Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:29, 28 February 2020

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

Open tasks

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Unclear delimiters of Philip Cross topic ban

I am using this forum instead of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement because I am frankly uncertain whether or not Philip Cross has breached his indefinite topic ban from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. Accordingly, I seek clarification from administrators.

On 10 February 2020, I inquired at his User Talk page as to his block status, noting that he has had 1½ years in which to appeal. I specifically directed his attention to minor edits that day, in which he merely italicized a couple of names, to the BLP of English journalist and writer James Bloodworth.

Two days later, Philip Cross replied, "There is negligible direct reference to post-1978 British politics in the article you cite."

In response, I listed the article's following references to post-1978 British politics.

• Bloodworth is a former member of Britain's Trotskyist group Alliance for Workers' Liberty, who edited the left-wing UK political news and comment site Left Foot Forward from 2013 until 2016.
• He blogged from 2013 to 2015 at The Spectator, which Misplaced Pages identifies as a UK political magazine.
• He is the author of The Myth of Meritocracy: Why Working-Class Kids Still Get Working-Class Jobs (2016), whose Amazon product description states: "Hitherto, Labour and Conservative politicians alike have sought to deal with the problem by promoting the idea of 'equality of opportunity'. In politics, social mobility is the only game in town, and old socialist arguments emphasising economic equality are about as fashionable today as mullets and shell suits."
• He is the author of Hired: Six Months Undercover in Low-Wage Britain (2019), whose Amazon product description quotes Nick Timothy, former chief of staff to then UK prime minister Theresa May: "Whatever you think of the political assertions in this book—and I disagree with many of them—this is an important investigation into the reality of low-wage Britain. Whether you are on the Right, Left or Centre, anybody who believes in solidarity and social justice should read this book."
• He has praised Roger Scruton's Thinkers of the New Left (2015), a book that proved controversial (Misplaced Pages tells us) because of Scruton's attacks on the British Left.

In conclusion, I commented that for an article about a living British journalist that is still classified as a stub, this is an impressive amount of detail related to post-1978 British politics. Philip Cross rejected my argument.

If an uninvolved administrator could help me understand this situation, I'd be very grateful. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This is the kind of work that bots would do if they could be taught how to identify the titles of creative works. Unless an editor's been disruptively making minor edits (e.g. stalking someone else) or is causing problems with minor edits (e.g. adding italics where they don't belong), there's no good reason to sanction someone for minor edits: the rule demonstrably would be preventing him from maintaining and improving Misplaced Pages, so it should be ignored. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nyttend If I understand you, then, it's OK for someone to violate his indefinite ban from a topic, broadly construed, so long as he restricts himself to minor edits. That strikes me as a very strange policy. NedFausa (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Since you don't appear to be very grateful for the uninvolved administrator, let me be firmer: this is an unambiguous improvement, and nothing matters more than improving the project, so stop tattling on him. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nyttend I said I'd be very grateful if an uninvolved administrator could help me understand this situation. You have not done so. Having read the topic ban that ARBCOM carefully hashed out, I see no room for the exception you have carved out. NedFausa (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nyttend, what's this unnecessary comment about being grateful for? You have clearly explained nothing to NedFausa.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved administrator, I repeatedly helped him understand the situation by explaining that it would be harmful to the encyclopedia (WP:IAR) to sanction someone for doing minor, obvious fixes, and yet he rejected my input despite saying that he'd be grateful for exactly what I gave. Just demonstrating that this is not a good-faith request, but a "gotcha" attempt to get this person sanctioned for obvious improvements. It was tempting to take advantage of my status as an uninvolved administrator by blocking him for trying to game the system, but I figured that would produce more harm than benefit. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting one. Seems like broad should include even little things, but I also like the word tattling. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

More work than I would want to put in, but you probably should have let them do a few more edits and see if you could catch them doing something major. Probably would have worked if you hadn't tipped them off. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher Tipping him off was my whole point in posting this first to his User Talk page. I sincerely don't want to take it to ARBCOM, where the topic ban originated. I just want Philip Cross to keep within his lane. NedFausa (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There's something galling about an ostensibly new editor telling a 15-year veteran to keep within their lane. Please choose your words more carefully in the future. Lepricavark (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

That's the whole issue with how you interpret "broadly construed" really means. Common sense (which stems from ignore all rules, or IAR) suggests that something as inconsequential as italicizing the newspaper shouldn't necessitate hauling an editor to Arbitration Enforcement. This example is a textbook case where IAR applies. I highly doubt a banned editor using sockpuppet accounts will get banned for something as trivial as this. This thread should just be closed as a time sink and nothing positive is going to come out of it. I agree with Nyttend. Spend the time on actually improving an article, don't spend the time on a dramaboard to discuss why someone should be reprimanded for improving. OhanaUnited 03:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules. I should have known. Thank you for finally helping to make sense of this. NedFausa (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the arbs who wrote the TBan remedy for Cross, the point of the TBan was to restrict Cross from being tempted to edit on politics topics (especially BLPs) where he was personally involved off-wiki with the subjects, because that had become problematic. I definitely would not consider minor markup edits to the article of a journalist, even if he does sometimes write about politics, to be a violation of the spirit of the restriction. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

PMC: thank you for explaining. I was misled by the "broadly construed" nomenclature included in your topic ban of Philip Cross, and by the policy statement that dictates what a topic ban covers—unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise—while establishing no exception for minor edits (markup or otherwise). To avoid future misunderstandings, I encourage you to add that carve-out to WP's policy. NedFausa (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There's no need for a carve-out, because as Nyttend and OhanaUnited have pointed out above, we are not bound to the precise letter of any "law"; we can use our judgement sensibly when deciding what to do. The ultimate point of any TBan is to mitigate disruptive behavior, not to punish editors by smacking them down for everything that could possibly be construed as a violation of the TBan just because. These edits were not disruptive, nor were they directly connected to British politics post-1978. If Cross had been fiddling about with content on the journalist's views of present-day politics, that might be a different story worth discussing at AE. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We already have a carve-out, it's called the fifth pillar. Levivich 21:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

To be blunt, any decision by ArbCom that concerns the phrase "broadly construed" should be rephrased immediately to "reasonably construed" otherwise opponents of a person are going to stalk and jump on any edit that can even remotely be connected to someone; this isn't the first instance of this. Buffs (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Buffs, nope. WP:BROADLY is designed to prevent gaming the system. Guy (help!) 01:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that "nibbling on the edges" is poorly defined (at best). It's so nebulous that it could be anything. We're talking about British politics post-1978. How about a politician's actions in 1977, even though he served through 1998? How about someone who retired in 1977, but continued to speak out in political matters. How about a politician who resigned in 1977 but a law was named after him. How about an American politician who was friends with a British politician in 1977 and 1980? How about the laws passed in the US during that timeframe that were influenced by British common law dating back to the Magna Carta but still in effect today? I'm not saying that he was correct, but "reasonably construed" is FAR closer to the intended meaning than "broadly construed" which can be MASSIVELY gamed by opponents for benign edits. I'm saying it's bad verbiage that could be improved. I'll abide by whether the community believes this edit is over the line. Buffs (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is a straightforward violation per WP:BROADLY. A topic ban is "broadly construed" by default, and straightforwardly prohibits making any edit, or editing any page, relating to the subject. The fact that the edits in question are purely uncontentious copyedits is not an exemption, though it is something that can be taken into account in terms of discretionarily sanctioning a violation. The user did violate their topic ban, yes, though given the nature of the edits, they probably warrant a warning as opposed to a block. If minor copyedits in violation of the topic ban continue, though, the topic ban should be enforced. BROADLY is policy, period, and the user should know better. ~Swarm~ 01:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the admin comment above. Philips has clearly violated the topic ban per WP:BROADLY.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Simple solution from the simple-minded. Philip Cross should be told politely to stop nibbling and make minor improvements outside the area of the topic ban. We have > 5x10 other articles to choose from. OP should be politely asked to stop being a tattle tale.Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  OMG yes. Buffs (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Phillip Cross is once again flouting his ban by editing the page of current UK political journalist Marina Hyde. Since he continues to ignore his ban I suggest his account should be suspended. 83.218.151.178 (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This should be the stick that broke the camel's back.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I've reinstated the material being edit-warred over by the IP. It contains no reference to politics, at all. This IPs sole contribution to the article is edit-warring on false pretenses. Sharab, you do not appear to be a helpful contributor to this area of Misplaced Pages, and that is a recurring pattern I have noted since returning to editing. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the very briefest of references in the article, Marina Hyde is not identified as a political journalist, the article does not contain any direct references to post-1978 British politics. None of her articles on the subject are cited or mentioned. The edit history indicates that I have intermittently edited Marina Hyde's article since the topic ban was imposed over the eighteen months ago. It has intermittently been raised on Twitter by those who watch my edits (the most regular being a banned user) but not, if I recall correctly in any of the AN/I or AE queries. My most recent edits to the article are about her recent Sports Journalist Association Awards. One detail concerning Geoffrey Boycott's recent knighthood might be construed as coming under politics (given who decided on the award), but I have removed that reference. Philip Cross (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I have re-added that reference to the knighthood as well now, I am under no active editing-restrictions and take full ownership of the edit. The material is reasonably sourced, and significant enough to warrant mention. I have also warned the IP about 3RR (via revert). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Editor whose signature is confusing and is aware of that

• There is a very strong consensus, including a consensus of people who are not William's "enemies", that the signature is confusing to a lot of people, and should have minor changes made along the lines of User:Starship.paint's suggestions on William's talk page. William, please make this change.
• There is not currently a consensus that this should be "enforced" with a block if the change isn't made. I do not believe this is likely to change. However, William should note that this was actually something of a close thing, and a decent chunk of people supporting a block were not William's "enemies".
• At this point, no new arguements are being presented, just restatements of previously made arguments, so a close is the best thing.
• Everyone please be nicer to your fellow human beings.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

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

The user:

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

The signature:

...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

I was trying to read some comments in Misplaced Pages and there was an editor who's signature is confusing. I said I will go to his talk page and ask him if he is aware that his signature is confusing and that a " distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users" but I found this at the top of his talk page I'm aware that my signature is confusing, and I don't care. I like it.

• What is the best thing to do in this situation?. There is a long discussion that involves this editor but I got confused because of his signature many times.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't suppose you're going to tell us who you're talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  Bbb23, its WilliamJE.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Apparently 2 days ago an editor also talked about this editor signature, I swear, I had no idea. This proves that I am not the only one who find his signature confusing. Ping LakesideMiners.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Hogwash and bullshit you didn't know. The section is right above your edit. And this complaint is nonsense. So where's the WP:BOOMERANG? And this edit summary is highly suspicious too from an editor who supposedly never interacted with me before....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @WilliamJE: Two things must ye know. A) your signature is BS. B) that edit summary is not suspicious at all considering it was in response to a request for that very information.C) having said that, SharabSalam may not be a net negative, but they have already proven themselves an ethno-political POV pusher. ——SN54129 11:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

      I think we have finally peaked in talking about Misplaced Pages governance. Also, really lol-ed after the first two sentences, so thanks for that, SN. Have a good night all, hopefully we can resolve Signaturegate by next week or so. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, I didn't look at the discussions in your talk page when I made the report. I sent the notification after I mentioned your username and that time I discovered that another user had also the same problem with your signature. The other thing is that I have had interaction with you in User talk:TonyBallioni. You have been saying that you don't want Xray to ping you so I thought you would not want me to ping you either because I also was part of that discussion.

Serial Number 54129, I am not sure what "net negative" means but how is that request for deletion an ethno-political POV-pushing?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me perfectly plausible that someone would leave a comment on another editor's talk page and not notice what the previous comment was. In some cases, editors should pay attention to avoid this, but it doesn't seem necessary here. Nil Einne (talk)

I still say bullshit and hogwash. They quote the top of my page but miss the 500-lb gorilla in the room right above their post. I have messaged someone about my thoughts here and I'm not going to say anything else till I get a reply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE can you cut the crap and tell us what this so called 226.796 kilogram monkey is? LakesideMiners 15:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, I see you have emailed me, I have read though it. first, then who do you think is socking/ what/who are you saying is quacking? second, you should say the names two users you contacted here, let me remind you that WP:ADMINSHOP is frowned upon. Third, I am part of the the username thing, not of the other things.

My email link is meant to be used for private/urgent matters, what you sent me is not what I would consider a private/urgent matter. I want to keep this stuff onwiki please. LakesideMiners 15:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(EC) The one who is full of bullshit and hogwash is you. Plenty of editors, including me, edit talk pages all the time without noticing what was posted just above them. It's simple. You click on new section, write whatever it is you want to write, and submit. You don't pay attention whatever else someone wrote since it doesn't concern you. Especially in this case, since the concern is long standing (your signature has been crap for a long time). And where you notice the editor explicitly mentions it at the top of their talk page. And reading notices someone leaves on the top of their talk page is often the polite thing to do since if there's some instruction which you can follow without much effort, you should normally do so. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Here what happened. I went to read the ANI report, it was hard for me to know where your comments end and I clicked multiple times on your signature thinking that it was part of your comments. I then searched in Google for "Misplaced Pages signature", found a policy where it says that "distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users", went to your talk page found the message at the top of your talk page. I then came to this place asking what to do in this situation. Bbb23 asked me who I am talking about, I mentioned your username, then went and notified you about this discussion. I didn't want to use the regular notification template because I thought it would be rude. I just wanted to tell you about the discussion in a polite way. I clicked new section at the top of the your talk page. After all this is just a signature problem, I didn't want it to become a big issue.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, you gotton the reply yet? because this is getting fucking stupid, if I am reading everything right, current consensus is that your sig is disruptive and needs to be changed, a few editors have offered suggestions and you are not taking them. LakesideMiners 16:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, Net Negative means that your bad edits outweigh the good ones. (which SN is saying is NOT the case). and im just as confused as you are on the POV thing but I don't want to get into that as that would be a bit off topic of the subject of this thread imo. LakesideMiners 14:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• • WilliamJE, what do you mean by section right above the edit? Can you give a link to the so called bullshit? LakesideMiners 14:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  SharabSalam, Yep, i find it confusing as well. He can change it so it only shows on his side, but it took me like 5 mins to relase that he filled the Xray thing. LakesideMiners 14:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yea, I had the same problem in the same Xray thing. I clicked three times on that link "the roof?" thinking that it is part of the comments, I then gave up reading that ANI report.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, He seems to be accusing either you or me(or would it be both) Special:Diff/940906710 of being sockpuppet(s). LakesideMiners 14:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep. What should I do?. This is why I didn't mention him at first when I asked this question, I almost knew he is going to react aggressively.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, I wonder if he is contacting the CU team. based on this I have messaged someone about my thoughts here and I'm not going to say anything else till I get a reply. Guess we will see. I dont really know what to do. Not much we can do right now but wait. LakesideMiners 15:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Well I just cooked some popcorn. Let's wait and see where this goes.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, Just pray he does not file an ANI case accusing you both for harassing him on his signature. (considering his overreaction on my talk page, and then on Tony's page , I would bet that the odds for it are quite high) .

About the topic of this thread, yes his signature with ellipsis and all, is very confusing. I had to read his comment on my talk page 3 times to make some sense out of it. DBigXrayᗙ 16:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Getting back to the original point of this thread, I don't think the signature is actually problematic. There are very few instances in which the words ....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? would so naturally flow with the preceding sentences as to seem to be part of the paragraph. And even if the OP was confused, he could easily click (or merely hover over) the blue links and thus clear up the confusion. This is an unnecessary thread that was made worse by the above kerfuffle. Lepricavark (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the signature is annoying the way it's displayed in posts. More concerning is the editor-in-question refuses to normalise it & may have deliberately made it annoying. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• More ignorance. Thoroughly research my talk and user page before you ignorantly mouth off on me or incorrectly claim what my purpose was....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Your apparent rudeness is the base of the problem here. If you don't want to correct your attitude, then perhaps the community will correct it for you. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of socking, incivility + BATTLEGROUND = a definite call on the Community's time. GoodDay speaks for me on this. ——SN54129 18:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, yah, I think the main thing here is that he knows it’s confusing, and is being rude when asked nicely to change it. I did not want it to come here. I told him that I don’t want to bring it to the drama board, and he replied and told me to “go to the complaints department” LakesideMiners 18:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Shar'ab not seeing the previous message on WJE's talk page is neither hogwash and bullshit, nor bullshit and hogwash. Come to my talk page to write me a message, and you're going to (probably) click on the "+" that's at the top of the page, and be taken to a new screen to write your message. Having written and posted your message, only then will you be looking at the bottom of my talk page and be able to see what the previous thread was, after your new message has already been posted. Thus, it is 1,000% plausible that people leave each other talk page messages without reading previous threads on the page – and it's because the "+" button is at the top and not the bottom of the page. Regarding the signature, we've been here before, I can think of three "signature" threads in about the last year. The procedure was the same each time: make a proposal that the signature be changed and see if there's consensus. (If such a proposal is made, please, this time let's not block anyone before the proposal is closed.) I also agree with GD and SN and ask WJE to tone down the incivility in this thread ("ignorantly mouth off", etc.). Cheers, Levivich 18:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, yah, I don’t him to get blocked. I just want the signature to be changed or to at least have the three dots be changed to dashes. LakesideMiners 18:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• William, whether or not you deliberately made your signature confusing more than one editor has found it so, so you should simply grow up and behave like a civilised human being by changing it. It's only a signature on a web site, ffs, so why don't you simply take a few seconds to fix the issue and let everyone get on with more important things, such as building an encyclopaedia. I allowed myself a little chuckle when I first saw your signature, but I'm afraid the joke's got very thin now. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• The signature is distracting and confusing, but no less distracting and confusing than a whole lot of other ones. We enforce/interpret signature guidelines really inconsistently and I'd much prefer see them made more explicit than only subject those who are unpopular on ANI on a given day. Why people feel like serious discussions are a place where a single user's many instances of ❤️ personal expression ❤️ must be preserved at the expense of readability/focus/flow is beyond me, but here we are. — ❤️ Rhododendrites (talk) ❤️ \\ 19:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry about this -- last one I promise. :) See also: WP:BILLBOARD. — ❤️ Rhododendrites (talk) ❤️ \\ 19:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  This wasn't an issue of obnoxious highlighting and there was no need to bring it up here. DBigXrayᗙ 20:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  DBigXray, BILLBOARD does apply to this because it draws focus away from the discussion and onto the signature(or the appearance of lack of?) LakesideMiners 21:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It's a signature issue. My point is that we have guidelines that we interpret/enforce unevenly, and that if we're going to start enforcing them, WilliamJE's signature is quite far from the most egregious. — Rhododendrites \\ 21:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites, so what you are saying is that we should start enforcing it more consistently? I’m all for that. LakesideMiners 21:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  Also FYI I really don’t know what the whole Xray thing is about, just happened to see what I though was a post without a signature on ANI. LakesideMiners 21:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  LakesideMiners, I believe by "Xray thing", they are referring to the ANI case WilliamJE started about me. DBigXrayᗙ 22:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) More or less, yes. My opinion is that our signature guidelines should be more stringent, but proposals all tend to end with no consensus. — Rhododendrites \\ 21:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• No administrative action is required. There is no policy to force WilliamJE to change his signature, and he certainly isn't going to do it voluntarily. I suggest you folk find something else to do that is more likely to benefit the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I see you closed this discussion with this comment, but it doesn't follow the rest of the thread, in which there are several people that have lodged complaints about WilliamJE's signature. There is now precedent that signature issues can lead to administrative action with InedibleHulk—in which he was blocked until his signature was changed. I would support such an action in this case because I also find WilliamJE's signature confusing to the point of disruption, and would appreciate it if this thread is not closed until enough time to form a consensus on this issue is elapsed. I'll also add that there seems to be some civility/behavioral complaints with WilliamJE that have been brought up in this thread and I think it may be wise to address them here. Thanks, -- Tavix 00:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Tavix, I would also like to add that Bbb23 was emailed by WJE. Can we please get some inkling about what the email was about? I feel that this should be all done on wiki. not though email. As I don't see why email is useful in this case. if it is spilling over to other admins talkpages, I dont think that needs email. Regadless, I would consider that would make Bbb23 WP:INVOLVED. I asked someone off-wiki who is uninvolved in this (IRC) if they think me considering it WP:INVOLVED would be right, they said I am likely right. but thats not really that importen now IMO as the thread is reopened. LakesideMiners 01:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC), I still say that email was highly inappreciably give the circumstances and is why I reviled the contents of the one he sent to me. also striking this cuz I was misinformed, user was User:Oshwah btw. If he sees this, he can show his logs from my PMs with him if needed. Im heading to bed now. LakesideMiners 03:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Receiving an e-mail from a user does not make me involved. I have no idea - nor do I care - whom you spoke to at IRC, but they are apparently clueless. Nor am I going to reveal the contents of a user's e-mail, and such a suggestion is highly inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Receiving an email does not make an administrator involved. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear I'm not involved with all those Nigerian princes. O3000 (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The editor has accused me of sockpuppeting and didn't assume good faith. Also reacted aggressively to fair complaints about his signature. I don't have anything against WilliamJE. I just found his signature very confusing. LakesideMiners suggested to WilliamJE to at least change the dots to lines but he removed his comment. I am not sure what is the big deal about the signature. It's just a Misplaced Pages signature not a bank signature. All of this wouldn't have happened if WilliamJE changed his signature to something less confusing.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23, there are guidelines and policies about customizing signature here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You can tell that there is definitely a WP:CIVIL issue with this editor by just reading this thread. A quick look with trivial effort at his talk page history, you will find some trouble comments like "Get lost pathetic loser and don't come back" or "You're pathetic. I'm a vandal but you're the one who put garbage in an article then came here to complain about its removal. As I said, you're pathetic."-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Put me down for team "this editor's signature is confusing, it would be good if they should make it less confusing." --JBL (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• While I appreciate that, per Bbb23, there is no policy requiring William to change his signature, we have a number of guidelines which state or imply that confusing signatures should be amended. WP:SIGPROB: "If your signature is unnecessarily confusing, editors may request that you change it"; WP:SIG: "A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users.". It's pretty clear this signature has been confusing for a long time and a large number of editors have now politely requested it be changed for clarity. William himself states on his talk page that he is "aware that my signature is confusing, and I don't care". These endless discussions are a clear net negative to building the encyclopedia.
  • User talk:WilliamJE/Archive 1#Signature
  • User talk:WilliamJE/Archive 11#Signature
  • User talk:WilliamJE/Archive 12#Confusing signature
  • User talk:WilliamJE/Archive 13#Signature
• The signature is regularly confusing to editors, especially new ones. Sam Walton (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  Samwalton9, I have been editing for years and I was confused. Even if you are aware of the signature, while browsing a thread, it is easy to continue reading his lines and then his signature by mistakenly assuming it to be a part of the comment. There is a learning curve in dealing with his signature, where you have to train your mind to stop reading once you reach the word William. Deepfriedokra was this one of the factors that caused your headache while browsing the ANI? IMHO it impacts "everyone" whoever comes across his signature, not especially noobs. DBigXrayᗙ 15:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Regardless of the signature, there is definitely a civility issue with WilliamJE. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• @DBigXray: No.For a long time I thought that was his username. It's one of the things I look forward to. William, could you please try to be more polite moving forward? FWIW, I did not realise how impaired I was by my cough medicine till this morning at work. Apologies to all. Gah, it might not be warn off yet.-- Deepfriedokra 17:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, good luck! That must be some strong cough stuff. Hope you get well soon. LakesideMiners 19:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Why so much discussion? This is a clear case of an inappropriate signature: it confuses editors and is contrary to the guidelines. Surely the user can be required to simplify it. YoPienso (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Ditto. It's a signature masquerading as a sentence. It is not merely confusing (to everyone) but deliberately so.

WP:Username_policy#Confusing_usernames (WP:IU) says that the criteria applicable to usernames "also apply to signatures", while WP:Username_policy#Confusing_usernames (WP:UNCONF) says: "Confusing usernames can often be a red flag for other problems" – which certainly seems to be the case here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• I noticed some people state that no policy requires a change of signature. I note that there is actually a precedent for requiring a sig change: In 2005, a user had four tildes as their signature, which many people found confusing. There was an arbitration case over it, and the Committee found that "sers with improper usernames or signatures may be required to change them.", and required that user to "adopt an un-confusing signature". --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• This is still going on... jesus christ WilliamJE just change your goddamn signature. The all-around feedback is it's absolutely terrible even if you think otherwise. Just for the sake of getting this over with, just change it. Not one time have I personally found it funny, 1 point for the uniqueness and -5 for being absolutely pointless. And no, not everyone is socking and not everyone is out to get you. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose forcing WilliamJE to change his signature. It is somewhat confusing, but disruptive enough for the community to mandate a change. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "forcing" is the right word here but many editors find his signature confusing, even he says it's confusing, so it would be nice if he changed his signature. It's disruptive to deliberately confuse other editors. My username was in Arabic and I was asked to change my signature to English and I immediately did. I don't know why would someone want to have a confusing signature.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have always found the signature confusing, and even just now I had to look at it again to make sure. One shouldn't use a long line of text to close off a line of text, and in discussions without proper indentation, or where the next comment is at the same level (especially if no bullet points are used), this makes it very hard to read. I also find the rudeness and the socking allegations to be rather inexplicable. This business of usernames shouldn't be difficult. (Below, there is a section starring User:Miraclepine, who should also consider just writing out their damn username in the usual way.) Drmies (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Drmies: FWIW there's also @Levivich, AssociateAffiliate, Dreamy Jazz, Money emoji, TenPoundHammer, Winged Blades of Godric, DeltaQuad, and Ponyo: and all that whatnot. Also Andrew Davidson ミラP 16:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see your point. Ponyo's name is in her signature. Same with Ten Pound Hammer. Your signature says "ミラ", whose connection with your username is more than tenuous for those who haven't studied Japanese. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• I think that, it has been established that WE's sig counts as A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature, which has indeed adversely affect other users.@Miraclepine: Your sig is also a pain on the brain. For an example refer to User:Παράδειγμα, who signs his posts as Παράδειγμα/Paradigma. WP:SIG#CustomSig says that a customised signature should make it easy to identify your username and that it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents. It is difficult to see how yours does so. No offence! ——SN54129 17:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any of those pinged editors having confusing signature. You can tell where the signature is and you can tell which username made the comment.

I usually add "--" to the end of my comments like this "--~~~~", I think this way editors don't confuse my comment with my signature.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Having been pinged here, I have done some minor shortening which doesn't affect its appearance. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 19:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• I have no clue why we are all mass pinged here. At worst I'm not following a single guideline, and even that is dubious - my "aka DQ" at the end at least hints at my username. If the community wants to enforce signature compliance on me, they can, but I don't see a policy at this time i'm breaking. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Miraclepine, I dont find the signature of any of those people you pinged confusing. Please desist from inappropriate whataboutery. DBigXrayᗙ 21:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Do people really having nothing better to do than moan about 'confusing' usernames? Wow, get out more. StickyWicket (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

  AssociateAffiliate, what is this "out" you speak of? For real tho, this is what AN is for, this is a issue, and you dont need to be rude like that. LakesideMiners 20:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Is this anymore confusing that "Guy's" signature? Lugnuts 20:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It's more confusing because it tricks editors and make them read the signature as if it was part of the comment. I agree that JzG signature is confusing but once you learn that "JzG" is "Guy" you don't have the confusion again. Also, there have been a lot of complaints about William's signature. So even if he didnt change his signature another editor will come here and complain about his signature again.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this anymore confusing that "Guy's" signature? Yes. There are dozens of editors whose signature includes something that isn't the actual username. This occasionally causes people to mess up pings, but that's a minor issue and an inconvenience to us more than to anyone else; it's obvious how to relate to it (call the person by the displayed name; click the displayed name to go to the userpage or talkpage). WilliamJE's signature is genuinely confusing -- it's not clear that it is a signature, and therefore not clear how to interact with it. --JBL (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

but that's a minor issue and an inconvenience to us more than to anyone else Ditto for William's signature. At least it's clear who the user is behind the signature. Lugnuts 08:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: no, it's not at all clear that his signature is a signature; that's the problem. If his signature were "--William (is the complaint department really on the roof?)" or something it would be vastly better and would cause much less confusion. --JBL (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The opening line of WP:SIG states "...is required and facilitates discussion by identifying the author of a particular comment..." (my bolding). That's what his does. Unlike the examples others have given. Lugnuts 12:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Because tone is tricky in text-based communication, I'd like to clarify in advance that the following question is really a question, for purposes of engaging constructively with you: do you not understand the point that I'm making, or do you disagree with it? I ask because nothing you've written in response to me addresses it. (Tone in text-based communication is hard, so: this comment is not intended to be argumentative/snarky. I really can't tell if you've understood the point I'm making ("it's not at all clear that his signature is a signature") and reject it, or if you haven't understood why I believe it's relevant.) --JBL (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you've wrote and I disagree with it. Some people find it confusing, some don't. Unless an admin is going to impose some sort of sanctions, there's not a lot that will happen here. Lugnuts 13:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts, no, it doesn't identify the author of the comment. It looks like if signature is a response to someone called William and is part of the comment. See the comma next to "William" ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?. The comma there make it look as if he is responding to an editor called William not his username just like the comma I made next to your username at the top of this comment Lugnuts, no, it doesn't identify the author of the comment. The three dots also make the confusion worse. Many editors who have had seen this editor comments have had confusion over his signature. See the WP:ANI thread started by William where I first noticed that signature.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, this, would be a great solution. WilliamJE would that work for you? LakesideMiners 13:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• I too think this signature is confusing and a times even misleading. It'd be good if they take on board the comments here and change it to something better. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Y'all can read through and interpret scripts that you've possibly never encountered before, but you struggle to interpret a basic English sentence like "William, is the complaint department really on the roof?". If you can read Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew, Devangari, Kanji, Hanzi, Khmer, Manchu and Emoji as a matter of course and have no trouble interpreting those signatures, then you have no goddamn excuse to struggle with this. 𓌸𓂋𓈖𓀭𓂧𓂧𓅱𓂧𓏴𓂥 (𓏙𓋹𓊽) 13:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The point is not the language but the fact that it reads like a complete goddamn sentence. In this context, hieroglyphs are equally otiose :p ——SN54129 14:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this exactly: it is not clear that it is a signature, and that's the problem. --JBL (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, and for the record I don't know Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew, Devanagari, Kanji, Hanoi, Khmer, Manchu. It would be a problem regardless of what language it was in. But you summed up what I wanted to say, I would have said it, but it felt like it would come across as rude so I did not post it. LakesideMiners 15:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey, show some respect. That’s Pharaoh Three Mittens you’re talking to! Levivich (inane chatter) 15:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

heheLakesideMiners 15:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that the signature is problematic. It would be nice if the user would simply change it. The fact that they refuse to accommodate the many fellow editors who feel the way I do, seems even more problematic. Paul August ☎ 15:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Suggestion; would it improve WilliamJE's signature if he made it something like this: --WilliamJE the complaint department is on the roof. That preserves the gist of what they are going for while still looking and feeling more like a signature. (As a complete aside, I remember the anti-signature-shop crusade people went on back in 2006/2007 when a few people were running signature shops in their user space to help people code custom signatures that were policy compliant. It would be nice if we still had those to send people to to get problematic signatures fixed.) ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 15:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  Or perhaps:

  ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

  — xaosflux 16:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, thats the same thing as it is right now? LakesideMiners 16:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, it has the rest of it as the talk page link, that doesn't really address the problem of it being confining. LakesideMiners 16:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  was trying for a subtle resolution here - perhaps a little too subtle there! — xaosflux 16:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  Just noting that I do not consider Xaosflux's suggestion as an acceptable proposal, as it is not addressing the primary concern discussed here. DBigXrayᗙ 18:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Time for a proposal?

I think it would be worth starting a proposal here to get consensus in a more offical way, dont know how to go about it tho. If somone else thinks they can start one, please do. LakesideMiners 16:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a formal proposal is needed. Surely we should just expect people who do things that confuse some other people, but are very little effort to change, to change so as not to cause such confusion? This is simple human courtesy, something that a significant number of Misplaced Pages editors seem to lack. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, Well, he seems to be refusing to, and admin action is really the only way at this point. He's also not responding to any of the things on this page at all. He has that right to not respond. But this needs to be handled. There are also WP:CIVIL issues that need to be handled as well.LakesideMiners 17:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. It's just a pity that something that would be so easy for William to fix should have to become the subject of a formal proposal. Why are some people so stubborn over such trivialities as changing a signature? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, because people don't like to change, and according to his talk page, "He likes it" LakesideMiners 17:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand that. I meant my question more as a rhetorical cri de coeur than something that needed an answer. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, o LakesideMiners 18:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Any chance at compromise? Perhaps William is concerned that he needs to get rid of the roof part. I haven't carefully read everyone's input, so I apologize if I've missed the obvious (again...), but it seems the main complaint is that it is hard to tell the signature apart from the discussion. What if we merely requested that he change either the font (to something readable, please) or the color. Bold and forest green would be nice. Then the substance of the signature would be kept, but it would stand out. Signed, Pollyanna. otherwise known as... 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

A proposal

Per this recent precedent, I request that WilliamJE be blocked until such time as they agree to change their signature to something that is identifiable as a signature (rather than a sentence or sentence fragment). --JBL (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, this a proposal then? If so, can you move it to a section/subsection/whatever under an appropriate name? Just to keep things neat. LakesideMiners 18:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support: This sig is disrutptive, and the user refusing to change it desptie knowing AND admiting that it is a bad sig is just not okay at all. He has cleraly made some great contributions and it's sad that they would get blocked over this, but the sig can't stay how it is. Ivanvector Sums it up well as well. LakesideMiners 19:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I've also been baffled by WilliamJE's non-signature signature in the past, but have never been concerned enough to raise an issue. It meets the basic requirements, and personally I don't much care if editors have eclectic signatures, so long as they don't break things. However, it has been identified as disruptive by others on multiple occasions, and their "I know there's a problem and I don't care" attitude is incompatible with Misplaced Pages; it's pointy at least to make disruptive edits on purpose, if not meeting WP:NOTHERE. Many users have quotations in their signature but they are still rendered as obvious signatures, and there are some reasonable compromise suggestions above. I've pinged WilliamJE again because they have not edited this page since a tirade of personal attacks three days ago, and may not be aware they may be facing sanctions. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 18:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, I left a note on their talk page as well. LakesideMiners 18:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support per their message at the top of their talk page "I'm aware that my signature is confusing, and I don't care. I like it." Blocking is the only way to get them to change it.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think William should change his signature and that William is often uncivil. Nonetheless, I don't think William should be forced to change his signature, given our confusing guidelines, policy, quasi-policy, nor do I think he should be blocked for incivility, given our complete lack of consistency in enforcing civility, or even defining incivility.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry Bbb23 but "don't enforce WP:CIVIL because CIVIL is not consistently enforced" made me giggle. Levivich (inane chatter) 21:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support regretfully, noting that WilliamJE last engaged on this thread on 15 and has since been ignoring this thread despite several proposals/requests. I do hope WilliamJE fixes his signature and this unnecessary block does not get imposed. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I don't agree with Bbb23 above. It shouldn't need to be spelt out exactly in policy what is and isn't allowed in signatures, but editors should simply act when several people say in good faith that they find a signature confusing. I really don't get why people think of something as trivial as a signature on a web site such a part of their identity that they are willing to abandon simple courtesy by refusing to change it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support While Bbb23’s point about confused guidelines, capricious enforcement, and unclear definition are all obviously true, this is a straightforward case of someone doing something that makes the system work worse. Qwirkle (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment To block somebody because of their signature is such a total case of stupidity. You really can't read a sentence without thinking? Are any of you really here to build an encyclopedia or just dole out moronic sentences on people who have created 140 or so articles here and established the best golf recordkeeping there is anywhere? I guess it is the later if you really support this shit because that isn't helping WP but instead to satisfy some sick cravings some of you have. Someone explain how a block helps WP and not hurts? How does my signature disrupt anything? How does a block go against the policy that says they aren't to be punitive? Is my signature a violation of standing WP policy? We know what the answers to all of these are. This is a lynch mob (And lynch mobs need to be attacked to prevent their injustice, not passively resisted) and all of you should be ashamed of yourselves....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Somehow I don't think your inflammatory rhetoric is going to help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

You can't resist a lynch mob with nice words. What you have to do is make them squirm and become disgusted with what they are about ready to do. I will be surprised if anyone answers those questions I posed. Just like it is sure as anything that why even this started is act of retaliation for me starting this? Xray continues to harass editors and I get blocked for signing pages. What is wrong with that picture?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Starship.paint&type=revision&diff=941341480&oldid=941253630&diffmode=source ...... LakesideMiners 19:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, calling everyone here a lynch mob is not helping at all. LakesideMiners 20:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Any block would be preventative, not punitive, in that it would be lifted as soon as you change your signature to something that doesn't confuse people. Why are you being so fucking stubborn about such a trivial issue? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Why are you so upset about one sentence? How is my sentence harmful? Please tell me. As I pointed out below, with the example of Deepfriedokra, some of you are practicing a double standard around here. I bit my tongue above not to use the f word right back at you. I have never used it at my talk page ever. Check my talk page archives....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, we are telling you... thats what this whole thread is about. LakesideMiners 19:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

William, (I haven't pinged you because you are probably getting too many pings from this discussion) this discussion is about your signature. If someone raises User:Deepfriedokra's signature as a problem then I will comment in that discussion. I am not an administrator, like many of the people who have commented here, and if I have any bias then it is certainly towards non-administrators, rather than the reverse. Just change your signature when people say that it's confusing. Nobody in this discussion has criticised your article creation or your edits to golfing articles. Why is it so difficult for you to do so? Your stubbornness is far more disruptive than my exasperated use of the word "fucking". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• WilliamJE, this entire thread is filled with people saying why it is disruptive... Your personal attack are also a problem as well. 4/4 (if I am counting right, another editor is free to tell me if I miss counted, my math is always bad) of your posts to this thread contain Personal attacks. I would advice you read what Ivanvector said. LakesideMiners 19:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

How would this help wikipedia, WilliamJE?

By making it straightforward for others to communicate with you, instead of hiding your talk page.

By making it clear what is text, and what is signature. Your signature often looks like the last line in an unsigned post.

Qwirkle (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

My talk page isn't hidden. It is linked to. IF that's your basis for a block, why aren't you proposing it for Deepfriedokra whose talk page is hidden too. Because they are an administrator or are you practicing some form of double standard/hypocrisy?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

A misrepresentation -links can be hidden by mislabeling; an attempt to point the finger elsewhere; and a false dichotomy, all rolled into a personal attack? There oughta be some kinda barnstar for that. Qwirkle (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Your hypocrisy is showing unless you answer the question- IF that's your basis for a block, why aren't you proposing it for Deepfriedokra whose talk page is hidden too. Because they are an administrator or are you practicing some form of double standard/hypocrisy? You painted yourself into a corner....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. What is showing, in vivid technicolor, is that you appear to be unable to make sense of things except as dichotomies or insults. (Or both.) There are a nearly infinite number of reasons why someone might not propose blocking User:Deepfriedokra; you appear to be incapable of envisioning more than two, both meant to be insulting.

Of course, out of all this surfeit, this veritable pleonasm of possible explanations about why I, or anyone, for that matter, don’t block User:Deepfriedokra for having a sig that doesnt look like a sig the most likely and straightforward is that their sig does look like a sig. Look at it, gentle reader, on their talkpage. Looks like a sig, not a run-on from the body of text, don’t it? Qwirkle (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Qwirkle, just put a middle finger on a star, pointing at some random medical quack. LakesideMiners 19:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue as others have framed it, WilliamJE, is that your signature isn't clearly a signature, because of the ellipsis, the plain-name link to your userpage, and the following full sentence question rendered in the same typeface as the rest of the comment, followed by a floating timestamp without a username. When you sign, it appears as though you are appending a question directed to another user named William about the location of the complaints department. In the best case your signature forms a non-sequitur, and I do know of at least one editor who was indeffed because of injecting irrelevant lyrical works throughout serious discussions. But occasionally your signature coincidentally forms a coherent thought, as it has in your last comment here about Deepfriedokra's signature. A user not familiar with your signature could very easily read your last comment as an anonymous user expressing bewilderment at the supposed special treatment for Deepfriedokra as well as anger at the inconvenient location for filing complaints. I get that it might not look that way to you, but there are a whole bunch of users here who think it does, and they're (mostly kindly) asking you to correct it. That's all.

Oh, and that user I mentioned above who liked writing their poetry into deletion discussions was really indeffed because of their defensive personal attacks whenever someone expressed an issue with it. You're about to meet the same fate if you don't knock it the hell off. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 20:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, someone actually did that? LakesideMiners 20:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to gravedance, but yeah, true story. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 20:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support. It's never been the case that WP:Ignore all rules translates as "I can do whatever the hell I like"; if multiple people are telling you that you're being disruptive and you can't come up with any better answer than "I'm doing it for the lulz" (paraphrasing, but not by much), the problem is you not everyone else. If you want an actual policy-based reason, I point out one of the original policies which dates all the way back to when we only had three policies: "Don't be a dick". ‑ Iridescent 19:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support per my previous remarks^^^; If there's any general takeaway from this, it's that—as so, so often—it's not the original issue that encourages the community to act, but the subsequent behavior. ——SN54129 20:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support per what I said above.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I was not notified that I was being discussed here. I had received complaints about my signature under my former user name, and I always immediately (if grudgingly, I am human) addressed the issues. If you mouse over the "fried," it shows the link to my talk, just as mouse overing "Deep" shows the link to my user page, and the same over "okra" shows the link to my user rights status. (I think adminness is important in one's signature.) Each section is color-coded. It this arrangement, never before raised to me as a problem that I recollect, is a problem, please let me know on my talk page. I will change it to something more drab and more functional. Good day. -- Deepfriedokra 21:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

And, if I may be so bold, the signature of ——SN54129, two comments above mine, follows a similar pattern. Neither has a long string of superfluous text in the signature.-- Deepfriedokra 21:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

William, you have just pissed me off.-- Deepfriedokra 21:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. Nowhere has there been any suggestion that you would not change your signature (which I personally don't see a problem with) if asked to do so in good faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, what is pissing you off about the page? or is it just in general? LakesideMiners 22:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's the whole, "why don't you block DFO" nonsense. Plus the irresistible impulse to put a sentence after "wiliiam". The page? No, maybe the lack of a page/ping/semaphore. In general? I'm laughing at least one body part off that needs reduction anyway. Cheers, -- Deepfriedokra 22:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, ah, lol. LakesideMiners 22:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• On further reflection just change the (censored) thing. My sig follows a format used in Misplaced Pages:Signature tutorial. Alas, (censored) William, yours does not.-- Deepfriedokra 22:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: as it stands, there are 10 support votes(assuming Deepfriedokra's vote is a support) and 1 oppose. William, this is not looking good for you, we all want this to be over, I doubt anyone wants you blocked over something that is so easy to fix. Many people have given you suggestions on what you can do, I would advise you consider them.LakesideMiners 23:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Can everyone just calm the **** down? I assure you, William is feeling very threatened right now. We need to find a way to give him an out of this situation with dignity. Due to his stubbornness, William could very well be facing the end of his Misplaced Pages editing career, over something as trivial as his signature. Let me tell you, from personal experience, that the indefinite block will hurt. We prevent harm and resentment with reasoning, not threats. To the blocking admin - please impose a one-week block first, and see if we can solve the situation in that time. starship.paint (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint, that is what we are trying to do, hes not taking it. He has been given THREE ideas, he has not taken any of them, nor is he offering his own, I don't want him to be blocked, but he is being both uncivil when being asked nicely MANY times and is refusing to take any of the ideas on bord or offer his own. If you can get him to give his own suggestions, please, by all means do, just means this will be over quicker. LakesideMiners 01:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@LakesideMiners: - - I just have. For God's sake, admins, don't block first. starship.paint (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

​The editor has accused me of sockpuppeting and responded aggressively to editors who have asked him to change his signature. As I noted above, there is a WP:CIVIL issue with this editor, what's the "dignity" problem with changing a signature? I would change my signature in real life if people find it confusing. It's for the benefit of him and us. No body wants to block him but it's seems the only way to change his signature. If it was me, I would have changed it as soon as someone tells me that my confusing signature is confusing him. This editor is deliberately confusing us with his signature and he says at the top of his talk page that he doesn't care.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: - I have put the WP:CIVIL issue aside at the moment because I'm trying to put out the biggest fire which is the signature first. I understand why you, and others, are aggrieved. I ask that you also understand what I'm trying to do. starship.paint (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note as I said above, the comma next to his username is what makes most of this problem because it gives the impression that he is responding to someone called William. Please make sure that the comma problem be fixed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  @SharabSalam: - in the five examples I gave William, there is no comma in the first example, and all the rest of the examples do not feature a plaintext William. I trust that that should avert the confusion. starship.paint (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I wish William would handle this better, but I also wish people would take time to step back and acknowledge that it shouldn't be so difficult to figure out that a sentence that 1) contains wikilinks to a user page and a user talk page 2) does not logically flow with the preceding paragraph), and 3) is followed by a timestamp... is a signature. Lepricavark (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• (ec)Oppose The basis for this proposal is based on a sig that was functionally disrupting bots and whatnot. This sig is about annoyance. This really isn't about his signature anymore anyway, and this has spiraled wildly out of control. If someone want to make a proposal to block based on attitude, civility, battleground, gaming the system, etc., them make it. But I can't support a block over a dumb sig that isn't even in the top 50 of dumb sigs. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, I agree there is a problem, but this is not a way of handling it that is going to reflect well on the participants. Give peace a chance. Let Starship.paint see if they can work something out. · · · Peter Southwood : 05:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  Also, what Bison X said. Not only one person is being a jerk here.· · · Peter Southwood : 05:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood, who is the other one?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Those who are treating others unfairly, or in a way that they would justifiably resent if it was being done to themselves. It is not complicated. To identify whether you are being a jerk, read your comments as if they were addressed to yourself by the other person. · · · Peter Southwood : 10:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Pbsouthwood, yah, I think we all could do to tone it down a bit. Im hoping starship paints thing will resolve this all, WilliamJE, please read what others are telling you, we all want this to be over and resolved. LakesideMiners 13:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose WilliamJE's signature hardly rises to the level of disruption that would justify a block. (See also my !v under a different heading above) — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Not gonna predict the outcome of this proposal. It's just too bad that WilliamJE has chosen the stance he has. Anyways, ya'll can deal with the situation as ya'll see fit. GoodDay (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Mountain/molehill. Lugnuts 08:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Misplaced Pages's conventional system of posting and signatures is generally confusing – that's why WP:FLOW has been developed. William's signature doesn't seem significantly worse than many other users. For example, the OP has a solid triangle (▼) in their signature. This is not part of their user name and it's not clear why it's there or whether it has some function. I wasn't sure what William meant by his signature but I now observe that, on his user page, he explains it as a saying of his grandfather. As the phrase has sentimental value, it is natural that William would wish to keep it. If some bots have trouble with it then that's ok because they have no feelings. Just improve the bots' parsers. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  Andrew Davidson, we don't use flow on en.wiki? LakesideMiners 13:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  The imperative to improve talk pages still exists. The major anomaly is that, while the Visual Editor now works reasonably well for articles, it doesn't work at all on talk pages. This is a significant obstacle for new users and those who train them, such as myself. The WMF still wants to address this and the last major milestone seems to have been last year's report. As this is still a work-in-progress, we should not be imposing draconian penalties on adventurous editors who dare to differ on the details of our "Old Spanish customs". Andrew🐉(talk) 14:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Using a bazooka at a buzzing bee. William could have a better signature, but this is hardly an indef block offence.--Eostrix (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support This refusal to chose a signature that is easy to identify as such is just an example of William's battleground attitude. When I first came across his signature I couldn't find how to contact him at first and oddly sometimes the "on the roof" bit is not clickable as can be seen from his talk page but this may just be because I am already on his talk page. Just as a reminder he has been blocked 10 times since he has been on wikipedia for incivility, edit warring, hounding, disruption etc. I had a run-in with him about his behaviour at deletion sorting as did others who took it to AN and it took intervention by 2 admins to get him to agree to abide by the decision and new guidelines for sorting. I believe that due to the number of editors that have asked him to change his signature to make it easier to identify as per WP:SIGPROB and his refusal to discuss and find compromise shows a refusal to abide by WP:CONSENSUS and sadly a block seems to be the only path to go down. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I am not moved by the protestations that this particular signature is difficult to interpret, or otherwise not clearly a signature. It has links to userpage, user talk page and UTC formatted time. As is standard. There is a particular encroachment of entitlement here. I suspect that this isn't so much about the signature, as much as the refusal to submit. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Mr rnddude, but with a different conclusion. This editor has a long history of conflict due to aggressive and uncivil behaviour. They are unwilling to cooperate in even such a minor way as to modify their signature so it is clear that it is a signature. This is not a new development: they have behaved this way for a long time. The signature is confusing, and even with its length could easily be fixed, but they not only don't accomodate others, they deliberately brag about the problem they cause. The good of the encyclopedia needs to come in front of an editor's vanity, and that requires collaboration.Jacona (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose overly reactive. Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Are we really considering blocking and perhaps losing an editor who has been here for 13 years over a signature? It is not a standard signature but I'm baffled that the otherwise intelligent folks posting here are having such a hard time understanding it when it contains a) his name, b) a link to his user page and c) a link to his talk page. There are certainly more confusing signatures than his and I'm with Rhododendrites and Bbb23 who observed that the project has an uneven policy of addressing unusual signatures. Are we going to start seeing regular posts here about every signature that, say, contains emojis, nonstandard characters or anything different?

At this point, it seems like people are more irritated by William's refusal to change it when requested than they are by the signature itself which doesn't seem that confusing to me. This is a molehill that is being made into a mountain. Seriously, blocking a longtime editor, not for disruptive behavior, but because you don't care for their signature? It isn't offensive and garish. There are much more important problems to get yourself into a lather about and I can't believe this subject was brought to AN. This seems like a case when IAR would seem to apply to accommodate the simple preferences of a longtime editor. Liz 13:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It's precisely because of the editor-in-question's pig-headedness, that the block is being proposed. It's unfortunate that he chooses to further dig in his heals, with each 'support' posted in favour of his block. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I think sometimes we forget that other users are human beings and human beings (mostly) have feelings.Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose but Support - Conflicted, yeah. On one hand, I absolutely support insisting that people change disruptive signatures (up to and including a block if they refuse). The problem is we as a community have repeatedly failed to give WP:SIG any specifics about what constitutes a disruptive signatures. Even the line about distracting signatures says "some editors find that long formatting disrupts discourse on talk pages" - well, is that considered disruptive or not, if "some users" believe it? "Some users" think all sorts of things are disruptive. We seem to be operating according to a policy that does not itself have any teeth except in extreme scenarios (no timestamp, use of images, etc.), but rather turns into a jerk test administered by the ad hoc group confronting the user. We see in this very thread that many people have a bigger problem with his response to requests than with the signature itself. IMO it's not even in the top 30 most distracting signatures that I see on a semi-regular basis. Does that mean it's fine? Not necessarily, but it should be easier to determine if a signature is in line with our guidelines. How about redirecting this energy to better articulate what's not allowed in WP:SIG? Maybe "your signature should not include sentences or partial sentences that aren't part of your username" or something? — Rhododendrites \\ 15:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I would support doing that. I think depending on the outcome of this, might be worth to wait for this to clear up first as it is a hot issue right now. I do think that the WP:SIG guidelines are stupidly fucking vague. After this is all over, I think an RfC should be opened, regardless of the outcome of this, the guidelines do need to be updated.

• I have reviewed the quality and quantity of my posts in this thread and decided it’s something I’m proud of. - Levivich (lulz) 21:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  I too have reviewed the quality, and especially the quantity, of my posts in this thread and decided they're something I'm proud of. EEng 21:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note User currently being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Meetup- related MfD ban for WilliamJE --DBigXrayᗙ 08:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC Position by Round

I started a poll for an RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football#RfC Position by Round, The poll was about not having an over-use of statistics data, per WP:NOSTATS. I think I need an non-involved admin to review for a close. Much appreciated. Govvy (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so I asked on the project to unarchive the discussion which the bot went and archived too Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 129, However non of the admins that monitor the project haven't unarchived the poll. I was really hoping an admin could help with an unarchive, then read and close the poll so people can see. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Editnotice about well-intentioned proxy editing

• Shamsheer Vayalil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shamsheer Vayalil, somebody of whom I'd never heard until recently, is somebody's obsession. The user is blocked but the sockpuppets keep on coming. The current modus is to post a plea for assistance on the talk page of some innocent and unsuspecting user-person, pleading inexperience or lack of needed expertise: Could the addressee please make such-and-such an edit? (The plea is polite, and, taken out of context, inoffensive. The previous modus was to post to the world in general, whether on the article's talk page, at the Teahouse, or at the Help Desk.) The latest example I know of is this. There's a chronology of them in "Have you been asked for help here?", within Shamsheer Vayalil's talk page.

The blocked editor should be free to appeal against their block, not to waste other people's time. It's clear from this that the (deliberately hideous) warning that I posted at the top of Talk:Shamsheer_Vayalil, asking people to ignore these requests, isn't quite doing its job.

Would it be appropriate to add editnotices to Shamsheer_Vayalil and Talk:Shamsheer_Vayalil? (For the former: "If you have been asked to edit here..." For the latter: "If you have been asked to comment here...")

Misplaced Pages:Editnotice is a how-to rather than a whether-to guide. I'm unaccustomed to editnotices and don't know about unwritten conventions (if any), and when I look for editnotices all I see are humdrum reminders to use this or that spelling convention: rather different from what I think would be appropriate here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Given the ongoing disruption, semi-protection may be preferable as a resolution. Banner blindness (deliberate or not) works against most edit notices.

That aside, it is personally bizarre that we do not have a guideline of any sort regarding where and when edit notices are appropriate. I have generally declined them where there was not an obvious consensus on the talk page. --Izno (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but no. The people recently editing the article (and, for the most part, even its talk page) are established, well-intentioned editors. People like me. Semi-protection wouldn't help. I want to alert neutral, benevolent editors to the probability that, if they've been asked to edit, the request has come from an as-yet unidentified and unblocked sockpuppet of a blocked user and therefore from somebody they may wish to report but should otherwise ignore. -- Hoary (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I would just share my experience. I was asked for help on my user talk for a trivial issue on images, I checked the relevant images and decided to respond to the user on the article talk, which was when I became aware of this ongoing thread of asking help. I added myself to that list and since my reply was already drafted, I responded to the user on the article talk. My response has now been removed from the article talk but I am cool with it, since it had already served its purpose and the user had seen it.

I think an edit notice (Page notice) on the article with a link to the talk page thread is absolutely needed there, to inform the unsuspecting editors "who have been asked for help"--DBigXrayᗙ 07:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments here, DBigXray, and I'm sorry that you too have had your time wasted in this way. -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I would like to suggest that, instead of continually wasting the time (and ever-dwindling patience) of the people (like me) who have to now search for this user's (who claims to be a kid – I have my doubts) pattern every day, and that of the people he pesters before getting blocked, we block edits and account creation from at least Special:Contribs/223.230.128.0/18, for at least a month or three. There only seems to be one or two other editors in the range, who could hopefully get registered by exception, right? Note the talk page already has a notice at the top (not an edit notice). I would oppose granting of any appeal for at least a year (until there is some chance that they've acquired some maturity). —— 08:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Also, one of the incarnations started visiting other articles, making POINTy edits to other high-profile articles (they seem obsessed with billionaires in general), so article protection would not be a complete solution. —— 08:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think it's less much an interest in plutocrats in general than sensitivity to the most trivial perceived slight to Vayalil: that Vayalil's infobox lacks such-and-such that does appear in some other person's infobox. ¶ Incidentally, to see how ingratiating and time-wasting these sockpuppets can be, consider the interaction between sockpuppet "Alpha Rows" and (the of course innocent) Nick Moyes. -- Hoary (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I had recently posed this same idea (editnotices warning well-intentioned editors) at Consumers Distributing, where a very persistent spammer has been attacking the article for several years (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline) and has started pestering random extended-confirmed accounts to replace to their preferred version of the page, either by sandboxing it or by referring to an old revision that they like. Protection stops them from editing the page, but it doesn't stop the harassment. An editnotice wouldn't stop it either but at least, like someone else said, we've made an effort to inform their con targets before they inadvertently proxy for a banned editor. There hasn't been a lot of discussion at the article's talk page, it's not a very busy article, but the few comments that have been left support the idea. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• That's a very well thought-out editnotice, Ivanvector. I've proposed on Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil that we adapt it slightly and use it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yet another sockpuppet has pleaded for assistance. Nobody has opposed the idea of an editnotice, or even expressed any reservations about it (other than that it won't necessarily be effective), so on it will go. -- Hoary (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Copy cat username

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

Hi. User:Vaselineeeeeeee1 as copied my username in a direct slight due to his disruptive edits being reverted at Italians. Is there any action that can be taken against this account as having a dangerously close username to mine? Vaselineeeeeeee 15:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Related accounts?

I've blocked that account as a username violation, hard block. That said:

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

appears to be related to this. I don't see anything immediately problematic with this account other than apparently starting the second, impersonating account, but I suggest eyes be kept on them. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Sorry for closing the discussion early, my mistake! Thanks, Puddleglum 16:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Please note I also reported this at WP:UAA a few minutes before the editor made the above report, so that can be closed too. Both accounts pass WP:DUCK - the duck test - for being socks of Geronikolakis‎. I have filed an SPI. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RFPP

I counted 20 unanswered requests. An advance thank you to whoever helps out with it. Clovermoss (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done - albeit, not by me. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Thanks Widr, Ivanvector, GorillaWarfare, kingboyk, Muboshgu, Kosack and CambridgeBayWeather! Clovermoss (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy to help (with my one page protection)! Thanks for ringing the alarm. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: A question from a newbie at this game: I don't want to add WP:AIV and WP:RFPP permanently to my watchlists as my webmail would get utterly snowed under with edit alerts. However, is there any way to arrange a notification when one of the helper bots posts a backlog alert message to either one of those noticeboards? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Not that I know of, though perhaps other readers of this thread will have more clever ideas than I. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This may be better suited for Village Pump than here, but...maybe when the bot tags or untags the page as backlogged, have it also put a message on a /backlog subpage? Then people can watch the subpage to see if the bot is tagging/untagging the page, not every post to the page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Watchlist Category:Administrative backlog? —Cryptic 23:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Watchlisting categories works like that? Levivich (Talk) 00:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If you don't have "Hide categorization of pages" checked it does. —Cryptic 01:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think I've ever needed to watch a Category before. I'll give it a try, though. @C.Fred: that sounds like a clever solution, if the easier suggestion doesn't work. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Watchlisting categories is somewhat unreliable, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cryptic, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and C.Fred: I've never seen HelperBot add RFPP to the admin backlog, though. That's why I've manually made threads here every so often when the backlog reaches 15+ unanswered requests. Clovermoss (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a bot could report the backlog there (and elsewhere?) to WP:AN for a given combination of unanswered requests+old requests. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Full-protection of banned users' talk pages

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

I'm continuing the discussion at User talk:JIP#banned? because this is cluttering up talk page and causing unnecessary e-mail notifications. ミラP 17:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: I know you want to do as much adminny stuff as possible, but I really wouldn't've thought you'd want to draw any more attention to the issue than you've managed already. ——SN54129 17:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you mean continuining from there? I oppose full protection because it's reasonable that a non-admin editor might want to add/update notes about potential socking or discussion of future unban-requests prior to formally filing. I don't think those are activities that non-autoconfirmed editors would perform, so I'm not staking a position on semiprotection on this logic. DMacks (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@DMacks: These users are LTA who recieved lot of sock warnings too routine to be necessary. Also WP:DENY. ミラP 17:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The question was asked in general, I answered in general--as a standard specifically related to banned editors. The standard policy is quite clear that protection is allowed to prevent disruption regardless of what the baseline is for a certain type of page. DMacks (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Nothing to discuss, is there? The editor has undone the protection, not just on Eric's page but on all the others they've messed up today, and they've been rightly down wind of the shit storm that it's generated, on their talk page. Lessons learnt, I think. Cassianto 17:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

JIP, I'm concerned about your response to Gerda Arendt's question. When an admin is asked why they performed some admin action, "Because I was asked to" isn't a good answer. Admins get asked to do things all the time, but it's up to each admin to figure out if the request is valid. If you agree to perform the action, you own it per WP:ADMINACCT. I don't see any reason to be protecting banned users' talk pages, but can't get too excited about that either way. I'm more worried about not providing a useful response to a valid question. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

And you posted a similar comment here. Surely it's pretty obvious what you should do: either implement Misplaced Pages policy or, if you don't know what the policy is, nothing. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: To clarify, that was Roy Smith, not JIP? ——SN54129 18:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make it clear who "you" was. My message was meant as a continuation of Roy's message to JIP. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for clarifying! ——SN54129 18:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

JIP, you only undid the page protections that you performed today (13 of them), but there were 33 page protections done altogether. Could you please undo the other 20? Adding: Perhaps there were valid reasons for at least some of the others? We only protect when there's been abuse of some kind. Please explain. — Diannaa (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23, Black Kite, Cassianto, Diannaa, DMacks, Gerda Arendt, Levivich, Phil Bridger, RoySmith, SandyGeorgia, Serial Number 54129, and TonyBallioni: Background history: JarlaxleArtemis was banned from all WIkiMedia (as JIP capitalizes it) wikis in 2006. HJ Mitchell salted it on 26 July 2010 after it was deleted by Prodego six days earlier as "uneeded". After J Milburn accidentally created it and deleted it without salt, Reaper Eternal deleted it as G3 and salted. In December 2014, same happened with Drmies and Mike V before Guerillero salted it, which stayed that way until three months ago when WMF's Office account tagged it as "WMF-legal banned user" without full-protecting it. While J Milburn's mistake is trivial compared to this story, TTN, during her routing PROD/AFDing of non-notable articles on Dungeons and Dragons monsters and comic book characters, happened upon one article created by JA, and tagged it for deletion. These things usually send a notice to the creator of the article, but JA didn't need that notice sent to him because he was WMF-banned. That's why JIP used admin powers to delete the revision where TTN sent the notice. This happened again, so JIP went to the help desk asking for input, and after recieving positive feedback, went ahead with the salt. Four days later I asked JIP to do WhenDatHotlineBling and JIP complied. Afterwards I asked JIP to do every other WMF-banned user and JIP did so, without incident. After that I gave JIP a list of permabanned users to do - they are either users who are community banned, LTAs, users who must email Arbcom to get unblock or users who cannot edit own talk page. ミラP 01:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@ミラ: A bit of free advice... mass pings are terrible idea when you're in the hot seat. You gotta ask yourself if this is the hill you wanna die on? –MJL ‐Talk‐ 03:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

More like getting yourself sucked down by quicksand, I'd say. EEng 04:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, let me see if I have this straight. An admin went to the ==>HELP DESK???<== for advice on whether to indefinitely protect a pile of user talk pages? Someone needs to go back to admin school. (We do have an amin school, right?) EEng 04:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, "By appointment to their majesties of ArbCom". ——SN54129 08:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This explanation needs some explanation. The admin posted to the help desk, waited 3 measly hours, received no replies, so they replied to themself. This 'positive feedback' was apparently an edit by Miraclepine (ミラ), and this was taken as the go-ahead to fully protect the talk pages of all banned users? Grawp's talk page may be a nothing, but when it comes to the likes of Edgar181, Eric Corbett, and Jytdog, for example, I think this is really dodgy territory for reasons already explained. One of the users listed is actually a highly active sysop on another project. As for the logic of preemptively protecting talk pages of socks of banned users, I'm not really with that either. I could probably give a lot of examples of discussions I've had on the talk pages of socks of banned users. -- zzuuzz 10:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• This may be an inappropriate place to ask this, but the mention of JarlaxeAdams made me look at his userpage... Why is WMFOffice going around and replacing banned user templates (with LTA and links to ban discussions) with a notice that "Consistent with the Terms of Use, Til Eulenspiegel has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites." It's annoying because I don't recall anyone saying they could just replace the old notice about why the users were banned in the first place. Seems very... opaque. -- Rockstone 19:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  WMF Global bans supersede local bans. If globally banned users were ever to be unbanned by the WMF, then those pages could be restored to their community state. –xeno 01:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Rockstone35 and Xeno: FWIW User:INeverCry still has the community global ban and sockpuppetry tags with the WMF ban tag. ミラP 01:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

And looks like we now have another WMF-banned user's talk page to full-protect: User talk:জঙ্গলবাসী. JIP or anyone wanna protect that one? ミラP 00:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Miraclepine: User talk pages are generally not fully-protected unless there is a comepelling reason to do so. –xeno 01:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: After extensive discussion, I can't believe you are again requesting JIP to take an action that is not compliant with policy. You were already out of line, and now you double down? Be careful because you risk being blocked for your behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Per User:Bbb23, I will not protect talk pages of indefinitely blocked users unless there's a specific reason for it. Merely having been indefinitely blocked is not enough. JIP | Talk 01:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@JIP and Bbb23: Even if they're WMF-banned? Perhaps we need a WP:RFC to address this issue. ミラP 01:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to do something constructive instead of chasing a problem that doesn't exist. You also need to stop thinking of yourself as an administrator. I note that on your userpage you want to become one. I think that's highly unlikely based on your conduct to date.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, even if they're WMF-banned. The only reason I originally protected User talk:JarlaxleArtemis was because User:TTN was leaving deletion notices on it, when JarlaxleArtemis wasn't going to do anything about them, having been WMF-banned for thirteen years. WMF-banned users who aren't receiving deletion notices are no problem. Like I said, just having been blocked or banned is not enough to have the talk page protected. JIP | Talk 01:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Miraclepine - As may have said, user talk pages of blocked or banned users are only protected if required to enforce a ban or to prevent disruption. They are an extraordinary case, not the rule. Without looking at every page, I believe JIP's reversal of the page protections is in line with that. Is there any action being requested anymore? If there is something you think is still wrong here I'd be happy to take a look at it. Prodego 03:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23, JIP, Phil Bridger, Prodego, Serial Number 54129, Xeno, and Zzuuzz: No, not anymore. That said, I'm convinced full-protecting the UTPs of WMF-banned users does enforce the WMF-ban - because there's no point whatsoever in giving messages to people who can't even log in to accounts because they're globalled. On a little sidenote, should I get consent from Arbcom to have the sockpuppets of Edgar181 (who is already cbanned by a proposal by ToBeFree) globalled and/or to start a Meta-Wiki RFC on global-banning Edgar181? ミラP 17:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point that other users also use other users' talk pages. In reply to your side question, my answer would be "really? still?". Every admin who has spoken here has been raising little red flags. More helpfully I would point to the Global lock policy, and also the Global bans policy, which say please don't waste other people's time. -- zzuuzz 19:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, banned editors shouldn't be blocked from their own talkpage, let alone the page being protected. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no good reason to protect those pages: per Bbb23, it's "chasing a problem that doesn't exist". We have well-developed theory (WP:PROTECT) about when to protect pages and we don't need to go around inventing new reasons to protect unless they help solve concrete problems, which this doesn't. 2601:640:10D:A93F:7B21:62B7:1637:847E (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This isn't rocket science, we don't protect pages unless there is ongoing abuse warranting protection, and we virtually never protect talk pages, unless in extreme circumstances, period. If we do have to resort to the "nuclear option" of talk page protection, we implement the preventative measure that is necessary, which is usually short-term semi protection at most, and maybe EC if the issue is ongoing EC sockpuppetry. That is the community standard set on this administrator permission, as reflected by policy. It's unreal that Miraclepine, an established user, seems incapable of understanding this, in spite of it being repeatedly explained. ~Swarm~ 03:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's make it through the issue. Should I ask Miraclepine to file this immediate global ban request against Edgar181. Will it be possible to file it at RFC? 2600:6C4E:580:A:3DEF:F071:1D34:2CA7 (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's see here: Edgar181 demonstrated crosswiki long-term abuse of multiple accounts (enough to global all of his socks without a global ban), Edgar181 "has had fair opportunity to rectify any problems" in the 12 years he was sockpuppeting, and he and his socks have been blocked on three wikis and engaged in crosswiki votestacking, so he meets all the criteria for a global ban. That said, as a courtesy I'll let ArbCom know in advance that I am filing the global ban RFC on Meta. ミラP 14:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there's nothing else to do here (if necessary, an arbcom case can happen). An admin was wrong but gracefully recanted, the advice of the editor who influenced him also was mistaken (which I would consider to be in good faith). —PaleoNeonate – 10:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23, Black Kite, Cassianto, Diannaa, DMacks, Gerda Arendt, JIP, Levivich, PaleoNeonate, Phil Bridger, RoySmith, SandyGeorgia, Serial Number 54129, Swarm, TonyBallioni, and Zzuuzz: I think we're done here. I apologize for pushing my opinions a little too hard. I'll just let the talk pages of the WMF-banned users stay full-protected since they're of little consequence. ミラP 14:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but these mass pings are truly irritating. I'm not even sure what Talk pages are still locked. Please list them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) please don’t mass ping people for no reason. It’s disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and Miraclepine: You know the list of all users have been globally banned by the WMF. You should read this before you protect the talkpages. 2600:6C4E:580:A:3DEF:F071:1D34:2CA7 (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and TonyBallioni: Here. ミラP 15:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

That is NOT a list of Talk pages that are fully protected. Are you determined to be annoying, not to mention disruptive?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: could you tell me why I was pinged here and what feedback is needed from me? (First, please have a look at the message at the top of User talk:SandyGeorgia about why I don't appreciate being pinged unnecessarily.) Also, when pinging others to discussions, could you please avoid removing from edit summary the section where one can find the comment? I had to search the page to find where I was being pinged, which was just more clicking around. I explained my reasoning for disagreeing at Eric Corbett's page; if you need that, you can link to it without pinging me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Just wanted to tell everyone involved that the discussion is coming to a close. ミラP 15:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but this is an adminly decision well above my pay scale (had I wanted to be an admin, and have to follow the policies in these areas, I woulda years ago). As long as I can edit User talk:Eric Corbett and User talk:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (two editors who knew how to write and where attention from their talk page stalkers to some articles may be needed), I am not going to read this whole discussion, and I leave these discussions to those who follow the policies on such things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• User talk:JarlaxleArtemis
• User talk:WhenDatHotlineBling
• User talk:Timothy Usher
• User talk:Jaredgk2008
• User talk:Til Eulenspiegel
• User talk:Codex Sinaiticus
• User talk:Hasive
• User talk:Tokota
• User talk:Kompowiec2
• User talk:Cruks
• User talk:Wikinger
• User talk:Dijxtra2
• User talk:Meco
• User talk:INeverCry
• User talk:Rodhullandemu
• User talk:Billy Hathorn
• User talk:My Royal Young— Diannaa (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa and Bbb23: I'd say deprotect Rodhullandemu's UTP. RH&E is still active on Commons, while the others are LTA or WMF-banned, and WP:DENY applies to giving them notices related to their conduct (sockpuppetry and in BH's case, AFDing of articles of dubious notability and notices of fair use images orphaned because of WP:CCI/20110727).. ミラP 15:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

If I recall correctly (I may not) Rodhullandemu used his talk page to launch attacks on others; leave it protected. There was some such similar issue with Hathorn, but my memory fails. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: That's why we have the "view history" function on pages, provided the parts involved aren't deleted. ミラP 15:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

As you can see, I am now following this discussion, have explained why I don't appreciate the pings, and yet you're still pinging me. And you're still removing from your edit summaries the name of the section where I can locate the ping for response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this discussion is over. Can an admin close this? ミラP 16:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles that look like CSD candidates but aren't listed as such

Six Misplaced Pages articles (Erika Verzutti, Garyette Williams, Gustavo Costa Medeiros, Mitchell Way, Patrick Ferrell, and Yaduvanshi Ahirs) look like CSD candidates even though they are not listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Perhaps, the users might have mistakenly substituted a CSD template instead of transcluding it. The CSD notice had stayed on those six articles for months without any administrator being aware of them because they are not listed in the aforementioned category. Perhaps, administrators should review those six articles now to see whether speedy deletion is appropriate, and if not, revert to the last version prior to adding the CSD notice (for Garyette Williams, Gustavo Costa Medeiros, and Mitchell Way), or remove the CSD notice from the page (for Erika Verzutti, Patrick Ferrell, and Yaduvanshi Ahirs).

The following shows which registered users and IP addresses have added the CSD notice to the above six articles and at what time:

• Erika Verzutti: by Mdezember at 16:06, 6 March 2019
• Garyette Williams: by Aanuarif at 20:08, 17 October 2019
• Gustavo Costa Medeiros: by Dani.guimaraes at 17:48, 6 February 2019
• Mitchell Way: by Carolleehilton at 18:55, 28 January 2019
• Patrick Ferrell: by Dode222 at 16:37, 13 December 2019
• Yaduvanshi Ahirs: by 27.61.149.70 (IPv4 address) at 08:08, 26 October 2019

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Erika Verzutti - tagged as a G7 by the nominator, who said "the artist has asked me to remove the article". They were the only substantive editor at the time, and probably still are. I have removed the broken CSD tag - what do others think? Delete as a G7?
• Garyette Williams - deleted G7 by TonyBallioni
• Gustavo Costa Medeiros - probably non-notable, sent to AfD
• Mitchell Way - already AfD by Jo-Jo Eumerus
• Patrick Ferrell - has a claim of notability in playing in the NFL, but I can't find any evidence that he actually did (the one source doesn't say so) - no doubt someone more versed in American football can check this and AfD if that is the case
• Yaduvanshi Ahirs - speedy tag removed by Jo-Jo Eumerus, I agree

Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• As a followup, I believe there's some kind of poison pill that can be incorporated into a template to prevent it from being subst-ed. Perhaps that should be applied to CSD templates and other similar templates. In fact, when you think about it very few banner or tag templates used in article space should be substed, and the same also goes for many or most used on talk pages. EEng 01:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, I believe you're looking for Module:Unsubst (for a usage example, see Template:ISP) creffett (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  Just so long as the unsubst isn't looking for me. EEng 01:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Normal substitution can be prevented with Module:unsubst. This, however, was not a normal substitution problem. It looks to me like VE tried to convert between expanded wikitext, HTML, and back again, but lost the information about the template in the process. I haven't been able to exactly reproduce the result though. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Block review of COLONEL77

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

I have just indefinitely blocked User:COLONEL77 after consistently rude interactions with other editors and admitted account sharing. As a new admin, I am bringing the block here for others to review. Money emoji💵 23:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that User talk:COLONEL77#Warning spurred the block. Money emoji💵 23:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Surprised they survived this long. Good block. Slywriter (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree with Slywriter that it's a good block, especially on the account sharing alone. As far as I can tell, it goes as far back as March 2019. OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll offer an opinion as a new admin myself - then at least one of us can take some flak for our different approaches! My initial assessment (ignoring OKSierra's further link to past issues which caused an edit conflict, and I've not looked into) is that an indefinite block is not really justified. There is certainly evidence that one person (at least) on one occasion did access the account and use it to comment, though not completely as a 'role account' for an organisation, per WP:ROLE, as they were clearly a beginner trying to help a bit. I could not see any evidence of any admin challenging this matter, nor seeking an undertaking to prevent a further breach of our policies on shared accounts (e.g. with a stern warning of a full block if it happened again.) Similarly, the aggressive stance taken by this editor is certainly unacceptable, per WP:CIVIL. Their taking the moral high ground that they're volunteering their time here is rather amusing, as it fails to recognise that every one of us here is also volunteering their time, and some are having to waste it on sorting out this uncivil and overbearing editor. Their block log shows that Cullen328 blocked them for a month last December for copyright infringement; he firstly having made it indefinite, then changed it to 30 days. In your shoes I would probably take the opportunity now to go to their talk page as the blocking admin and either reduce it to a more appropriate length for a first offence - e.g. between a few days to a week, which provides a shot across the bows, whilst at the same time seeking a categorical assurance that they will change their account password so as to prevent shared access when they resume editing, AND an assurance that they will read WP:CIVIL and agree not take such an aggressive attitude with other editors again. Failure to change their approach when interacting with others would then lead to your much longer block. But then, I'm a big softy and like to see content creators do their best, providing they stick to our rules, which this editor clearly hasn't. Hopefully they might do in future, if they fully appreciate the red lines not to cross. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)  

If this is representative of their content work, then I don't see any reason to unblock. Their work was shoddy at best and their attitude was quite childish for someone purporting to be in their 70s. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Colonel has responded to the block on their talk page. A highlight is "was not any kind of joint effort as your idiotic emoji fool claimed" Money emoji💵 03:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The legal threat is another problem altogether. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It was a good block to begin with, but we should all thank the Colonel for conclusively removing any doubt. Levivich (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Money emoji, I endorse your block. Nick Moyes, you are a kind and generous person, which I think is a wonderful trait, but I do not see any hope of this person becoming a productive and collaborative editor. I made a click mistake when I indeffed him last December and changed that to a one month block one minute later. Since his unblock, he has been combative and insulting and presumptuous, and is insisting that his minor stylistic changes are 100% correct and that everyone else is wrong. He thinks that encyclopedia articles should be written like newspaper sports page write-ups. He disparages the encyclopedia. He admits sharing his password with his wife and allowing her to edit for him. And now, he is making legal threats. I have revoked talk page access and referred him to UTRS. Sorry to be the tough guy when I try to be the nice guy most of the time. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to concede that I was wrong about them, and that Money emoji's block was appropriate. Like Cullen328 - and thanks for your comments - I always try to WP:AGF to begin with. I have left the editor a farewell message. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Endorse block if editor is going to bring poor grammar and WP:OR (e.g. this revert of their edit) and, worst of all, attitude.—Bagumba (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Renaming of Chemical Articles

I would like to bring to light that User:Hoa112008 renamed several chemical articles without participating in any kind of discussion. These articles had been at their previous names for several years. This user was blocked on commons for renaming files in an inappropriate manner. Would it be possible for the chemical articles to be reverted back to their previous names? Noah 00:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hoa112008 (talk · contribs) I left a message at WT:WikiProject Chemicals#Renaming of chemical articles requesting their input. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing an issue for administrators here. The user renamed some articles on 10 Feb, some moves were then reversed by several people including me. They have not been repeated. So there is no big issue any more. Some of the renames seem sensible, so they were not necessarily bad. Nothing really to worry about. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact this occurred without any kind of discussion when these pages had been at their current titles for years is what alarmed me. He didn't let anyone know about what he was doing when some of these could be controversial. I'm glad that there isn't a large problem with all of these, but it is better to bring this here and be safe rather than sorry. Noah

Thank you for bringing this here. I'm the blocking admin on commons, and this editor has had multiple warnings about following process and also about licensing policies. Has some good edits, but possibly-substantial WP:CIR problems (too impulsive in the chemistry realm). DMacks (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh look:

• Hoa112008 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hoang1032006 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

DMacks (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is the editor's move log. It is a concern that Hoa112008 has never left a talk message, either here or on Commons. They should be warned or blocked if they make further undiscussed moves, or if they keep using both accounts. Their home wiki is probably the Vietnamese Misplaced Pages. EdJohnston (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the standard for somone to move pages could be elevated. Some competence demonstrated for example. A real user page. Demonstration that they can hold a civil conversation.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: Are you talking about making it a permission level for any kind of page moving? Noah 16:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Why stop with two accounts? Among others by eye at list of users, with similar behaviors on other wikis, are the stale:

• Hoa122008 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hoang42006 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

DMacks (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@DMacks:Are you suggesting that this may rise to the level of global locks with all of the cross-wiki issues? If they are all causing issues on various wikis, it is a serious problem to say the least. Noah 13:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The usage of more than one account seems innocuous so far -- the last two accounts mentioned by DMacks have made no edits since 2018. The problem could be inexperience or inattention. I left a message at User talk:Hoang1032006 asking them to limit themself to a single account. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

We'd need direct abuse on more than one wiki to go global. One of those stale accounts is indef'ed on commons, so there is a concern of evasion (though not on enwiki). The use of multiple accounts is disruptive even if not intentionally so because of the added effort in finding problematic edits that need to be undone, and tracking xwiki. DMacks (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the account Hoang42006 (talk · contribs) is the one that was indefinitely blocked on Commons as of April 26, 2019. (It was blocked for uploading nonfree files). The guy does not respond at all, and may eventually exhaust our patience. But the account that has continued to edit since this AN was filed is Hoa112008 (talk · contribs). Editors from the chemistry project might still want to keep an eye. At this point I am halfway to a block, especially if he won't communicate at all. His newbie status is wearing off fast. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Page move problem

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

Hi admins! I've come across an incorrect (technically incorrect) page move which is complicated and I don't have time today to investigate and correct it. There has been a long history of move requests over the title for our article about products which heat tobacco (and sometimes other herbs/chemical mixtures) to a temperature sufficient to vapourize or pyrolize (which word to use is also disputed) the products so that their medicinal/recreational (disputed) components can be inhaled/consumed (disputed) by a user, but which does not burn/ignite/combust (disputed) the herb/chemical (disputed). Apologies for the long, complicated description, but I was following all these discussions loosely and mean to illustrate the complexity and drama involved, and to illustrate that it was somewhat of a win for Misplaced Pages's consensus model that all of the discussions finally wrapped up last July, landing on the title Heat-not-burn product. It was thus moved to that title.

Today DrNicotiana has in good faith moved the article to a new title, Heated tobacco product, apparently with Doc James' support, but did not move the many talk page archives (which as of this edit start at Talk:Heat-not-burn product/Archive 1) and was unable to move the article over the redirect which already existed there. Now there's a redirect fronting the archives, and the article and talk page are dissociated. I intervened when they requested deletion of the redirect but that's as far as I can get into it today.

Will a willing administrator please move the article's talk page back to the original title where the archives live, or complete the complex move to "heated tobacco product" if you determine that's more appropriate? I think there are also a minefield of attribution notices which will need to be updated if so. Either way, please move protect the page; its history of moves and merges and splits and various discussions has made it so really only users who are experienced with complicated moves should be trying. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, this is DrNicotiana. Apologies for botching the move. Can someone else do it properly for me? The reason for the move is that "heated tobacco product" is the name used by the US FDA, US CDC, and WHO (e.g. https://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/prod_regulation/heated-tobacco-products/en/). "Heat not burn" is a potentially misleading marketing phrase because some of the products do burn some of the constituents. DrNicotiana (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the talk page back and move protected it. Regarding DrNicotiana's request, I think that in light of the history of move requests a new move request would be warranted, assuming that the argument wasn't already brought up in the past cases. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've correctly posted the move request and I will await the decision. thank you. DrNicotiana (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Redirect at AfD

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thomas Dickey is a redirect at AfD. I ask an experienced editor to look at it and close/move it to RfD if that's necessary (because I can imagine how it would be a good idea that editors specialising in redirects be the one to discuss a Redirect). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• ✗ Not done. Check the history (and read the AfD discussion); the reason this is at AfD rather than RfD is because it's an article that someone has overwritten with a redirect, and the discussion is regarding whether there's grounds to revert to the article. AfD is the correct place for this. ‑ Iridescent 08:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • To be fair, this is something that also happens at RfD (whether to "restore" article vs. whether to "redirect" at AfD). Either venue works due to the history, but to be technically correct, the article should be restored if it is to be at AfD (at least during the discussion). Since it's already at AfD, I see no reason to move it and I'd say the same if it were at RfD. -- Tavix 11:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Unblock appeal: DonSpencer1

Here's the exact verbiage of the unblock request: I am submitting my second unblock request after more than a year off of Misplaced Pages after my first request was deferred. I have spent my time since editing Wikimedia Commons in order to, as another editor put it, " sincerity and establish a track record of ongoing good edits." You can view my work here (1,000+ edits). I was blocked for using multiple accounts; for this I am truly sorry, and realize that it was highly immoral and unethical. In my previous unblock request I have disclosed all my accounts, they were reviewed by a group of editors, and I fielded a Q&A about my sock puppet activities. Indeed, to help out editors in a similar situation I have created the userbox "User former sock" to help remorseful sock-puppeteers get back on track on Wikimedia Commons. If I am allowed to edit Misplaced Pages again I plan on helping blocked editors on this platform as swell. My hope is, that with a little good faith from the community, I can become a productive and welcomed member of this great project. As I understand it, this request needs to move to WP:AN. As always, let me know if there is anything else I can do. DonSpencer1 (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The CU statement from zzuuzz is: Similar to the previous request, there is little for a checkuser to go on, but nothing currently jumps out, and in the absence of other evidence I would have to give it a tentative pass from a CU perspective. Also looking at the previous discussion, it is not clear whether there is private evidence, beyond IP addresses. I don't believe checkusers, or the blocking admin, have a supervote over any unblock, but they are entitled to disclose whether other people have the relevant information to make the decision. With this is mind, I'd suggest that User:Bbb23's opinion on this matter is again sought before taking it further, specifically on the question of whether the community has the relevant information to make the decision. Bbb23 concurred with it. had nothing to add.

There is further discussion at User talk:DonSpencer1#unblock discussion and User talk:DonSpencer1#Community Unblock. Since the editor is community-banned per WP:3X, their unblock needs to be appealed at AN. I hope my colleagues will give them a fair assessment. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I did not "concur"; I said I had "nothing to add".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  Alright, fixed. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm still uncertain of my viewpoint, I need to go have a more detailed look at their Commons work. In any case, it would be contingent on a single-account limitation. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't receive that ping for some reason, maybe it didn't work. Personally I have no objections to this type of unblock situation. Blocks can be cheap. -- zzuuzz 21:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Since the participation seems to be on the low side here, I do not have any objection to an unblock as well, given that I participated in this, I will not be closing this anymore. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• I think it would be fine to unblock per WP:ROPE, with the "must maintain only 1 account" restriction. They seem to have done all of the right things. --Jayron32 16:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with one account restriction per Jayron. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Cthomas3 appointed full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Cthomas3 (talk · contribs) has been confirmed as a full clerk, effective immediately.

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Cthomas3 appointed full clerk

Backlog at AIV

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

Some admin hands needed at wP:AIV. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 05:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Deceased wikipedian

User:Tsirel died last month (see User_talk:Tsirel#Your_problem, Talk:Boris_Tsirelson#Death, announcement); could an administrator do whatever protection etc. of his userpage as is appropriate in this case?

Also, not an administrative matter, but: I have tried and failed to create an archived copy of the death announcement from TAU using the Wayback Machine; is there someone who understands how these things work who could do it properly?

Thanks, JBL (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, it looks like archive.org was doing something the site didn't like. I saved a copy at archive.today for you here. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, May he rest in peace. I have protected his user page and added the deceased notice. Money emoji💵 16:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea and Money emoji: Thank you both very much with your assistance with this sad task. --JBL (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Boris Tsirelson was a famous mathematician who made mathematical news quite recently. An important math problem (Tsirelson's problem) that he proposed many years back was solved (pending review) a month or two ago. His death also made the news, at least in math circles. I had no idea that he had also been editing here on Misplaced Pages though (and it looks like he was quite active here). RIP. 2601:640:10D:A93F:7B21:62B7:1637:847E (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Some admin please remove his reviewer flag.--GZWDer (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Standard offer request by User:Krish!

--qedk (t 桜 c) 16:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Krish! is requesting unblock consideration per the Standard Offer. Their unblock request can be found at User talk:Krish!#Standard offer appeal. A while back, Krish! was part of a nucleus of strong editors of Indian entertainment content. That population has dwindled a bit in recent years. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ROPE. Their request seems sincere, and checks all of the standard unblock boxes. I have no problem letting them back into the fold. --Jayron32 16:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support as above. Seems they have matured since the block. Lets give them the chance to show they've changed. Many of their edits were very good and useful and if they have indeed matured then they'll be an asset to the project. Canterbury Tail talk 16:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• @Berean Hunter: any comments? And since this is a CU-block, {{Checkuser needed}} --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Berean Hunter and I are consulting and may not have a response until tomorrow as it's already getting late.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• No apparent socking seen and no objections on our end.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support, notwithstanding the need for a CU-check, all the usual boxes seem ticked - they seem calm and there's nothing problematic in their request. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per Nosebagbear, having read the appeal at the user page. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support, as long as a CU check comes back to say there has been no more socking. WP:ROPE. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 22:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Since Berean has no objections, and since Krish! has done a great, thoughtful job of acknowledging past problems and providing an assertion that the future will be better, I would like to welcome Krish! back. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support-- Now that the sock check has come back negative, I have no problems supporting this very excellent unblock request. Reyk _YO! 05:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Could someone revert this edit

Dirk Beetstra broke working archive links for no reason. I was going to revert this as "unhelpful, the links works and are relevant to the talk page, that scholaryoa got hijacked and now disallows archiving is irrelevant.", but I'm getting blocked by the blacklist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's because "scholarlyoa" is on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. You'd need to ask for unblacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals or whitelisting a specific link at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Proposed additions to Whitelist (web pages to unblock). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Admins can't bypass the blacklist? That's ... unexpected. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It might be unexpected, but it's nonetheless true. (It makes sense when one thinks about it, as otherwise it would be too easy to accidentally revert to a version containing a spam link.) ‑ Iridescent 08:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Well it could still throw a warning. Anyway, I'll be on the other forums I suppose. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to delete the problem revision? It might be described as 'non-contentious housekeeping'. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Headbomb, it appears that you didn't notify Beetstra of this thread.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Burma-shave-notice|aninotice|layout=horiozontal}}

--OhKayeSierra (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC) lol fail OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Burma-shave|When adding|big red walls of shame|adjust your rhyming|for {{pagename}}}} —Cryptic 13:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

beautiful. _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

That's the last time I try to do anything funny or witty before having coffee in the morning. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It's really annoying if admins can't bypass the filter. There are occasional reasons besides archiving to link to spam (or whatever) on purpose. Can stewards bypass the filter? Is one here? Also, BEANS. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

You can get around the filter. But, better to have it whitelisted if there is a good reason. I don't see a good reason here. O3000 (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

No one can override the spam blacklist directly, you would need to remove the entry or make the edit without the offending text match. If you think being able to bypass that blacklist is a good idea, feel free to leave a note at phab:T36928. — xaosflux 20:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The good reason to bypass the blacklist is to preserve the integrity of archived pages that got messed up, as happened here. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Any reason not to block this LA school range?

User:204.102.54.0/17 which is an LA school district, but every edit I've looked at is vandalism. I might have missed something though. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I generally block vandalism only school IP's ( ranges not so much). I allow account creation on the off chance that a constructive editor will emerge. Some people think that school ranges/IP's are ever flowing founts of constructive encyclopedia building. This is not always the case. One must judge on a case by case basis. What I have seen is a series of escalating blocks-- start small and increase the duration of blocks successively-- for the progressively recalcitrant.. Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious whether these people that think of (primary and secondary) school IPs as sources of constructive edits have actually met a bored middle-schooler in a computer class. _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Welp. I know I have.Deepfriedokra (talk)

A /17 blocks 32,000 addresses. Having said that, I see little likelihood of collateral damage.Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

When we do have to block schools, it should be for a short period; I suggest we normally escalate too drastically. The idea is discourage trouble-makers; they can't be stopped, for if they want to, they'll be able to edit from elsewhere.. From what I remember of pranks, a week will usually end the joke. I don't really think people that age are nastier now,and certainly not more persistent, in view of the greater diversity of opportunities.. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: General Sanctions for Coronavirus related articles

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

In light of the significant volume of disruption and edit wars occuring on Coronavirus and related articles, I am proposing that any articles related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak be subject to community-authorized discretionary sanctions and 1RR. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see the level of disruption applying to the whole category of articles rising to the level requiring general sanctions. Natureium (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Christopher Langan

• Christopher Langan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should community sanctions be imposed for this topic? It is covered by this Arbcom case but I don't think there are any discretionary sanctions. Sanctions might be premature but I do not see why established editors should have to waste time handling the several SPAs.

The article is mentioned in this BLPN report. The reporter is DrL who wrote "I am the wife of the subject of this bio" and "My husband kicked him out of our Facebook group 2 years ago and he has been hounding Chris ever since. He has set up Facebook and Patreon groups, using our brand, to mock him and divert our potential members". The original post has been partially redacted to remove what might have been outing. DrL has not been permitted to edit the article since Arbcom 2006.

Prior to 23 February 2020, the last edit at Talk:Christopher Langan was in October 2019. In the last five days, several SPAs have dominated Talk:Christopher Langan and made numerous edits to the article. The SPAs include 90.219.111.127 + 213.129.69.67 + 221.124.51.249 and the following users.

Questions

1. Should the article, its talk page, and all discussions regarding the topic be subject to community sanctions?
2. Should the editors named in the above table be restricted so they are unable to edit the article but can only comment constructively on the talk page?

Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support 1 + 2 as proposer. It is unacceptable that Misplaced Pages be used to continue an off-wiki battle between the subject and his detractors regardless of the WP:FRINGE nature of some content. It is also unacceptable that neutral editors should be tied up with SPAs on a mission that has obviously been coordinated off-wiki. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: This article is already covered under BLP discretionary sanctions, and arguably pseudoscience as well. I would suggest the strategy here is to alert the above-mentioned editors, and issue a page ban or partial block for anyone adding poorly-sourced content or other BLP violations. This can be done by any uninvolved administrator. – bradv🍁 06:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  I've just gone ahead and issued them all DS alerts for the BLP topic area. – bradv🍁 06:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I can't speak for the other individuals on your list, but I am certainly not part of any coordinated effort to attack Langan. DrL, who claims to be the wife of Langan and has been blocked from editing Langan's page in the past, has accused me of having a personal vendetta against him, despite the fact that I have never met or conversed with him.

Anyhow, I have no further plans to edit the page. Most of my edits have been to correct grammatical errors, with the only original contribution being to mention Ben Goertzel's criticisms of the CTMU. I hope my edits have been constructive. Thanks. EarlWhitehall (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it worth doing an SPI? I considered opening one myself yesterday but decided to wait a bit longer and see if anyone had any further thoughts. (I raised the issue at BLPN.) While these are probably just meatpuppets, it seems to me socking is easily possible. @EarlWhitehall: frankly your response raises significantly more concerns than it resolves. It's simply not plausible that you, who have never edited any other article before, would just happen to show up at the same time as a bunch of other editors to edit this obscure article, and only this article. The fact you would say such a thing suggests to me you shouldn't be editing anything related point blank. Not even talk pages. It's one thing to come here in response to some off-wiki discussion. It's quite another to claim it didn't happen. Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone with more experience will need to double check, but 213.129.69.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should probably be blocked as a webhost or colocation service, or maybe proxy. Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Where did I say that there was no off-Wiki discussion, or that I don't know any of the other editors? I didn't say either of those things, did I? Please stop putting words in my mouth. I simply said that there is no "coordinated effort to attack Langan". That is a true statement. EarlWhitehall (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@EarlWhitehall: I don't really give a damn about dumb semantics. You're just re-enforcing my view that you have no business being anywhere near the article. If you were honest from the beginning rather than playing around with dumb semantics, maybe I would have come to the view that you were here to create an encyclopaedia. When you play around with dumb semantics, you just prove my point you're not. Also, please learn to WP:Indent your posts. P.S. In case it escaped you attention, I purposely worded my initial response carefully since I recognised perhaps you were playing around with dumb semantics. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I am not playing any semantic games. I literally did not say the thing that you are accusing me of saying, so please calm down.

Oh, and I prefer to indent my posts so that they are level with the person I am responding to. But if that's an issue for you, then I can do it your way instead. I don't want to make you any angrier. EarlWhitehall (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not angry. I just recognise you're clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia by your decision to be intentionally misleading in how you arrived at the article. You therefore have no business being anywhere near this WP:BLP. And it's not my way. It's the communities way. Please read the page I linked for you. There is a reason why I linked it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Maybe you should just ask me why I came here. Doesn't that make more sense than inventing wild conspiracy theories? I mean, most of the people on that list above were opposing my suggested edits, so how in the world am I coordinating an attack against Langan with them? I came here with "Nigerian chess player" to correct some misleading information on Langan's page, and there was absolutely no malicious intent. EarlWhitehall (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

OMG. Community sanctions are mostly for topics like political controversies where lots of editors are battling, while I doubt many actually separate people are messing with the Langan article. So community sanctions don't seem warranted. But yes, please do very thorough sock checks. The history of this topic area is completely crazy. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support 2 but I'm going further in supporting a full topic ban for all except for Dr L who has at least honestly declared their connection. EarlWhitehall's responses have convinced me the others have no business being here. I'm not opposed to 1 but for the reasons outlined by BradV, I'm not sure if it's worth adding community sanctions for this area. Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Could you try not to let your emotions cloud your judgement? I understand that I have annoyed you somehow, but I don't think you should use that as an excuse to argue for my being blocked from editing the page.

Proposal

• Christopher Langan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is placed under indefinite Pending Changes.
• The following are topic-blocked from the article but allowed to edit Talk:

DrL (talk · contribs)

EarlWhitehall (talk · contribs)

Johnnyyiu (talk · contribs)

Mich.Szczesny (talk · contribs)

Nigerian chess player (talk · contribs)

ZenMechanics (talk · contribs)

• Disruptive use of Talk will lead to topic bans or sitewide blocks.

I think that covers it.

• Support as proposer. Guy (help!) 12:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) EarlWhitehall (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support Personal attack right above validates that at least one and likely all at here from an off-wiki area to cause disruption.(should I have removed that immediately as rpa?, Or better for an admin on this board to do so?) Slywriter (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Relax, sissy. It was just a joke. You need to get laid, bro. EarlWhitehall (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards