Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MaxSem (talk | contribs) at 19:38, 3 September 2015 (→AE block appeal by Collect: closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 366 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 14 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for closure review

(Initiated 11 days ago on 16 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 80 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 71 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Needs admin closure imho, due to its importance (guideline page), length (101kb), and questions about neutrality of the Rfc question and what it meant. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And in true Streisand effect fashion, this discussion, quiescent for six weeks, has some more responses again. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

{{doing}} voorts (talk/contributions) 23:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Oops; I put this in the wrong section. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 60 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

(Initiated 47 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727  13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727  22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

(Initiated 44 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Closed. Soni (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Check Your Fact

(Initiated 43 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

(Initiated 42 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC Indian numbering conventions

(Initiated 41 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Closed – Consensus seems clear, I don't think my Indian-ness poses a WP;COI here, closed. Soni (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of fictional countries set on Earth#RfC on threshold for inclusion

(Initiated 37 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 34 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (music)#RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands

(Initiated 18 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable closing a discussion on a guideline change this early. In any case, if the discussion continues as it has been, a formal closure won't be necessary. —Compassionate727  13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#List of Chalcolithic cultures of China

(Initiated 58 days ago on 30 October 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  15:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 17#List of Neverwinter Nights characters

(Initiated 58 days ago on 30 October 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Lu Tianna

(Initiated 54 days ago on 2 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  16:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Shen an calhar

(Initiated 54 days ago on 2 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  16:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21#unmentioned suikoden characters (episode 1: a-h)

(Initiated 43 days ago on 14 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  16:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21#Clock/calendar

(Initiated 43 days ago on 14 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  16:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 14#File:The badge of the Military Order of the Serpent.png

(Initiated 38 days ago on 19 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 November 27#File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg

(Initiated 29 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 2#File:Batman superman.PNG

(Initiated 24 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT

(Initiated 22 days ago on 5 December 2024) If there is consensus to do one of the history splitting operations but the closer needs help implementing it I would be willing to oblige. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 9#File:Golden Lion size.jpg

(Initiated 18 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 9#File:Ang Panday 1986 animated series.jpg

(Initiated 18 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  17:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 93 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 72 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla Cybercab#Proposed merge of Tesla Network into Tesla Cybercab

(Initiated 70 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better to leave that discussion be. There is no consensus one way or the other. I could close it as "no consensus," but I think it would be better to just leave it so that if there's ever anyone else who has a thought on the matter, they can comment in that discussion instead of needing to open a new one. —Compassionate727  14:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 59 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

(Initiated 51 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Move_review/Log/2024 November#Carousel (film)

(Initiated 49 days ago on 8 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 30 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 30 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done BusterD (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 2#Rafael de Orleans e Bragança

(Initiated 25 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

RfC closure review: Talk:Kosovo#Request for comment

I have started a closure review for Talk:Kosovo#Request for comment. The RfC was closed by Kingsindian (talk · contribs) on 5 August 2015 in response to an WP:ANRFC request. The close was hidden as a contested close by Red Slash (talk · contribs). There is discussion about the closure at Talk:Kosovo#Post RfC.

There is a re-closure request here at WP:ANRFC, where Red Slash wrote:

Administrators, is there any chance one of you could close this? A non-admin stepped into a really complicated RfC and kind of made a mess of closing it, and we really could use a full-on administrative close. Thank you.

But per the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review:

On the question of whether an RFC close by a non-admin can be summarily overturned by an admin, in most cases, no, and never if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin.

Kingsindian put a lot of thought into his close. His close should not be summarily overturned by an admin. Therefore, I am taking the close here for review by the community.

Cunard (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Kinsindian did a good job on the close. I say leave it the way he closed it. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is my version of events.

According to comments on the talk page, Red Slash thinks that my closure is vague and that it is a "supervote". I am not sure what he means by this. I explained my reasoning in detail, and my closure is unambiguous: consensus against option "#1" and consensus for option "#2 and #3", which I even clarified on the talk page. It is not a "supervote" in any form: I just assessed the consensus of a complicated discussion by looking at the arguments for all options, and determined that "#2 and #3" is the best (or the least bad).

As to the point about non-admin closure, my feeling is that Red Slash in not acquainted with policy here (especially since he asked for re-closure at WP:ANRFC instead of starting a closure review, as I advised on the talk page). As I explained to him before, there is nothing special in being an admin; any uninvolved editor can close RfCs, provided they explain themselves thoroughly. Please see WP:ANRFC (point 3). Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian I think you wrote a very detailed closing, and I want to ask before assuming, did you find any consensus in that RFC, or just something close to consensus but not actually consensus? AlbinoFerret 13:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: I am not sure exactly what you mean, perhaps my last paragraph in the RfC close is not as unambiguous as I think it is. I definitely found that the consensus is against option #1. For the rest of the options, option "#2 and #3" came the closest, and in my judgement, was close enough to be considered consensus. I clarified this on the talk page here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I am another editor closer. I have found when a 50/50 question in my mind arises to just as the person to make sure. While I personally would not have touched this RFC with a ten foot keyboard cable, its a good close. Since the sock issue was cleared up, I dont see why an editor couldnt have closed it.AlbinoFerret 14:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If I may be allowed to comment here, firstly - no disrespect to admins - but just as trained judges are not "superhumans", persons with admin status are not somehow better qualified to cast judgement than any third party uninvolved editors. I cannot help but think that the editor to request admin closure is using this track as a sneaky "appeal" because he personally disagrees with the decision of Kingsindian. Seeing the closing statement by Kingsindian, I see all the hallmarks of a good judge who read every comment and weighed through them to arrive at his rational conclusion. If he became an admin tomorrow I doubt he will have suddenly acquired new observation methods, we are all human beings. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Should we allow IPs and socks to file requests for arbitration enforcement?

Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement redirects to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests, which is a low-traffic page. Putting this proposal there would hardly generate sufficient discussion, let alone a reasonable consensus, so here I am. A couple of WP:AE requests against Collect have been filed recently by IPs: 20 August and 23 August. (The second link is just a diff, sorry. Unfortunately I can't give the most helpful kind of link, to a section, since there's an absurd number of recent requests against Collect, all with the same headers.) People have complained in the discussions:

• Floquenbeam, 20 August: "Wait, are we accepting AE reports from IP addresses now? I thought it said somewhere that we don't do that. If it doesn't, it should."
• Fyddlestix, 23 August: "This reporting-as-an-ip nonsense is incredibly petty and lame, and I think Collect is quite right to call for an SPI here. If the IP can be tied to another editor then that editor should obviously face some serious sanction."
• Chillum, 23 August: "This complaint also strikes me as being made in bad faith. The filer is clearly someone trying to evade scrutiny while attempting to seek action against another Wikipedian."

Neverthess, the requests have essentially been discussed in the normal way (then declined), which I believe is noticeboard creep and a waste of time. Of course there have also been earlier AE requests by IPs and new accounts — I think I blocked one of those for abuse of process myself once.

Proposal

We should make up our minds about the propriety or otherwise of non-autoconfirmed users (=IPs and less than four days old socks, I'm sorry, I meant to say new users) filing AE requests. I propose that we don't allow it, and that any user in good standing be encouraged to remove such requests. People should use their main account to complain about others. If indeed that main account isn't blocked; if it is, they shouldn't be posting at all. To believe that a user who genuinely doesn't have an established account would know the background of arbcom sanctions, would find their way to WP:AE, and would comply with the requirements and templates there, is AGF run mad. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

• Support as proposer. I'll add that IMO, if a request is filed by an account that is gaming the autoconfirmation requirements, or is otherwise an obvious sock (on this particular board it's not really that hard to tell), it shouldn't be removed, but the AE admins ought to decline and close it briskly. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC).
• Support While I suppose it is possible a new user would know enough about our proceses and how to find out if an editor is subject to AbrCom sanction it is so unlikely that any potential 'injustice' suffered by the 'new user' is far outweighed by the injustice of bad faith enforcement requests. The same can be said for IP editors although I have heard of, but never seen, a few long time editors who edit only as IPs. Those people have been around long enough to know that there are some things that IPs can not do. Again, the potential 'injustice' of not allowing IP reports is far outweighed by the actual injustice and potential harassment suffered by those who the anonymous report would be made. Jbh 11:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Additional comment. - Disagree with "...AE admins ought to decline and close it briskly" as per the recent AE ArbCom case this would be an Admin action and not easily reversed. If an out of process case is opened by an new user or IP it should be closed but that should not be a bar from an established editor filing an Enforcement request based on the same issue. Otherwise false false reports could be easily used to game the system. Jbh 11:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it absolutely shouldn't be a bar to an established editor filing an enforcement request based on the same issue. I didn't mean to suggest it should. Do you mean re-filing the same complaint would be a reversal of the admin action of declining it before, Jbhunley? I don't think so — it seems far-fetched to me. Certainly, if it was declined for the reason that the filer was not respectable, a refiling by a user in good standing wouldn't be a reversal of that decline. But, anyway, that was just a side comment of mine — not a part of my proposal. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: thank you for clearing that up. My concern was really just how closing/dismissing a request would be effected by section 4.1.5.1 Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate) of the recent ArbCom AE case. I am not familiar enough with the 'usual and customary practices' at AE to know how things would actually pan out but I think any new procedures should explicitly address the matter. Rationally I would guess that a procedural dismissal would not be an 'administrative judgement call' so 4.1.5.1 would not apply but I can see disputants claiming otherwise. Jbh 04:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support only when it's obvious that the IP is acting in bad faith. IP users are users and some people don't want to register accounts. If they make a good faith complaint, that should be treated as such. If it's not, close and dismiss it as a bad faith filing and sanction anyone else who tries to hold it against those named in the filing. If someone else involved in the dispute wants to refile under their account, that would be acceptable. Ravensfire (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I suggest a threshold of editing for at least 30 days and at least 100 edits before an IP can open an AE request, or something similar. Also, we shouldn't ignore the ubiquitous elephant in the room. ← If you don't know what that means, just ignore it. - MrX 13:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - although if an IP wants to comment or add evidence, I assume this would (and should) still be allowed. Regardless, if a registered user logs out just to file a request, that is the definition of evading scrutiny, thus shouldn't be allowed. As a safeguard, preventing all IPs is a reasonable step as the necessity of an unregistered editor needing to file doesn't exist...they can ask an admin to file or take action at ANI/AN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't pointless complains like the ones mentioned already covered by the AE rules? In that big red box at the top is the following line, "Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions." So wouldn't the vexatious complains qualify those requests to be rejected anyways? I have an issue with banning all IPs from filing with the Arbitration Committee. Some of them have been around a while, edit from static IPs, and are useful contributors. Should they not have the same avenues that registered editors have? Perhaps we should just change the "may" in that warning to "will" and be done with it. If you make a frivolous complain you will be blocked. But banning all IPs from using a part of the dispute resolution process seems a little harsh. --Stabila711 (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe the idea here is to keep the targets of anonymous complaints from having to answer them. If we say no new/IP editors can file complaints it short circuits the kind of crap Collect just had to go through because the presumption will be that anonymous complaints are not valid rather than the target being required to spend time and effort showing the complaint to be vexatious. The very few static IP contributors can add a note to their filing linking to their contribs. We can then use the oft miscited WP:IAR for what it was meant for - to keep big picture rules from hurting the encyclopedia - and let the request continue as an exception. Jbh 14:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I would support contribution restrictions much more than a blanket ban on all IPs. I like how the autoconfirmed restrictions are set up. IP exempt users on a TOR network have to have 90 days and 100 edits before they are autoconfirmed. Perhaps those same restrictions can be used for AE? --Stabila711 (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
      • There are a lot of things we could do by adding something like a 'voting rights' group or raising the bar for 'autoconfirmed' that would address more issues than just this. The problem is that it still depends on some static identifier (Read UserName) to grant/log those privilages to. IPs change - sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly and in some cases several people are editing from a single IP at the same time - so there is no way to track an editor without an account through IP changes so there is no way for them to build trust. Jbh 15:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as it would restrict filiers who are avoiding scrutiny. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly - IP editors are WP:HUMANs and not second-class users. We only restrict IP access or editing abilities on a page when there are clear patterns of abuse, and only then temporarily unless there's years of abuse. Two filings in a week is not an "absurd number" and does not warrant such extreme restrictions. Frivolous filings should be closed as such, not because of the account status of the user. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support If an IP or user is truly new to Misplaced Pages then they just do not know enough to make a valid case. If they somehow know enough about Misplaced Pages to make a valid case then it is likely they are hiding their identity through or evading a block through sock puppetry. Chillum 15:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support to prevent abuse of process and gaming the system by those who would avoid scrutiny.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - If a new user wants to file an AE, but are incapable of doing so themselves, they can always contact on the AE enforcers on their user talk pages, or, for that matter, pretty much anyone else, have that other individual look over the request for merit or lack of same, and, if they see fit, have the complaint taken care of in that way. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support It's the scrutiny aspect for me. AE is a heavy hammer. It shouldn't descend by anonymous denunciation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support While it should be obvious if an IP is acting in good faith, the examples Bishonen has provided indicate that some threshold is needed so that this process isn't misused to hound others via a throwaway account or IP.--MONGO 16:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Being able to edit as an IP can't be compared to being able to bring something to AE. Doug Weller (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support While one might dream up a plausible counterexample it is so rare that it isn't worth worrying about. In addition, a legitimate counterexample will know how to find ways to arrange for a filing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support No brainer. Lugnuts 17:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Support The only concern is that we may stop someone who has a real problem from solving it. But, getting an account is trivial or waiting four days, and if thats all that stands in the way, its a no brainer. AlbinoFerret 18:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment First, this same issue came up months ago with Gamergate controversy editors so it's not a situation limited to the current complaints. Secondly, reading the instructions for the page, it appears as though the procedures have been instituted and changed by the Arbitration Committee and I'm not sure a proposal on AN can be used to revise the filing procedures. Finally, I suggested that Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement not to be redirected and to have its own talk page a few months ago but since I was just a AC clerk, I had no authority to make this change. But I think AE warrants having its own talk page to discuss issues that emerge in enforcing arbitration decisions. Liz 21:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Regardless of the red tape needed to change procedure I find that arbcom is always open to the input of the consensus of the community. This discussion has value even if ANI does not have the authority to make this change(I have no idea if this is the case) because it will inform arbcom of the community's desire. Chillum 21:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• If this discussion results in consensus for the proposal, it should IMO be added to the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header as well as to the instructions in the editnotice (Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement). I know you're the arbcom Kremlinologist here, Liz; could you clarify where you see an implication that community consensus wouldn't be sufficient authority to modify the AE instructions? It's not strictly an arbitration page, as far as I'm concerned, and arbs rarely have any input into the business conducted there. A look at the history tab of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header (=the AE page instructions) shows editing it isn't restricted to arbs and clerks, the way some arbitration pages are. It would be civil to ask the committee first, no doubt, since this would be a big change and no mere copyedit, and maybe they'd like to pass a motion or something. Though, appearances sometimes to the contrary, I've always assumed they're no fonder of busywork than the rest of us. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC).

• P.S, speaking of the devil, an arbitrator can be seen supporting the proposal in this section, though I presume not as arbitrator. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC).

I've unredirected Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and left a note there, and the arb committee has been notified of this discussion via their email list. NE Ent 17:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

And it turns out it takes an Act of Committee to change to ... see notice below. NE Ent 22:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Supportper Bishonen. BMK (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WMF: You do not need to create an account to use any Wikimedia Site. . NE Ent 22:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Just pointing out the obvious, which should have occurred to even you: AE is not a "Misplaced Pages site", that would be Commons, Meta, Wikiquotes, another language's Misplaced Pages, Wikivoyage, stuff like that. AE is an area of this Misplaced Pages site, which IPs normally have access to unless the community or admins decide that IP editors should be barred, as happens everytime an article is semi-protected. Saying that IPs "cannot use" en.wiki because they can't access a specific part of it is exactly the equivalent of saying that a non-admin "cannot use" en.wiki because certain pages are fully protected. It's a bogus argument, as the suggested change does not violate the quoted WMF policy.BMK (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• You've also conveniently neglected to quote the end of the sentence "...except under rare circumstances." Clicking on the link provided explains what "rare circumstances" means:

  I thought I never needed an account to read or contribute! Under what circumstances would I need to register to read or contribute?

  You never need an account to read a public Wikimedia Site. And in most cases, you don't need an account to contribute to a Wikimedia Site. However, there are a few rare instances where you will need to register an account if you want to contribute. A local community of editors or contributors (for example, the English Misplaced Pages community or the Malay Wiktionary community) or the Wikimedia Foundation itself may decide to place temporary or permanent restrictions on what you can change. For example, a specific page may be temporarily restricted from editing to allow only experienced or administrative users because of vandalism or copyright concerns. You may also not upload content such as images or videos without being logged in because we need to verify that proper permissions have been obtained from the copyright holder (if the media is not already in the public domain) in order to post the content.

  So, there is no WMF policy restriction to this proposal. BMK (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support with suggested amendment IPs should be allowed to report at AE if they're involved in the situation related to the request and have made substantial edits in the topic area. IPs popping out of nowhere with no edits outside AE on the other hand... Brustopher (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • IPs popping out of nowhere with no edits outside are probably on a dynamic address anyway. The existing scary pink box at the top of the page says "Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions," which should be sufficient authorization for admins to deal with bogus IP complaints. On the other, what if an IP posts a totally righteous report after "the rule" goes into place? Are ya'll going to to ignore a AC violation because the reporter didn't have standing? NE Ent 02:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm very sorry to see that you've decided to return to your self-appointed position as contrarian and ombusdman-at-large, as it was rather nice when you had absented youtself from that role. BMK (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
      • In one of my more ridiculous moments, although, granted, given my history, it's hard to decide what goes higher and what lower on that list, I actually more or less presented the case of an individual who was the subject of an arbitration case because that individual chose not to do so herself, and added my material based on my e-mail exchanges with that person. I think it would always be possible to maybe add a comment, somewhere on the arb pages or in the box, to the effect of "if you find yourself unable to edit this page, there is a list of editors who would be willing to act as intermediaries and post evidence they consider reasonable and appropriate for inclusion that is conveyed to them by others through e-mail, provided, of course, if there are individuals who would be willing to do so, and I guess I might count myself as one of them. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is a good idea. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Assuming good faith is fine, but perpetual disruption from obviously tainted sources such as a throw-away account or IP proposing AE action is unhelpful. Knowing that an attack is being mounted on someone accused by an IP is corrosive for the community—if the accused needs to be taken to AE, someone in good standing will notice. IPs can't edit semiprotected pages and cannot vote in Arbcom elections, and the WMF don't care about arbitration so long as they don't have to do anything. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose We should make up our minds about the propriety or otherwise of non-autoconfirmed users. I've made up my mind, and I feel IPs are still just human beings behind a keyboard, and have as much "propriety" as anyone else. i.e. none. Shame on an experienced user allowing such wooly thinking even close to AN. Pedro :  Chat  20:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Pedro, that's a crudely misleading way of quoting a fragment of my sentence "We should make up our minds about the propriety or otherwise of non-autoconfirmed users (…) filing AE requests." Shame on you for pretending I've been putting the "propriety" of non-autoconfirmed users in question, whatever that might mean. You're a native speaker, I believe, so surely the syntax wasn't beyond you. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC).

• Oppose. You do not have to have an account to edit. IPs are already abused by the regulars and the admins, now they can't complain about it either? GregJackP Boomer! 20:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless the IP's are shown to be socks or some banned editor evading their block, then the case should be allowed IP user or not. Outright dis-allowing IP's to post, just because they're IP's is straight up ABF (again, with the exception previously mentioned being the exceptions!) KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No, that is not the proposal. IPs are welcome to post at AE—the proposal is to require that an AE request be started by a logged-in editor. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I read the proposal, and again, dis-allowing an IP to post just because they're IP's , anywhere on Misplaced Pages, even to open a case, except if they're socks or banned users is ABF KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support People who bring cases here should have something to lose if it is judged that the report is not in good faith. I'd restrict filing of cases to autoconfirmed users. Others can add their comments after the filing. Zero 12:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Piling on, for the many good reasons given above. It beggars belief that good-faith IPs would even know about WP:AE, let alone know the proper procedure for filing there. In any case, they can easily create an account, or let other people know, who can assist them in this. IPs are of course human, nobody is preventing them from writing content, this will simply reduce drama. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed, for the reasons outlined here: . There are, indeed, good faith editors who choose not to create accounts but have made useful and insightful comments at AE. I think there are about 3 of them. To my knowledge they've never initiated an AE thread. All the rest are people with accounts evading scrutiny. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - IP's creating anonymous AE requests clearly has more negatives then positives. This is not only matter of IP user rights, it is also matter of rights of accused editors who are being dragged to AE. Most obvious reason for such anonymous requests is filing party fearing a potential WP:BOOMERANG action.--Staberinde (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - The set of users who happen on one of the topics where an Arbitration remedy is in place, that would recognize a violation of the sanctions, that would know where to report said sanction, that were either newly registered accounts or IP editors with little edit history, that needed to file a new ArbEnforcement petition is so astronomically small compared to the overall set that I feel this rule is reasonable. I would seek one caviat that if the petitioning "editor" has a valid cause that we not close it because they didn't fill the Form 22-B cover in triplicate the right way. Hasteur (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - IPs should have their editing priviledges on Misplaced Pages severely curtailed, not enhanced. Guy1890 (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Because we really need to make these pesky IPs know they are second-class wikipedians. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Of course brand new users won't have a clue what AE is. Simple common sense should apply. Jusdafax 08:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion: IPs and socks

I realise now that although I support this personally, I should have pointed out that at Arbitration Enforcement we pointed out that "Arbitration enforcement (AE) is the noticeboard, set up by the Arbitration Committee and staffed by administrators, for editors to report suspected breaches of arbitration decisions. When enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators act as delegates of the Arbitration Committee and, in that role, they review the facts and, if necessary, take action." As it is an extension of ArbCom, it seems to me that we are the only ones in the end who can revised the instructions. Doug Weller (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Is there any reason to expect that Arbcom would not assent to a consensus here, assuming that one will be reached? - MrX 13:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That was my thought when I voted. I expected it would take Arb to make the change, but if a large enough showing is made, you would hope that Arb would see where the consensus was, as as agents for masses, would make the change, or at least hold a public vote on it. If it doesn't pass an Arb vote, we should be able to see who supports it and who doesn't, just as they can see who does here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That's what I would expect and hope. Doug Weller (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's an example of where an IP brought a successful case to AE (even though the IP was quickly blocked). I know for a fact that both the editor sanctioned and the topic area are the target of an off-wiki campaign and the IP was clearly a banned or blocked editor still able to reach out to AE successfully. Doug Weller (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Amendement request

I've requested the committee give AE its own talk page. NE Ent 22:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

In the extremely unlikely event that as an IP editor I should ever need to initiate a report at AE, I would expect to be able to so, unless the page was temporarily semi-protected due to ongoing vandalism, in which latter case I would hope to be able to submit a semi-protected edit request on the talk page as with any other semi-protected page. Presumably no confirmed editor would approve a frivolous talk page request. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Request to close AN/I sanction discussion

Could some foolhardy stalwart admin with a lot of patience and some time at their disposal take a look at closing "Hounding by Hijiri88"? The discussion has been open for 11 days, and there's been a request for closure for the past 4 days. I believe that the discussion is just spinning its wheels now, and numerous contributors on both sides of the proposed sanction have agreed that it's ripe for closure. BMK (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Please? Some sort of "decision," whether it is a decision on which sanctions to implement, or even one to seek a clearer consensus on which sanctions to implement, or, honestly, at this point, anything, would help a lot. Please? John Carter (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I though perhaps that we were waiting for most of the admins in the northern hemisphere to return from their vacations, but now I wonder if many of the most active admins were busy working on the OrangeMoody case (see below).I wish that AN/I had some way to tell if a thread had been perused by an admin, who did not think that a sanction was needed, or didn't want to spend the time evaluating the discussion, or for some other reason passed it by, as opposed to no admin looking in at it at all. Right now, the absence of a close tells the participants nothing about the status of the discussion except that it isn't closed, if there was some kind of check-off which showed that, say, 10 admins had passed on dealing with it, it would at least give everyone an idea about what was going on, and not that the thread was just being ignored. BMK (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Bribe being offered to the closer now. Bribe, not bride. Get your minds out of the gutter. I only offer brides to people who support some of my dreadful writing at FAC. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Blanking stale warnings from IP talk pages

Seeing stale warnings for edits they didn't make is confusing to IP users. I would like to use AutoWikiBrowser to blank the warnings from any IP talk pages with no warnings from 2014 or 2015. Notices regarding the identity off the users' ISPs would be preserved. I am posting here before starting this task to ensure that it has consensus. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Be sure to read the related essay, WP:OLDIP. Thanks. -- zzuuzz 19:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Since about 2010, I have been replacing the content of stale IP pages with an {{OW}} tag. This removes harsh and accusatory language, and leaves a minimal footprint and a clear message, while preserving (and pointing to) the edit history of the page for further information. This was actually approved as a bot task in a Village Pump discussion, but it has not been undertaken. bd2412 T 19:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/EllisBot is started. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

And withdrawn, since hundreds of exclusion rules are apparently required if this task were to be run in fully automatic mode. If I proceed using AWB, I will be careful to avoid the removal of open proxy, sockpuppet, and active block notices. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I frankly don't see why a bot can't be programmed to follow those rules. Surely we can generate a list of IP talk pages that meet the criteria for templating (long unused, long unblocked) and have a bot run through that list. bd2412 T 17:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this going to remove Shared IP address templates? That would not be a good thing. Doug Weller (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm leaving the Shared IP address templates, if any, intact. While there's no doubt that in principle a bot could be written for this task, I'm not the one to write it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody

This post is to inform the English Misplaced Pages editing community that the Checkuser team has identified a very large group of socks creating promotional articles, inserting promotional external links, and otherwise editing disruptively on this project. The investigation is named "Orangemoody" because this was the first sock identified.

During the course of this investigation, evidence has been identified that this group is editing for profit (i.e., that they are paid editors). Only a few of the accounts have made any disclosure related to paid editing, and those which did failed to make complete disclosures. The investigation began in early July. Many functionaries have participated in the investigation and identification of accounts, as well as the review of articles created by the accounts. The Community Advocacy department of the WMF is also an active participant, focusing on issues best addressed by WMF staff.

It is important to note that the 381 accounts identified in this investigation are only those that were editing from the end of April to early August. This reflects the time-limited availability of checkuser data. Many of the identified accounts were editing before that time, and the nature and quality of the edits suggests that this paid editing scheme had been in place for some time before it was fortuitously identified. The WMF in particular will continue its liaison with article subjects, and will be reviewing data to determine further steps that are not directly available to the community.

The socks

There are 381 socks currently being blocked as a result of this investigation. All of the socks are linked by both technical data and behavioural evidence. The list of socks has been posted at Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts. All of these blocks are checkuser blocks. They are being performed by EgressBot using a standardized block summary and user talk page template, so that reviewing administrators and editors will be able to identify that they are part of this group. A copy of the block summary and template is posted on the page listing the identified socks. Unblock requests can be brought to the attention of checkusers; this can be done by posting a link at the SPI talk page. It will take the blocking bot approximately an hour to complete all of the blocks; if for other behavioural reasons an administrator needs to block any of the accounts in the interim, the block will be superseded by the bot with the applicable summary and template. The same will apply to any accounts that have already been blocked.

The socks all exhibit at least one of the following behavioural traits:

• "Article creation" socks create articles in draft space or user space mainly based on submissions to Articles for creation that had been declined, or articles that had been added to article space and deleted as being too promotional. These articles do not give proper attribution to the original authors. There are occasional variations to this process. Most of the articles created in this way have been moved to article space; a few are still in draft or user space.
• "Helper" socks will usually complete a series of useless edits in order to be autoconfirmed. They then continue making gnoming-type edits that will periodically include the addition of spammy external links. Some of these socks also participate in Page Curation, and they will “mark reviewed” articles created by the other socks.
  • Examples of "useless edits" include adding {{italictitle}} or wiki-linking words like Asia and United States, or making minor formatting changes.
• The groups are not entirely distinct and some socks have acted as both article creators and helpers.

Paid editing

Early in the sockpuppetry investigation, it became apparent that several of the articles and the individual socks were tied to deletion discussions, OTRS comments, and complaints directed at specific administrators, where allegations of either demands for payment or complaints that articles were being deleted despite payment were made. The WMF Community Advocacy team were contacted, and User:Jalexander-WMF and User:Kalliope_(WMF) have both been directly involved in working with article subjects and complainants. The work being done by this socking group is unsolicited.

The editing pattern has been identified as follows:

• An AfC draft is declined, usually because of notability concerns or excessively promotional content. There are variations on this, including deletion of articles in article space for similar reasons.
• An Orangemoody sock begins work on the article, usually based on the original contributor’s content, and develops it sufficiently to prepare it for a move to article space
  • In some cases, the sock will create a redirect page with the article being redirected to another topic. Most of these redirects are very implausible
• External contact is made with the article subject and/or the original draft/article creator. An offer is made to publish the article in article space for a fee. The person making the contact will usually claim to be an experienced editor or administrator. The names of genuine editors and administrators are often used (for example, the names of administrators who have deleted related material), and this has been reported to this noticeboard in the past.
• Money is exchanged. The article is moved to article space. It will frequently be marked reviewed by another sock, sometimes with the addition of tags.
• Some time later the article subject or person who has paid for the article to be moved to mainspace is then contacted again and advised that, for a specific monthly fee ($30/month in examples that have been confirmed), the “editor” will continue to protect the article from vandalism and prevent its deletion, claiming that they had previously done that without charge.

The use of declined drafts (and in some cases deleted articles) to identify and approach potential clients is a new wrinkle in the way paid editing is being conducted. The return to demand further money to "protect" the article is also significant, and we do have examples of socks proceeding to request deletion of pages.

The articles

The list of articles created by the socks is located at Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles. This list is not considered complete; due to time constraints, there may be additional articles created by these socks that are not included here. Most articles relate to businesses, businesspeople, or “artists”.

Review of this list of articles reveals that the overwhelming majority of them would qualify for deletion under one or more speedy deletion criteria. In this specific case, however, in order to prevent article subjects from continued shakedowns by bad actors who are causing significant harm to the reputation of this project, the articles are all being deleted. It is important to break the cycle of payment demands, and to make it clear that the Misplaced Pages community, and not a small group of paid editor accounts, controls the content of this project. This mass deletion is without prejudice to recreation by experienced Wikipedians who believe that the subject is sufficiently notable for an article. We emphasize again that all indications are that the editing was not solicited by the article subjects.

Because so many of the articles contain unattributed material and/or copyvios, administrators are urged NOT to undelete articles or move them to userspace.

What the community can do to help

• Review the edits of the sock accounts for quality and for spam links, and make repairs as needed
• Review the edits of the sock accounts for any undeleted article creations. It may be appropriate to delete these articles as well
• Continue to be vigilant for allegations of similar schemes
• Review the list of deleted articles and consider creating new, well-sourced, independently written versions of articles about notable subjects. Some suggestions have been made at Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles
• A special OTRS queue, info-orangemoodywikipedia.org, has been set up. Please feel free to refer any complaints from article subjects to this email address. The English Misplaced Pages Volunteer Response Team will work with the subjects, and this queue will be monitored as well by WMF’s Community Advocacy team if further assistance is needed.
• Please be kind to the article subjects. They too are victims in this situation.

On behalf of the Functionary team, Risker (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Account are all blocked: . Chillum 23:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Bot has been de-botted and de-adminned. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

This is quite something. A big thanks to all involved in this. Sam Walton (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely hope the WMF can get enough evidence to refer the case to the proper authorities. I'm not a lawyer, but this should be criminal-level extortion. "Nice article you have here, would be a shame if anything happened to it..." Thanks a lot to all involved for their work, and I feel sorry for the people who suffered financial losses through this scheme. Huon (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Huon. Legal action would be ideal in sending a message to undisclosed paid editor sock networks that what they are doing is illegal and unethical. Can any functionaries confirm if this is connected to recent cases of impersonation as documented at WP:COIN? Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I can see --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Holy shit. Thank you to all involved in rooting out this abuse. I take it that the spam links can be blacklisted unconditionally? MER-C 00:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To quote the above: "Please be kind to the article subjects. They too are victims in this situation." I recommend reviewing each one individually as they may or may not be relevant to the article in which they are used. There is no reason to blacklist a link to an external site if it is a valid link to have in the article. We don't want to put the blackmail victims through any more frustration than necessary. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Difficult, twisted, complex case. My hat's off to those determined souls who hunted down further information, making connections, helping to lay out the pattern. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Just noting for procedural purposes that the limited-run adminbot task was advised to the bureaucrats' mailing list and the technical function of the bot was reviewed and approved by a Bot Approvals Group member prior to the run. –xeno 00:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur that I was wearing my BAG-hat when I reviewed and approved this prior to its run. MBisanz 00:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all crat's and BAG members involved for helping expedite the temporary flags for the bot run. It was all very timely and I was able to test and run without a hitch. Chillum 00:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked 300 plus in a few days marathon with WilliamH, so I have a pretty good idea how big this is. We did it manually with CU and behavioral analysis, this saves over a few dozen man-hours of grueling and thankless work. Good work. I would be shocked if the two groups weren't related, as there is only a few outfits prepared to do this scale of socking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes thanks to all those involved. Your work in much appreciated. Do we have plans to prevent this from happening again / spreading? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, we know that OrangeMoody was active on Upwork receiving paid editing contracts. These appear to be standard contracts, and not part of the particularly nasty process described above. I'm inclined to include them in the list anyway, if only because I can't know if there were any additional requirements per what has been outlined. Any thoughts on deleting these as well? - Bilby (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Bilby: The short answer is that it's complicated. The longer answer, that offers no help at this point other than to report and document, is that the source of this particular pattern of disruption has not been identified, only the network that we have found that they are actively using. I'm confident that most of the accounts "worked" for "Orangemoody," as we're calling the pattern. As the graph shows, most of the CU evidence is clearly within a defined system. However, it's also clear that there are some freelancers that worked on other Misplaced Pages-related contracts whose requirements and modus operandi are outside of "Orangemoody"'s. If it's not 100% their method, it doesn't clear or assuage them of guilt. Such accounts future accounts should be held to judgement by their own merits, I think. The pattern to be 100% "Orangemoody" is pretty darn clear with research. Keegan (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess my emphasis is that "Orangemoody" is just what we're calling the ring, the Orangemoody account is not "the sockmaster." Keegan (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That makes it a bit more complex. My assumption was that these accounts were part of a sockpuppet ring that was blocked largely based on CU and clear behavioural evidence. Therefore the (now blocked) account that was also active on Upwork was using socks (Arr4). If I understand this, some were socks and some were meatpuppets, and I can't assume that a given account was operating as part of a sockfarm. I'll go over my notes about the user in question and see what I can tie in, but in that case I can't regard their previous work as anything other than normal paid editing, and therefore is not covered in this action. Thankyou. - Bilby (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Think of a user like Arr4 as an exception rather than the rule, as I think I noted something similar for the same account during the investigation. As the graphic illustrated, most of the socks/meats are clearly within boundaries, but there a few that are not. Keegan (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wow, just.... wow. I too extend my thanks to all the functionaries and WMF people involved, and I would also urge WMF legal to strongly consider pressing charges is that is feasible. I feel as though we really need to draw a much harder line regarding paid editing, if not to totally ban it, at least to put some teeth into our disclosure requirements. I know that wouldn't have stopped this from happening, but no rule can stop someone who really wants to break it (I believe people are still being prosecuted for blackmail and running Ponzi schemes and so on, despite they're being illegal).I would really like to know if, in the opinion of the people involved in this investigation, you have the tools that you need to stop this from happening again. I believe Philippe mentioned a while back that when he was at AOL he had much better tools to deal with this kind of thing - what is preventing us from having those same kinds of tools, and what will it take to get them? BMK (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • User:Beyond My Ken if we ban the specific type of paid editing that takes place via Upworks and similar sites, Upworks states that they will take down all Misplaced Pages related jobs without us needing to ask individually. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Doc: That sounds like it would be a step forward, and doable. BMK (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Much of that was because AOL is an internet service provider -- they had access to more data than we do (e.g. addresses to send bills to), and had more resources than WMF Legal. At the very least, we can lobby for things like phab:T5233 and phab:T106930 from the Community Tech team. Further additions to blocking tools may require privacy trade-offs and modification of the privacy policy (e.g. requesting for MediaWiki to collect device IDs). MER-C 02:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• That's exactly correct, MER-C. AOL had a suite of tools we could never have, because we don't have/don't want/would refuse access to the level of data that they collected. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for the clarification - but is there anything that can be done to beef up the tools available, within the constraints acceptable to the WMF? BMK (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Remember, WP does not have a policy against paid editing. So, the only violation of WP policy here appears to be sockpuppeting. Correct? So, how many individuals have been identified as operating these sock accounts? Cla68 (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• We have a policy that has requirements for paid editing, requirements that I am pretty sure were not met. Chillum 01:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• (ecx2) The TOU requires complete disclosure from all paid editors, and it says right in the second paragraph of this report that only a small portion of them did that, so the others are all in violation of the terms of service. Please don't try to minimize what amounts to Misplaced Pages being used as a basis for extortion. You OK with that, Cla68, you good with Misplaced Pages being used to extort money from people? BMK (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Who was extorting money? All they said was that they would help keep the articles looking good for a fee. That's not extortion. Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Except this sock farm would actually seek the deletion of its own articles when clients didn't pay up. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• In principle we can't know how many actual humans were behind the 381 accounts. And even if there hadn't been any explicit policy violations, the kind of extortion this sockfarm was carrying out calls for an IAR block regardless. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Our rules are clear "These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." And yes many of them were broke. And yes some of us would have acted earlier if we would have had clearer/stronger rules in place.
• This user was clearly a paid editor months before this issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• COIN needs to get together and figure out a way to enforce disclosure or block the user in question. Arr4 had 3 different COIN threads about them but no action was ever taken until now. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Per Arr4's talk page, they are active on more than a few other Misplaced Pages sites. Has this information been sent over to them? While some of them have other policies related to paid editing, the extortion aspects would alarm most other sites. Ravensfire (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes I have come across a number of paid editors who work across multiple languages. Their is always so much to do here that I rarely get to other languages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• There are extensive violations of the TOU there. Frankly, disruptive sockpuppeting is the least of this person's problems. Lankiveil 02:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC).

This is, of course, the logical consequence of WMF wanting to have both a "registration not required" rule and a "no paid editing" rule. They really ought to pick one because trying to have both simply isn't tenable. It's not my intent to diminish the efforts of those who volunteered to track these folks down -- it's really appreciated -- but given the WMF's fantasy they can have it both ways it's ultimately a Sisyphean task. NE Ent 02:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

strongly not wearing WMF hat NE Ent, "registration not required" is an English Misplaced Pages community ideal, enshrined well before the Wikimedia Foundation was ever established. Wikis, in principle, are meant to be free and open for anyone to edit. If you think registration should be required to edit, I highly encourage you to start a request for comment and see how the community feels about the subject before pointing fingers. It's also a red herring because these articles and edits were largely created with accounts and took the time to meet all the requirements to become autoconfirmed on the tech side, and participated in the community enough to generally not be initially shut down. The only people to blame here are the actual ones behind the fraud/extortion/whatever. Keegan (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I have put together 6 ideas here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks to all those involved in this difficult task. Excellent work. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• In order for people to protect their anonymity and private details, they cannot disclose their paid affiliations. I notice that the TOU is posted in Wikimedia space, not WP space. Again, I'm not seeing any legal violations here. The only violation I'm seeing is running a massive sockfarm. Saying there was "extortion" is a gross exaggeration. Cla68 (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The WMF terms of use apply to all WMF properties, including Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this should be clear from the fact every time you edit you should see the "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use". And everytime you view a page, at least on the desktop site, you see "By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use".

The idea there wasn't exortion is just bizzare. Does Cla68 also believe that when criminal gangs ask for "protection" money to keep a business "safe" and causes damage to the property or persons involved when they don't pay up as an incentive for everyone to pay "protection" money aren't extorting the business?

Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, there's WP:PCD in WP space. --NeilN 13:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Nil Einne, it isn't extortion, because there is no negative consequences if the customers don't pay for the service. Their article gets deleted? Big deal. They are also free to edit the articles themselves, no one is stopping them. These sockpuppets were building articles that handn't previously existed. In other words, they were actually improving the 'pedia, but WP admins are now deleting them all! WP is one strange place to be trumpeting this investigation as some kind of huge victory. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

By definition, extortion is "a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion." Telling someone, "You have to pay me or this article gets deleted," very clearly fits that description. From the point of view of the person being told that, it's definitely a negative consequence. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Also note, their promises to prevent articles from being deleted do not seem to have worked out too well. Outright fraud? Choor monster (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW, it was a good job uncovering this sockfarm. Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That's clearly nonsense. Obviously many people think losing their article (or having it vandalised, although I'm not sure if there's any evidence OrangeMoody was carrying out vandalism to punish those who didn't pay) is a negative consequence, otherwise they wouldn't be paying the money. And whoever is doing the extortion is an idiot because they're asking for money for something which no one is going to pay, because not paying isn't liable to lead to any negative consequence (even though we know they did get paid, and this has been going on for long enough that it must have been worth it to them).

Frankly, I don't understand how anyone who has any resonable experience with wikipedia can say that. The reason why there is so much paid editing and businesses and sometimes even individuals wanting articles (or changes to their articles) is because many of them do in fact see wikipedia as a genuine big deal, and a good article can make a big difference to them.

Also, they couldn't simply edit the article. For starters, if they wanted to do so they would have to obey the TOU (which I hope you now understand is binding on everyone editing or using wikipedia, including you) which means they would have to declare who they are. Technically of course they've paid someone who was violating the TOU, but from what I've read, the person or people behind Orangemoody approached companies who didn't really have time to try and understand all that.

Which underlies the other point, declaring who they are is only the start, they then have to try to understand how to actually edit wikipedia, without getting in trouble for promotionally editing, NPOV violations etc, which isn't easy. In fact, once they had understood all that editing wikipedia entails, they'd probably realise they shouldn't edit the article at all, but simply make proposals to talk pages.

Which would then lead to the problem that some random small company making random suggestions will often be ignored since many volunteers won't be bothered dealing with that. And of course, they can't make suggestions when the article has already been deleted, or will be. They could try to stop it being deleted, but the request of the company isn't likely to stop the deletion in many cases, and similarly it would be difficult for them to get an undeletion. (Perhaps if they'd mentioned the extortion attempt stuff would have happened, the fact we only found out about this recently is as I said evidence of the success, since clearly enough people were confused and simply paying.)

They could make suggestions for a new article, but that entails a lot of work, for something which is likely to amount to nothing, because if getting changes to an existing article from a random small company is hard, getting a fresh article from volunteer efforts is often next to impossible.

To be honest, I'm not sure the relevance of having other options any way. If the mafia asks someone for protection money, the business could just suffer the consequences and try to rebuild. In much of the developed world, and even some parts of the developing world, they could hire a very expensive legal security firm to protect them. They could just go to the police and do their best to protect themselves. They have other options, but the protection money request is still nearly always an extortion attempt. Not that I'm saying the mafia analogy is perfect, for starters, although I mentioned it I'm not aware there was any neigbourly effect here, like OrangeMoody saying, look what happened to company Z when they didn't pay. Also there isn't really a comparison to the police etc, and the consequences, even if still negative are clearly far less hence why the protection money demands were far less. Still it doesn't mean it isn't extortion.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Kudos to the team that carried out this investigation. Beyond disbanding the culprits, a legal action deterrent would do the community a lot of good. —M@sssly 08:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Great work there. I would consider the work of the socks to come under extortion or trying to obtain money by false pretences - convincing editors that they need to pay to get articles up on Misplaced Pages. I had no idea that there was all this going on behind a discussion on my talk page. I wish I had... Peridon (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you to Risker and colleagues for the excellent post on this incident - it's really well written, and does a great job of explaining what's happened and what's going on. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• I have been looking through the accounts that have been blocked. Most seem like they could be socks, though I'm not sure that the edits of User:Arr4 fit the pattern. Most of the accounts I've looked at edit only English Misplaced Pages, and occasionally upload some images to Commons. Arr4 looks like they might have been caught in the crossfire. They have edits to a whole load of different wikis including Wikisource, Wikiquote and Wikibooks in languages like Bengali and Simple English and so on. I'm not saying the functionaries have necessarily made a mistake, but it just seems like this account might not be a sock to me. They could just be someone who happened to edit from the same public wifi or whatever and got caught in the crossfire. Could someone who did the CheckUsering take a look? It would be rather inconsiderate if a productive editor gets blocked by mistake. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The results for Arr4 were sanity-checked with a few checkusers, at least in part because it was a well-established account. Aside from the technical evidence, there is also interweaving of editing on several articles/topics of the socks. Risker (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    • User:Arr4 has a bunch of issues. They were noticed to be editing for pay back in Feb of 2015. They disclosed some of their paid editing. And we let them continue. They than requested an account move and fell of my radar. Other issues is they like to copy and paste from press releases. They were warned for it once. And then continued afterwards .Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Kudos to Risker and everyone involved with this case! Very impressive work. --Varnent (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Just joining with others above to thank the team, and to support legal action. Actual real world consequences for fraud and extortion for the perpetrators would hopefully change this landscape, something I'm not sure blocks and reproaches can do. Bishonen | talk 11:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC).
• I've long thought that NPP can be too easily gamed, this isn't the first time we have socks patrolling/reviewing new pages by other socks. I've made a preliminary suggestion to restrict patrol and page curation to reviewers/patrollers. Cenarium (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Technical question

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

Given what's been posted here, I thoroughly agree with the actions that have been taken. My only concern is technical: where did EgressBot get the list of users to block and tag? Did the checkuser(s) give the bot a list offline, or a list on a full-protected wikipage? I'm just afraid of hearing that it was an unprotected on-wiki list, for fear that someone would have vandalised it by adding or subtracting names. PS, the original version of this question may sound like I'm questioning the contents of the list. I'm not: this is solely a question about the provenance of the block-list from checkuser to bot. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I was supplied a list by the checkusers, the block summary, settings, and block message was all specified by them. All communication was private and off-wiki. Chillum 02:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Chillum is correct. The list of accounts to be blocked was developed solely by the checkuser team and included accounts that were both technically connected and edited within the rather narrow behavioural confines. Chillum was provided with the names of the accounts in advance; however, the list of accounts was also made available to all functionaries in advance (as a sanity check), and was posted onwiki on the LTA/Accounts page about 7 hours prior to the announcement and initiation of the blocks. I've compared the block log with the list provided to Chillum and the one posted onwiki, and it appears to be identical. All of the messages used were written by the checkuser team, the block settings were determined by the checkuser team, and the checkuser team facilitated the bot admin and flag process with the bureaucrats. Risker (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so you did the comparison: sounds fine. I wasn't attempting to ask how the names list was compiled, or anything like that. I was just wanting to be sure that the list of usernames caught by the checkusers was identical to the list of usernames blocked by the bots. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Taking down Upworks/Elance accounts

I have been in discussion with Upworks/Elance and they have agreed to take down accounts we feel are involved in undeclared paid editing (and have taken down a fair number on my request). Do we need a structured method to do this? Do we need a specific group of functionaries to help? Are we will to make an exception to WP:OUTING for Elance/Upwork accounts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We have long made exceptions to the outing policy (actually, it's not an exception, since the foundation policy includes this) to communicate the IPs of extremely disruptive users to their ISPs. So I think this is precedent for allow information to be shared with jobs boards to prevents editors from violating the TOS. Though permission to carry out this sort of communication should come from the foundation first. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• No. There are joejobs galore on there. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean User:Guerillero? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

People pretending to be other people. "Hi, my username on Misplaced Pages is Doc James. Let me edit your article!" Keegan (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course. But often links says X company is offering $300 for an article about Y and it was posted a week ago. Than an Elance account picks it up. And wow we have a new Misplaced Pages article on the subject that is promotional and created today by a brand new account that looks very experienced and does not disclose that they are paid. So what if the Elance account that picked it up called themselves Doc James. We would be dealing with the brand new account that created this new promotional article and might be tempted to run a check user on them. Especially if we find a half dozen other new accounts that edit just like them and picked up jobs using the same Elance account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Doc James: Connecting Misplaced Pages accounts to Elance/Fiver/etc accounts isn't as easy as you think. There has been more than one case where another person has used information scraped from a user's userpage/website/facebook/linkedin to pose as them. I can think of one case where a person was convinced that a connection between a freelance account and a Misplaced Pages account existed. When push came to shove CU evidence showed that the editor was lucky enough to have forgotten to update their userpage when they moved and was exonerated. This is why arbcom has such high standards for off wiki evidence. I am strongly opposed to relaxing our standards of outing or tasking anyone who has a bee in their bonnet about paid editing so that we can replay the Durova-!! affair. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You are not going to get what I described through impersonation. We more want to be able to give others a heads up that an article on subject X is likely going to be created soon because someone is paying for one on Elance.

I occasionally put these non articles on my watch list so I can than pick up the paid editor who creates it. They generally use throw away accounts. It is one account per job. Making them create new Elance accounts is more of a burden for them as often it takes a reputation before one can get a job their.

This is the same thing with "copy and paste" issues. One usually needs to think a little before accusing someone of plagiarism. A large portion of the time it is the other site that plagiarized from an older copy of us. This does not mean that we should not investigate these issues. Or tie one of our hands behind our backs when we do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it seems to me most people are thinking of this in the wrong way. AFAICT, this isn't a suggestion of taking action against editors here because of accounts on other sites. This appears to be solely a suggestion of taking action against accounts on other sites, when they appear to be doing stuff against our TOU (and therefore I guess the TOU of the other site). If someone on another site is pretending to be Doc James, closing that account isn't generally going to be harmful to the real Doc James, if anything it will be beneficial.

The only question is whether the account on the other site is really being used by someone who's violating the TOU here. Who they actually are doesn't matter so much. There is I guess some risk of inappropriate action. In particular, it's possible a rival or simply a troll will see an account on one of these sites accept a job, and come here and create or modify the article. People will assume this came from the account which accepted the job, and if there was no disclosure this would be a TOU violation.

Still, there may be ways we could minimise this, depending on the willingness of the other site and their policies. For example, we could wait a week or whatever before doing anything. If the person who accepted the jobs tell the client they completed it, either they lied to the client, or they were the one who edited here, so the site might be willing to close them. Another option although perhaps more controversial and more work for the other site (so less likely to get their cooperation), if the account on the other site has accepted and completed a wikipedia job before, if they claim the person who made the recent edits wasn't them, they could be asked to disclose privately to that other sites admins, what their wikipedia account is. The other site admins could then confirm that disclosure had taken place in the past here, and check via email here that the account here is really who they said they were on the other site.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If someone is pretending to be me on another site that is "impersonation". It is not allowed by our TOU per "These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud." or Upwork's TOU per "Any offer of illegal activity or services that would violate the intellectual property rights, copyrights or terms of service of another service, product or website. Content that is offensive or 'contains false or defamatory remarks." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Official company accounts

Maybe it is time we consider the German model of official company accounts that are verified and only allowed to comment on the talk pages? If we give corporations a clear method they can communicate with us than they may be less inclined to use the underworld services such as the above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

How would this change anything? The accounts here had no interest in following any of the community norms --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Companies are willing to turn to these sorts of entities as they are not clear how to engage properly. If we made it easier and clearer to engage properly less companies would turn to undisclosed paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

+1 --Prolineserver (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind also that for years now, any English Misplaced Pages user account named "Acme Widgets Inc." or similar has been instabanned under the user name policy (WP:CORPNAME) and told to come back with an account name like "GandalfTheGrey". The English Misplaced Pages has had over 100,000 businesses come here guilelessly, naively, openly, transparently, under their real names, only to teach them instantly that to edit here, you have to hide who you are, because everyone else is hiding, too. And year by year, it continues. Utter madness. Andreas JN466 16:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There are several predictable downsides:

1the undisclosed paid editing would be less; the promotional editing would not be. And when their promotional pages were deleted, they would complain we had deleted the advertisements that they had thought they were entitled to. They tend to think they own the page on their company now, and making such editing legitimate would be seen as confirming it.

2it would also discourage even such small amount of NPOV volunteer editing of such pages as we have, if the volunteers had to compete with paid editors.

3even more than at present, the volunteers who care about quality would spend their time rewriting the work of paid editors--doing the work for which other people are being paid. The amount of this already is quite discouraging.

It is none the less possible that the balance would be positive,and is worth considering. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You saw the part where the registered corporate account is only permitted on the talk page of the article, and not permitted to edit related content? That should limit the impact, and perhaps provide reasonable and more transparent communication with an organization that may have legitimate concerns about content. What occurs to me, though, is that a great deal of the paid editing relates to articles that don't exist until someone pays for them to be created, which would make this option pretty much impossible for the organizations that are most likely to engage paid editors. Risker (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This would be a lot better than the current scenario. If the PR manager at XYZ corp is allowed to identify (through OTRS maybe), use the talk page and submit a modified version of {{COI edit request}} for changes and/or requests that an autoconfirmed editor could act on there's a lot less incentive for them to hire a PR firm. This would also free up some time of the COIN volunteers to address the other nonsense that creeps up related to new articles. This may be a small step in reducing some of the problems, but a positive one nevertheless. —SpacemanSpiff 17:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

To make this even clearer. I am proposing that these account ONLY be allowed to comment on the talk pages of the article about them. They are not to comment at AfD or other places. They are also not to propose rewrites. They are to only point out grievous errors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd prefer we do something like this. –xeno 17:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• I would support official accounts with OTRS verification. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I've started an RfC on this issue. Mdann52 (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody?

I want to note that this fine discussion here is going to be swept up the by the archive bot fairly quickly. Might you folks want to have coordination take place at Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody? -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

While you are correct that discussion specific to Orangemoody accounts may best occur there, we have a significant amount of discussion about the general principles of undisclosed paid editing that isn't specific to this case, and in fact in some ways doesn't relate to this case at all. I suppose that could go somewhere else too, but every time we take these discussions to discrete locations, they wind up with the same people talking about the same things, and miss out on the broader perspective of the wider community. This discussion has been going on for less than 4 hours. I'd like to see it continue here, at least the bigger-picture issues. Risker (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

What to do about additional articles by Orangemoody socks

Nyttend stopped by my talk page to inquire what the expectations are for deleting further sock-created articles, and it is a good question. The functionaries as a group had a long and vigorous discussion about how to handle the ones that had been specifically identified during the course of the investigation, and the consensus (which involved about 18 very experienced administrators, which is a lot more than you'd ever see at an AfD) was to delete all of these articles that had been found. A few functionaries expressed concern about deleting a few of the articles where either (a) the subject was thought to be very likely to pass even enhanced notability criteria, or (b) where we could not locate the original article/draft that had led to the sock creation. The investigation was always intended to be a constrained one - we knew it would be impossible to reliably confirm the that socks that didn't edit within the narrow checkuser window were definitively linked to the larger group - and we knew that when we reached the point of checking what we could, we would be turning this over to the community for further action.

So now....the next steps are in the hands of the community. Based on the hard evidence that can be dug up with diligence without using checkuser data, we could locate prior versions of articles/drafts for about 90-95% of the articles that have been deleted; it takes some digging and admin tools to look at deleted pages, and a good deal of poking around in AfC and similar areas. My personal suggestion would be that if a prior version unrelated to a sock is identified, it is probably the best evidence that we will have that it is an example of undisclosed paid editing, and that the article subject is likely to have been contacted by this sock group. Myself, I would probably delete that type of article using the same basis that has led to the deletions today: that article subjects should not be asked to pay for articles or for their protection, and that the article is almost certainly at least a copyvio if it started off from someone else's unattributed draft. I'd suggest normal admin review of any articles to determine if they meet our currently existing speedy deletion criteria, even if that specific criterion isn't mentioned in the CSD request; admins do that all the time when CSD requests are posted. But maybe the community might want to have a discussion and determine if, for these specific articles that are from these specific socks, they want to just say "clean sweep, they can all go and start afresh for the notable subjects". It's not appropriate for me to make that decision alone, and to be truthful, I don't think it's even a call for the functionary team despite its many years of experience. This has to come from the community at large.

I'd urge the community to give serious consideration to deleting any article that they identify as being from an OM sock; we knew at the time we posted the list that it didn't include all of them because we did not go back and see what the accounts had done since we'd done the initial checks that put them on the list. We have identified quite a few examples of how the article subjects have been abused, and even on this noticeboard there have been multiple reports over the last few months of people assuming the identities of administrators and experienced users in order to leverage money out of hopeful article subjects/draft creators, many of whom will be unwilling to report what has happened to them. I'd be curious to understand how the community would be in a position to find out from the article subjects whether or not they were paying for the article about them; the team that worked on this specifically pushed that to WMF staff because we didn't feel it appropriate for Wikipedians (not even those of us who work with sensitive information all the time) to make that kind of contact. I don't know how you'll be sure that someone isn't getting told "see, we told you your article would be protected, and our rate has just doubled". But this is a decision for the community. We took this investigation as far as we could. Risker (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Convenience link — I declined a speedy deletion because I wasn't sure how to interpret the comments given up above, one saying basically "delete it all" and another "admins may delete these pages". Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's kind of a tough question. While I don't think any functionary is trying to wash their hands of this, as a group we probably invested 800+ hours into this investigation, and other things didn't get done; other parts of the project also need our attention. Nothing is left to do that absolutely requires our bits - we're confident that all the socks are confirmed socks and that the community can treat them as such. But we know we cannot *force* the community (or any individual editor/admin, for that matter) to follow precisely in our footsteps. Risker (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: that article can be speedy deleted as a copyright violation. It was take from Draft:The_Spent_Idols. At that point the code is taken and modified without attribution, violating CC By-SA 3.0. It was then used to probably extort poor User:Angel Spent, who originally wrote the draft. Keegan (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I have deleted it as a copyright violation. These accounts are not writing this stuff and therefore are not its authors. Other accounts are the authors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Before this was announced I took some time to look at some of the articles, and without fail they were either copyvios or unambiguous spam. Admins should feel free to delete any other articles created by the sockfarm where they meet CSD criteria; basically just business as usual. If you strike one that has originated from the sockfarm but doesn't obviously fit into any of the speedy deletion criteria then that's something we can discuss here. Lankiveil 05:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC).

What about this one Jerry_G._Blaivas? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There are about 20 articles, including this one, that I could not find the source through normal means of checking Draft or AfC. Intuition tells me that these articles were likely created in User:FooBar/sandbox space, which the ring watched CSDs for, and they grabbed content from there before deletion. The only way to check would be a database grep of all deleted userspace sandboxes for the key term, and that's not very feasible. Keegan (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Keegan. Due to the very high likelihood that it is a copy and paste of someone else's work I have deleted it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

What about Axel Von Schubert? MER-C 08:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That one was a copyvio of http://axelvonschubert.com/ and has been deleted as such. Lankiveil 10:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC).

• Review, check for bias, nuke the obvious spam, I would say. I note that one of the socks was active at the quackmungous Hippocrates Health Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he tried to whitewash criticism of their exploitative cancer quackery, so even if there are obviously notable subjects the content itself is likely to be problematic. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Koozai is an ongoing AfD for an article created by a user blocked last night as an OM sock. (I started the AfD before this all happened.) Feel free to take a look. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• I just went through the list and deleted what I thought was deletable according to our CSD criteria, marking the criterion or criteria that I think applied. I left Dion Johnson and one or two others that seemed salvageable to me. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• I noted that the article Enterprise Value Tax had not been deleted yet. After a quick look, it seemed sourced, so I started editing it for balance, but when I re-read the article it was obvious that, however many sources it had, it was a promotional article pushing one view of the tax (opposition, because it would hurt investment management firms). Because I don't think it's usual for us to have an article on a proposed change in the US tax code (of which they are many every year), I redirected it to Capital gains tax in the United States, but I really think it needs to be deleted instead, per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:PROMO. Over to you, admins, for possible deletion. BMK (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• A question: what should be done with the images uploaded by the socks? Many have been orphaned by the deletion of the page they were originally on, but only the fair use images have been automatically tagged for deletion. Some of the free images, like File:Como brothers band.jpg, are still out there. Altamel (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Speaking only for myself, I'm inclined to leave free-use images that are properly attributed and whose license has been verified. As is noted in the statement that starts this entire section, it's quite possible that article subjects are actually notable enough for an article; that will take some sorting by our community of editors. Therefore, it's possible that the properly attributed free images may be used. Again, just my own personal opinion. Risker (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Process question - the request not to usefy is a challenge

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

First, kudos on the awesome work done by the team. I think I have some sense of the enormous amount of work required to get us to this point as well as the logistical complications of organizing this effort.

I note the request not to undelete or userfy articles deleted as part of this investigation. This request is much tougher than it sounds. I routinely field requests for restoration of a deleted article. I always check to make sure that it wasn't deleted as a copyright violation, attack page, or office action, but I am generally pretty lenient when it comes to giving people another chance to create a good article.

While I may remember to check the article name against the list of deleted articles over the next few days, it is not a reasonable process to expect an admin responding to a request for userfication to check against that list forever. I had hoped the deletion log would identify the deletion as a G5, but I looked at two on the list and did not see that. I have userfied articles which were deleted under G5 but I normally do some checking to make sure I understand what's going on.

For example, if someone requests a restoration of Eddie Gear a few weeks from now, I don't see anything on the deletion log which would suggest to me that it should not be restored. Again, in the short term, it might occur to me to check this list, but a month from now that won't occur to me. Plus, it is an unreasonable process step to expect someone to do the normal process and then also check against some list every single time.

Would it be possible for a bot to go and mark all of these as deleted under G5? When I'm asked to restore an article that was deleted under G5 I do a little bit more homework, but if I simply see that it was deleted as an A7, there's nothing to suggest that it shouldn't be restored.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Good question, Sphilbrick. This is one of the articles that was deleted before we closed the case (we did not interfere with any community-based processes that occurred while the investigation was occurring), and thus does not have the "standardized" deletion summary of Speedy deletion per Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles without prejudice to recreation. Administrators: please read the LTA page before undeleting. Perhaps that should be added? Open to the thinking of others on how to address this. It applies to 38 pages; the other 210 have that summary. Risker (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. I guess I got lucky (or unlucky depending on your point of view) in my random selection of articles to check. The fact that 210 have summary will certainly be a heads up for me to review those cases. If there is a way to add that note to the other 38 it would be helpful. I fully understand there are a lot of things still going on so this doesn't constitute a high priority but it would be helpful if it's relatively easy to do.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It would take a willing administrator to undelete the page, and then redelete with the standard summary; lather, rinse and repeat x38 times. Probably about an hour's work, all told. The previous deletion summary would remain in the page's deletion logs, so that information would not be lost. I'm not in a position to do it today, but perhaps there is a cheerful volunteer who can pitch in. Risker (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken Twinkle batch undelete and subsequent batch delete could be used for this and it could be completed in a couple of minutes, if the list (and only that list) of 38 articles is in one page.—SpacemanSpiff 15:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done. T. Canens (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Didn't see that Timotheus had already done it. I did it also so now it is there twice. -- GB fan 16:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Good work, guys! 2601:84:8A00:DA6B:1C30:E280:1C61:7266 (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Example

There is absolutely zero reason why anyone who isn't autoconfirmed needs to edit User:Example or User talk:Example. The amount of vandalism and test posts from new users isn't large, but it is steady and there is absolutely zero advantage to the encyclopedia to allowing it to happen at all, and the posts are highly visible because so many pages link to these two example pages. So before I go to the effort of posting an RfC, could we please just decide to indefinitely semi-protect the pages? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• User:Example is already semi-protected. As for the talk page, I don't see why not that can't be semi-protected as well. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done. Semi-protecting the talk page seems eminently logical and uncontroversial. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Not sure about this. I would rather someone vandalized there than on an article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC).
    
    • What makes you think that a vandal is going to hit that one page and stop? "Whew, I'm glad I got that out of my system!" BMK (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, although if they're caught early a surprising number either stop after a warning or get blocked after 4-6 edits. If some of those are wasted on User:Example, there's that much less damage elsewhere. GoldenRing (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Student editors

There seem to be a lot of students registering accounts just now, it being that time of year, and quite a few seem to be of the form 123456Luke (not a real example) and have links to the course they're involved in. Am I right in thinking the number is their student ID number? If so, is there some way we could point out the inadvisability of disclosing this sort of personal information when they are creating the account? GoldenRing (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• A lot of them are also using their real names which is probably not a good idea. I think this falls more on the instructor who probably told them what to use as their account name. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• As may be. Is there some established channel of communication with educators? GoldenRing (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There are the various education noticeboards Misplaced Pages:Education noticeboard and Misplaced Pages:Education noticeboard/Incidents although they are somewhat dead. Still, they may be useful in trying to identify who's in charge of these and if they have any wikipedia contact. Nil Einne (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I've left a note at Misplaced Pages:Education noticeboard. I hope someone sees it. GoldenRing (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If you email me the usernames, I'll see if I can track down the teacher and communicate with him. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: If the class page is already set up would it be appropriate to just post on the instructor's user page regarding the use of real names? For example, this one is already set up and ready to go and it looks like almost every student is using their real name. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine if they are already "in the system". I think it's important for instructors to communicate to students that the attachment of their name to their on-wiki work is permanent less a name change. I know from my OTRS work that a lot of people freak when they figure that part out. I'm more concerned about the possibility of students using their ID number in their username. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't kept a list. But I'll see what I can dig up. GoldenRing (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Bad news. There are over 5,500 users registered since the start of August with usernames that match the regexp '^*{5,8}*$' ie they have some text, a number between 5 and 8 digits long, and then some more text (both sections of text being optional). Some of these are obviously not student names & numbers, but a fair number could be. I guess it'd be possible to query their user pages through the API to find out if they have a link to a wiki ed project page on their user pages, but it might take me a while to sort out. GoldenRing (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We always try to put good username advice in front of instructors and student editors before they get started, but it's pretty much inevitable that many of them will use identifiable usernames anyway. Here's the the advice we give to instructors in the training they go through before they set up a course: Misplaced Pages:Training/For educators/Creating accounts. That said, if anyone becomes aware of a specific case where a student editor runs into trouble or gets harassed because their username led someone to their real identity, please let me or another Wiki Ed staff know! That's something we'll take very seriously.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

As Sage (Wiki Ed) mentioned, the educator training has a page addressing usernames. The training for student editors also links to the username policy and suggests consideration of anonymity. There's also a mention of the same in the Instructor Basics brochure. Instructors and students who work with the Wiki Education Foundation generally go through the training and receive advice about usernames.

Of course, it still happens that students use their real name or personally identifying information. In some cases, no amount of warnings short of an absolute requirement will deter some students from doing so. Other times, they might skip the training or they may create an account before going through the training and then not know how to change it. I think there's an opportunity in the course page timeline we should explore, adding a little more information or advice about usernames (for the part of the timeline I'm referring to, see the first week of this random class).

In general, I'd say the best practice is to reach out to the instructor directly. Feel free to reach out to Wiki Ed staff, too (especially if it happens that, for example, an instructor is requiring students to use their real name or if there's an unusually high portion of the class doing so).

I think it would be a good idea to avoid this kind of message as much as possible, though. As helpful and well-intentioned as it is, it creates a connection between the username and specific personally identifying information that many people would not otherwise have figured out. In fact, it may be best to keep mention of specific names and interpretation of their usernames off-wiki as much as possible.

Always good to see conversations looking out for student editors. Thanks for voicing your concerns. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sage (Wiki Ed): @Ryan (Wiki Ed): Thanks for your response. I'm glad to know someone has done something about this. It seems the message is not getting through, though. As I said above, there are about 5,500 users registered since the start of August that match a basic 'Name + numerical ID' pattern. Eyeballing these, quite a few look plausibly like they are names and some sort of ID number. Give me a couple of days and I'll come up with a list of ones that are reasonably certain. I don't think it will be a short list, but I'm not certain yet. GoldenRing (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

So what exactly is wrong with being open about who you are on Misplaced Pages? I am and always have been. This is the norm in academia. When one pushes something they put their name behind it. In fact it is expected and we are the outballs out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

My concern was not so much with people using their real names (which obviously many do) as using their real names, connecting it to their course and revealing what seems very obviously their student ID number. Given some of the lowlife we encounter around here, it's not hard to see someone, after a particularly nasty dispute, calling the school with, Hi, it's Luke Martin here, student number 123456 — I'd like to make some changes to my enrollment... GoldenRing (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It is also problematic that these students probably didn't have a choice as to their usernames. The instructors probably told them what to use (whether that was their real name or their student IDs) in order to make it easier for them to identify a particular student. People who use their real name by choice are not a problem. People who use their identifying characteristics because they are told to do so by a third party without regards for their own privacy is where it starts to be a problem. Students should be aware that any post made on Misplaced Pages is permanent and will remain in edit histories (unless specifically deleted by a revdel or an oversight). Those that made their accounts using their real names (or IDs) because their instructor told them to should be informed of this so they can make an informed decision. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

While you may be able to infer that a known student editor's username of could be based on a student id and name, it assumes too much to say that any username that fits that regex is likely a student. In fact, I would be inclined to think it's unlikely they're students. There are a whole lot of 5 or 8 digit numbers. That regex would include everybody who included a MMDDYYYY date in their username, everybody who included a zip code in their username, etc. There are also many schools that don't use 5 or 8 digit ids (the school where I last taught used 9 digits). It may be more fruitful to look through past class pages to see if you notice patterns in usernames of people we know are students.

Students also aren't likely to include their id in a name they choose themselves, and the number of instructors who require specific usernames is pretty small. Every once in a while I do come across an instructor that dictated username requirements to their students. Most of the time the requirements are for students not to use personally identifying information, but I do remember one that had them use real names (no student id) and a couple others had them use something generic like classname-. You shouldn't see that very often, though, as we would consider it a red flag to address right at the start. To reiterate something I said above, student privacy is a serious subject and if you see a class in which the instructor looks to have such requirements, please do let Wiki Ed know (WP:ENB gets fewer eyeballs than this page, but you would get a response for something like this). In addition to the general ethics of information/digital literacy (people should know what it means to be have their personal information online), there are legal and institutional policies about student "records" (a flexible term) that the professor should consider. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I need experienced editors to comment

Hi guys. Sorry for spamming this, but it's for a good cause. I would like to encourage editors to comment on my idea lab request here. Input would be greatly appreciated.—_Chat:Online 20:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What's happening here?

What do admins and non-admins see when they go here? I see the contents of a deleted page (last time deleted by me) that has no delete, history, or edit tabs. Make sense as the page is deleted but why does the old content show up? Same behavior when going there as an IP. --NeilN 00:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• I see the same thing but I noticed a line at the bottom that says it was copied from meta (specifically here). That page has edit tabs and all history on it. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin here, I see content, but no delete, history, or edit tabs. It has a "nominated for speedy deletion notice" which says "Page edited 0 minutes ago by . Page information: deletion log • link list • delete page". DuncanHill (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, and the copied from meta notice. Seem to recall something a month or two ago about meta copying deleted articles and mirroring them back here. DuncanHill (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Appears to be something about Global User Pages. Beyond that, I have no idea. -- Orduin 00:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, I made a test edit on meta and it was mirrored back here. en-wiki admins not being able to control what appears on en-wiki user pages seems not good. --NeilN 00:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I saw the same thing the other day. Dumb idea to do this, I don't remember the discussion on this, betting no one gave a damn what we thought about it anyway. This is the kind of crap you get when you let engineers make design decisions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
      • @Dennis Brown: Did you know you're talking trash about Legoktm? Keegan (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm betting that Lego did not make this decision on his own and it would have had to been authorized by WMF because it affects every wiki. In fact, he might not have been in the decision making at all, just implementation (I assume). No matter how it was done, it is a problem. I assume Lego understands my comment wasn't about him personally, but about the decision making that authorized it. Regardless, it is a very bad idea due to the high potential for abuse that is easy to take advantage of, regardless of who the responsible parties are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
          • You'd be wrong then. Legoktm (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, that's it: meta:User:Rakibhasan786. And that's where the deletion tag was placed above it. Thanks. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• I hid the global page by creating the page again here, with an empty source. Not sure how "legal" that was, but the user's probably about to get an indef block anyway. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Worst case you could always gold lock it but yeah I agree. English admins should have control over the English wiki. I understand global accounts but bleed through from another wiki should probably be looked into and stopped. The only reason I looked for the "copied from meta" tag was because the speedy delete notice was markedly different from ours. You shouldn't have to know other wiki's delete tags to realize that you aren't looking at an en.wiki page. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you care to disable mirroring file pages from Commons? Keegan (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Keegan, not the same. If we remove a file from a en-wiki article it doesn't appear on en-wiki any more. --NeilN 12:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Keegan, and having pictures on Commons isn't all a bowl of cherries. While I agree that having one central repository far outweighs the negatives, it introduces extra steps when handling copyvios. You need to remove the picture here, warn the user here, and then tag the picture there and warn the user there. And as far as I'm aware, there's no handy script on Commons to do automatic warning and tagging. If the WMF wanted to make the MediaViewer (a lot) more useful, they should add an option to it allowing an editor to nominate the file for deletion. It would then figure out if the tag and warning had to go on the local wiki or on Commons. --NeilN 13:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yea, GlobalUserPages are good for cross-wiki users and I love them! Very useful that I now automatically have a userpage on any project I edit indicating that my "home" project is enwiki and that I can edit all these bare pages with a single edit to my meta userpage. Of course, for projects where I'm more involved (such as enwiki), I've created a more detailed userpage. Inappropriate content can be reported/removed on meta on the global userpage or "hidden" by creating a blank local userpage to supersede the global userpage. We've had Commons file showing up as files on enwiki with the mention "this is actually on commons", global userpages are the same thing (with meta instead of commons). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Re: "Inappropriate content can be "hidden" by creating a blank local userpage to supersede the global userpage." That works on enwiki, but those meta pages get copied to all Wikipedias, including the ones that are closed down and read-only. I ran into this when I tried putting "if your are reading this on any page other than X you are reading a mirror. The original page is at X" notices on multiple Wikipedias. The one on Meta got copied to some Wikipedias that I could not edit. I don't understand why I can't turn off this "feature" in the configuration. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Did you read the documentation? It clearly explains how to turn it off. Legoktm (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Just create the page locally and content from Meta will stop showing up. Legoktm (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to have a user page for yourself that shows up in the same language on every language's Misplaced Pages, including the ones that are going to flag you with a "Speak _______" tag when you do? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

BMK questioning Stabila711

Stabila711 Who are you? BMK (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I don't understand the question. Who am I? I am a user who responded to a question about a page. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You're a user who created their account about three weeks ago, and all of a sudden is all over the noticeboards with in-depth information on some very esoteric Misplaced Pages-related subjects. Yeah, yeah, you edited for a long time as an IP and that's how you picked up all this insider know-how - and my brother is a toadstool. Who are you, really? BMK (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I have never edited Misplaced Pages as an IP, this is my only account, and I am a fast learner. A few days is enough time to figure out how Misplaced Pages works, let alone a few weeks. It isn't that hard. If you have evidence as to a previous account, or any wrongdoing on my part, I suggest you file an report. Please don't make accusations you cannot back up. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That's poppycock, no one learns what you've "learned" that fast. So, straight up question: was your previous account blocked or banned? BMK (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Your first edit was correctly editing a complicated table. You got rowspan, templates, and bolding all right on your first try. Your 4th edit was even more impressive Gah that took me years to figure out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James: Seriously? It is called copying what was already there and using the show preview button to make sure it was right before hitting save. I certainly didn't do it right on my first try but I didn't hit save until it was right so those edits are not recorded. You both are acting like learning wikisyntax is some mystical experience that can only be mastered after months of rigorous training. Again, I invite you to find something I did wrong and file a report if you feel that is necessary. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You've demonstrated intelligence and restraint from your earliest edits. For a denizen of the internet, that is extremely suspicious. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

While User:Stabila711 welcome. I was not complaining I was just stating I am impressed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James: I apologize for jumping down your throat then. I tend to get a little upset when I am accused of something without evidence that I know I didn't do. I have been a part of dozens of different boards over the years so I know to be aware of the rules and policies before posting (at least the ones relevant to the particular post). If you want to see an early screw-up just to be sure there is this which shows my copying what was already there did not take into account the wikilinks that had to be changed. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Stabila711: I regularly check the help desk and I must be honest that I had the exact same question with BMK. Your user page isn't particularly informative so some speculation might be expected. Though your edits seem entirely good faith, it is quite odd (at least from my experience) that an editor would have such an editing pattern. Usually people just go to main space to start with and slowly get access to things like Twinkle, then perhaps AWB, Huggle, STiki, then other spaces such as becoming an AFC reviewer, and after quite some effort become administrators and then start to go on the many boards on Misplaced Pages such as this and the Arbitration committee. It's just very rare and no one could be sure of your intentions, hence causing doubts. Perhaps you could explain on your user page to clear up the questions. Also, it is very difficult to know all about Misplaced Pages policies especially in such a short matter of time, so perhaps you could explain some of that as well. These are just my personal suggestions as I see that you're not very happy with this thread. That said, sometimes it would be good to just play it safe and let more experienced editors deal with sticky situations. Happy editing! The Average Wikipedian (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@The Average Wikipedian: And what do you think I should explain on my user page? User pages are extraneous nonsense in my opinion and I would rather keep mine minimal as it has no bearing on the actual work Misplaced Pages is supposed to be striving for. I started with the 2016 election page since I am interested in politics. I then completely rewrote forensic anthropology since forensics is what I do. I also plan on nominating that page for GA status once the merge question is resolved. The only reason I even know about these boards is because I had to report an IP that was part of Arthur Rubin's list and therefore was block evading. As to knowing the policies of Misplaced Pages, I don't know them all. I never claimed to know them all nor will I ever claim to know them all. However, when something comes up it is not that hard to look up the relevant policy. The WP prefix makes that pretty easy to do. Once I read the section it is also not that hard to remember it for future use. As to my Twinkle use (which is the only one of those things you mentioned that I actually use), I decided it was time I started helping clean up the various bits of random vandalism that crop up on Misplaced Pages. Is that wrong of me to do? Is anything I have done wrong? Have I broken some unspoken rule about being involved in an area I shouldn't be? What exactly qualifies someone as an "experienced" editor so I can make sure I stay away until I pass that arbitrary barrier? I ask again, and I would really like an answer, what have I done that is wrong? --Stabila711 (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no chance that this is your first account and that you just picked all this up as a truly remarkably "fast learner". Most people have trouble signing their name when they start here, let alone accomplishing the feats in your earliest edits. Doc talk 08:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Actually, there were instances of Stabila711 not signing posts on, for example, the help desk, as I can recall.

@Stabila711: You seem to have missed my point quite far. I meant to suggest that it would be easier to avoid suspicions from others by explaining on your user page. I never said that you claimed to know all the policies, I just noticed that sometimes you seemed to have been a bit careless about the use of some policies (just my personal observations from the help desk). I also never said that using Twinkle was wrong, I was simply referring to a more "normal" editing career. I never ever said that anything you did was wrong. I'm surprised by your response (and a little confused). However, there is a minimum requirement of experience for many tools, including Twinkle, AWB, AFCH and Stiki. And sometimes, considering that some people pose less trivial questions requiring more knowledge about specific things, I was just suggesting that it would be better to let more experienced editors do the answering than to say something potentially wrong and mislead someone. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@The Average Wikipedian: You say you're surprised by Stabila711's response, but go back and read the beginning of this thread. BMK was confrontational and accusatory. Doc9871 has just treated him the same way. Given the general belligerence he's experiencing here, it isn't surprising that Stabila711 is reacting to all this questioning of his activities with a uniform defensiveness, instead of making the fine distinction that you, perhaps, weren't actually attacking him. —Largo Plazo (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that in my 7 1/2 years here I've never once seen a brand new account be this proficient out of the gate. Your mileage may vary. Doc talk 08:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: I understand, but if you look closely, Stabila711 pinged me and was attacking what I said as opposed to what the others have said. I didn't think it was fair nor justified for me to have been answered aggressively, so I was surprised because I personally wasn't the one being aggressive. I was just giving a few suggestions because the situation was indeed a little bit odd and I wanted Stabila711 to understand this, and I spoke in neutrality, saying that although the situation seemed a little bit suspicious, Stabila711 did not do anything violating Misplaced Pages policies and that s/he could avoid suspicion by explaining on his/her user page. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

An experienced wikipedian would know that:

• Per wmf:privacy_policy, We believe that you shouldn't have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement. You do not have to provide things like your real name, address, or date of birth to sign up for a standard account or contribute content to the Wikimedia Sites.
• The best to deal with off-topic ad hominem nonsense on Misplaced Pages boards is to totally ignore it (at least if it's directed at you); if someone wants to have a legit conversation with you, they'll at least start by posting on your talk page, not a WP:PITCHFORKS board.
• That written assume good faith policy, unfortunately, is often more notional than something that is universally practiced. (Corollary: any mention of AGF will soon be followed by the phrase suicide pact. ) NE Ent 12:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how many people here are expecting an apology for Stabila711 at this point... _Fortuna 13:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Competence and helpfulness are regarded with extreme suspicion by many on Misplaced Pages. For a newish editor to display both shews that he hasn't yet understood how Misplaced Pages really works. Incompetence and obstructiveness will get you the respect of many admins and more established editors. DuncanHill (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It's quite amazing that even after the huge OrangeMoody scandal, you folks still think you're living in a libertarian fantasyland. Sweet dreams, and let me know whenever you visit reality, I'll throw a pizza party. BMK (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• These threads, which serve a simple purpose to interrogate someone, are extremely unhelpful. If there is some form of illegitimacy going on here, then there needs to be firm evidence for any CU or SPI to go confirming anything. All we have here is suspicion. not (talk/contribs) 19:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sock abuse under protection

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

Hi. How do you look at this abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Biruitorul&diff=679140123&oldid=679006619 ?

The suspected sock master forced admin to defend him User_talk:Drmies#Good for a laugh, I guess

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Drmies&diff=679144252&oldid=679141844

Is there any non-involved part to analyze this case?

--220.255.3.185 (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look that suspicious to me. @Drmies: was not the only one to deny the investigation . -- Orduin 00:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Biruitorul didn't force me to do anything. Your alternate IP/meat puppet/internet pal thought they knew better than the people running SPI. Go troll elsewhere. Thank you Orduin--but the next troll is going to say that I made you say this. Also, I just dropped off the $20 at Western Union. Y'all, what does "confirmed proxy server" mean? Drmies (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that what is considered a 'confirmed proxy server' by whatismyipaddress.com is actually an open proxy, without more study. But I've filed this IP for checking at WP:OP. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Where it was confirmed. Making sockpuppet reports using open proxies is never going to end well. -- zzuuzz 03:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Source Question

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

Need some other admins' opinions on some confusion I am having regarding a reference and if it is a reliable source or not. On the WBCM-LP article, I was previously using the station's official Facebook page to cite their official launch date. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) removed it saying it wasn't reliable since it is a Facebook page. Understandable. Later Harrias (talk · contribs) that it could be used, per WP:SOCIALMEDIA since "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Harrias said while "it is still not considered reliable, but a special exception can be made for limited use of such references."

That's where the confusion for me lies. Can the source be used, once in the infobox and once in the text (citing the same thing) and still be be in line with all the various rules. I am considering taking this to GAN, so I kinda need to be certain. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I notified both users mentioned of this discussion. Just for the record, I am not upset with either of these editors. Just contradictory information has me confused. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Why does this discussion need to involve administrators? Does anyone need to be blocked? Does any article need protection? Does any article need deletion? If the answer to these three questions is "no", then you have no reason to involve any administrators at all. --Jayron32 01:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Better to ask the people who are knowledgable on policies, rules, guidelines and such and those people are admins. Plus, it doesn't hurt to ask. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If that is all you wanted to do, WP:RSN exists for that purpose. This board is for issues that need to involve admins acting as admins, using their admin tools. The harm is this is the wrong venue, and isn't suited towards attracting the best responses. RSN is, and will do that for you. --Jayron32 02:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hounding_by_Hijiri_88

I'm sure no one wants to read this entire thread, but someone needs to close this. If it's not closed, you'll have the same thread again in two weeks. And then again, and again. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

How does closing the thread stop anyone from starting it again in 2 weeks, and again, and again? --Jayron32 01:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Drmies was imprecise in his language; if the thread just needed "someone" to close it I would have down after BMK posted his request above. The thread actually needs an admin to close it with some variant of one of the many sanctions suggested. NE Ent 02:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a specific proposal that people have !voted on, and there are alternatives suggested by Drmies and others. Somewhere in that discussion there's gotta be a consensus for doing something, because pretty much everyone on all sides agrees that the interplay between the two editors is disruptive and needs to be controlled in some fashion. At this point, doing nothing is the worst option I can think of. BMK (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please have some uninvolved admin close it. Erpert 04:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Jayron32, does this answer your question? There's roughly two proposals. One is to topic ban them both, which would eliminate their running into each other. The other is for a limited topic ban for the one, which would certainly lessen the chance of them running into each other. (I hope this was not too biased a reading. I'd close it myself if I hadn't proposed/endorsed one of the options.) Drmies (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion was NAC'd without sanctions. I'll take bets on when the issue will reappear on AN/I. BMK (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It might be quite a while, since Catflap has told me that he thinks since yet again the admins failed to act he does at this point find it hard to convince himself to participate again, roughly paraphrased. He has also added this comment to his user page. In short, there is a very real chance that he might be gone for the indefinite future, at least from English wikipeda. John Carter (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Kalakannija's derogatory comments

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

Kalakannija has made several personal attacks/disrespectful-comments over the past few months and has been warned adequately. Diffs:1, 2, 3, 4 (This is a serious vulgar attack against against the other party in discussion which states he/she should be a Norwegian slave instead being a Sri Lankan. After being warned multiple times he still continue to make personal attacks. Diff: 5. He recently broke my talk page with this edit to reply to a discussion (sparked due to this warning by me) that has been archived a long time ago. I had to revert him back and comment on his talk page instead. Initially I thought I could resolve this dispute by a talk page discussion, but I'm unable to, and I have no idea what I should do next. He also claimed that I should not participate in a discussion if my nationality is irrelevant to the topic, which is ridiculous. -- Chamith (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried inviting uninvolved editors to mediate the dispute through one of the methods listed at WP:DR? Unless someone needs blocking or an article needs protecting or deleting, I'm not sure what admins have the power to do to help you, I agree that derogatory comments are verboten, and we should not tolerate it, but we need to separate the issues of "how to solve the dispute" versus "how to encourage users to behave civilly". Your post seems to indicate that the former problem is the major issue, and the latter problem is the symptom of not handling the first problem correctly. If there is a block needed, WP:ANI would actually be the proper venue. --Jayron32 02:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: The thing is, I'm not sure whether a dispute resolution might help as this is not a content dispute rather an issue related to personal attacks. I agree that my post made it look more like a content dispute. It's just I didn't want to be rude saying Kalakannija should be blocked outright. And I'm in no position to give orders either. What I wanted to suggest is that he/she should only be blocked if it seems necessary to admins. -- Chamith (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Like you said I'll move this whole thing to WP:ANI. Thank you. -- Chamith (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

AE block appeal by Collect

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

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

Applicable remedy: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others#Collect topic-banned (option2), "Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace."

Diff of violation:

Block notice:

Background: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Collect and others

The edit involved had absolutely nothing to do with US politics whatsoever. I posted no comments whatsoever on any page of the actual political BLP. If the meaning is that I can not post on any project-space page which evens mentions anything remotely involved in US politics, I fear that such a broad interpretation would include any noticeboard entirely, and my own user talk page entirely. The sanction specifically states the edit must not be about US politics - and the edit I made was not about politics. If the interpretation is "any imaginable page in which anyone or anything remotely connected to US politics is even hinted at" then I find such to be neatly absurd ab initio.

I ask you all to understand that such a broad interpretation, when it is clear my opinions on BLP/N have nothing whatsoever remotely to do with politics, is untenable. I note my particular issue that MastCell, an "involved admin" if such exists, has stalked my every edit for some years as evinced by any fair use of the Edit Editor Interaction Tool.

My edit on the BLP/N page stated clearly "Asserting that these comments are not "political" for those following my edits and that this noticeboard is not a "political page") - the libel suit results make clear that this stuff under no circumstances whatsoever belongs in any BLP - the suit was won by Turner, and later thrown out due to the requirement of "actual malice" for a public person and not just "deliberate falsity This is not a "political opinion" but clearly one of stating a fact under WP:BLP and anyone who supports such claims should be the one removed from Misplaced Pages.

Jimbo Wales has, for example, stated that his user talk page is also an exempt area, and it is reasonable that apolitical edits about policies on the appropriate policy noticeboards should be an exempt area, else we would still have the Kochs linked to Ilse Koch.

I would also note this extreme interpretation would mean I could not even opine at RfA if someone mentions a "political article" to any degree whatsoever on such a page, and that, since my very User Talk page "mentions" politics, that I am eternally estopped from using my own user talk page.

When such a "literal interpretation" of something results in a clear injustice, I suggest that WP:IAR applies. Collect (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Appeal copied verbatim from Collect's talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse block - The remedy is very clear: "Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace". Sylvester Turner is a US political figure. WP:BLP/N is in project namespace, which is a member of the set "any namespace". There is no other possible interpretation than that Collect violated his topic ban. - MrX 13:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Collect, I'm sorry, but I have to echo the comment above. Your edit was "about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace". You may not like that interpretation but it's hard not to read it as applying to your edit, and I doubt you'll be IARed until you state explicitly that you recognize that. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse Block - Sorry Collect, MrX hit the nail on the head, your ban covers not just politics, but political figures in any namespace. Commenting on Sylvester Turner anywhere would violate that ban. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse block I am sorry Collect, the fact is that you were given a pass on several cases near the line. Either you see the line or you don't but you have been dancing next to it and have stepped over. Chillum 16:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse block as the three above said. As Doug Weller on the clarification request said, it seems Collect has difficulty understanding the scope of his ban. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse block per all the above. BMK (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse block. I recently argued against an over-broad reading of Collect's topic ban in a previous AE discussion; it's not good for the project or its editors to play 'gotcha' by overreaching the bounds of topics bans. (Indeed, that discussion at AE ultimately closed with no penalty for Collect.) Unfortunately, there's no such overreach here, nor was there any overarching or overriding protection-of-the-project justification – gross vandalism, serious BLP violation, etc. – in play. Collect's edit was unambiguously within the ban's scope. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. The edit in question clearly relates to US politics. So do this one he made a couple days ago and was not yet sanctioned for. Calidum 19:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog