18:54:58Z"
664309864: "timestamp": "2015-05-27T18:55:47Z"

My four edits together count 326 words. Considering that the average reading speed is apparently around 300 WPM (according to Misplaced Pages, '250 to 300'), you are an exceptional reader... and an exceptional monitor of report pages. ~~~~

If you wish, you may speak your mind here, as long as you follow WP:TPG. But until you stop doing the one thing that indicates to me that you're going out of your way to make it more difficult for others to communicate with you, I am unlikely to respond. Zad68 20:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am not particularly interested in the brand of communication that seems in vogue on Misplaced Pages, that consists of telling people 'go away' when you present them with data. ~~~~

Looks like he's back

Got some notifications to check my messages. Compare this message and this message . This "new messenger" has a very low edit history, Arrowsmith School being amongst the first of his targets which Wiki-Shield blanked major sections of at least a dozen times. Can you look into this please?--Taeyebaar (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Reported here Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mishash--Taeyebaar (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Taeyebaar an obvious sock, Bbb23 got supporting Checkuser info but I would have blocked on behavior evidence alone. Zad68 16:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Zad, I think we got a problem here. Mishash kept blanking out reliable sources and inserting {citation needed} tags while leaving defensive claims by the Arrowsmith program in hopes to make the criticisms part sound like fiction. Previously he accused me and others of being on the payroll of Luminsoity, another 'brain training' program that competes in the market against these programs. Now he accuses me of WP:OWN and tried to confuse third party editors into the same edit wars. He's also labelled Max Coltheart and Anne Castles, both qualified neuroscientists as 'anti-brain training activists' and remove their citations that argue against the psuodoscientific claims made by these brain training marketers, who by the way aren't certified in neurological studies.

I think the article on the Arrowsmith School should be protected for sometime and while you're at it you might want to protect Dore Programme as well. He blanked out reliably sourced criticism from scientists there as well only to be reverted by another editor. I'm quite certain he'll be back to cause more mischief in a few days. I had to revert him at least two dozen times before action was taken against the sockpuppets.--Taeyebaar (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Length of protection for EvergreenFir's talk page

Hi Zad. Yesterday, you (very appropriately) semi-protected the talk page, indicating that it was a temporary measure. You did, however, protect it indefinitely, which probably isn't called for—yet. Regards, Favonian (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

D'oh! I had intended for it to be 36 hours. I'll fix, thanks for notifying. Zad68 16:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)