Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El C (talk | contribs) at 17:16, 22 March 2017 (→Huldra: seems to be a genuine misunderstanding that I don't see as likely to be repeated). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

22:11, Monday 30 December 2024

Userpage (commons · meta)	Talk (Archives)	Gallery	Barnstars	Drafts

Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you... Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have a question or need help. I'll do my best and can probably point you in the right direction if it isn't something I can sort out myself. Will

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi WJBscribe.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, WJBscribe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi WJBscribe. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Bureaucrat chat

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat chat

I would be grateful for your input in the above discussion. Many thanks, WJBscribe via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

2005 Sanriku Japan Earthquake listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2005 Sanriku Japan Earthquake. Since you had some involvement with the 2005 Sanriku Japan Earthquake redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Dawnseeker2000 01:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It's still happening

I'm still getting attacked here. Anything that can be done?—_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 03:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting C's talk page WJB. A few moments after you performed that action this person BirideThehyeianz (talk · contribs). Left a heavy duty PA. Looks like it might be a "sleeper" situation. If you are off WikiP no worries. Please enjoy the rest of your weekend! MarnetteD|Talk 03:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Im just wondering who this stalker is. They're stalking my contributions.—_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 03:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Update: while I was typing this Timotheus Canens took care of the necessaries. Sorry you are having to put up with this C. Wassail cheers to each of you. MarnetteD|Talk 03:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Further update. C678 this recent ones very first edit is the SOP of Jaredgk2008 (talk · contribs) - see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008/Archive for more info. Of course, it could be someone else but this might be a starting place. MarnetteD|Talk 03:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to see this carried on after I went to bed. Will keep an eye out for more. Has a checkuser been run to see if there is an underlying IP range that could be blocked? Btw, Cyberpower, if the trolls are after you, it usually means you're doing a good job. Merry Christmas! WJBscribe (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it typical to be harassed off wiki too?—_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 12:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

While not typical it can happen C678. I have had to turn off the "email me" function a couple times over the years. After a couple weeks or months it is usually safe to turn it back on. If you can don't let it frustrate you to much - though I completely understand if it does. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

This person attacked my on my YouTube channel.—_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 15:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

No, not typical, but sadly it does happen. People seem to find the anonymity internet a release for behaviour that they wouldn't want to be associated with elsewhere. Sometimes it brings out the worse in people. Sorry it's happening to you. Experience suggests it will pass, and your troll will find some other way to amuse themselves. Try not to let it get you down too much in the meantime. WJBscribe (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

This is a very well-considered, logical, and thoughtful post that articulates well the concerns that many in the community are feeling. I found it very persuasive. Risker (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I worry that these day, with so little time to contribute to Misplaced Pages, I'm getting out of touch with the community. It's good to know that I can still offer some valid input in these controversial matters, whatever the outcome. If only there was a way to persuade the community into adopting sensible standards for RfAs and promoting an adequate number of candidates each month... WJBscribe (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

RfA Cyber

I've added my co-nom below Melanie's and the RfA is ready to go. If you have a moment, please transclude it - I have to go out. BTW: Happy New Year! Chris, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year! I think the ball is in Cyberpower's court - he needs to accept the nomination and answer the three standard questions before it goes live. WJBscribe (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Note on availability

Just noting that due to professional commitments, my ability to participate in discussions is likely to drop away over the course of the next few days and I'm unlikely to be able to edit at all between 11 - 13 January (inclusive). WJBscribe (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination by a 'crat

I am mulling over whether it is a good idea for 'crats to nominate at RFA. Arguably, this discussion belongs at the noticeboard but I thought I'd start with you in case I'm missing something fundamental (perhaps this discussion has already occurred and I'm not aware of it.)

On the one hand, I don't tend to pay much attention to the identity of nominators, because I think it is best to make decisions on the merits of the nominated rather than the merits of the nominator. (Because of this, it is entirely possible that it is a very common practice and I just didn't realize it until now.) On the other hand, I've seen support votes which are not much more than "the nominator supports this so I will too".

I have no doubt that every existing 'crat would contend they could close a close RFA without giving undue weight to a 'crat nomination, but I know it would make me a little uncomfortable. I'd like to think I can make the right decision in such a circumstance but unconscious biases are, by definition not conscious.

I'm also struck by your very recent comment "...seeing how the consensus might change after very late opposition by a bureaucrat (a spectacularly bad reason)." Unless I misunderstood it, I thought you are making the point that a non-vote by a 'crat should not carry undue weight. I concur, and suggest that there are plenty of qualified nominators other than 'crats.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

In remarking on the extension of Ral315's RfB, the point I was making was that it was a bad idea for a bureaucrat to extend the discussion because another bureaucrat had opposed late and wanted to see what effect their opposition would have, i.e. bureaucrats giving other bureaucrats special treatment. I wasn't thinking that, were it not for the extension, there is anything special about a bureaucrat's support/oppose/neutral. I suspect that if people pay bureaucrats more attention, it would be because they have confidence in their judgment, not because they are bureaucrats. The same presumably arises from Arbitrator comments. You could equally ask if a nomination from a respected non-bureaucrat, say Newyorkbrad would have an undue effect on the outcome.

If we did restrict bureaucrat participation in RfAs, which we do on the basis that we could recuse from acting as bureaucrats later, is there a reason to treat nominations differently from supporting/opposing comments? Looking back at User:WJBscribe/RfA, it looks like I have nominated 5 users for adminship since becoming a bureaucrat (and one -Royalbroil - was roughly concurrent with my RfB). One of those of course turned out to be a particularly bad move, but we learn from our mistakes.

A nomination (or support/opposition) by a bureaucrat isn't something I'd give much thought to in closing a discussion, but I would draw your attention to Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton 2/Bureaucrat discussion. In that discussion (somewhat problematically IMO) there is specific mention of the participation of 5 crats in the discussion, which wasn't really relevant.

There has been widespread discontent lately about how few admins are being promoted - which I share. I feel that bureaucrats have to take some responsibility for trying to address the issue. I have to say that this has motivated me - and may have motivated Xeno (although his previous nomination is much more recent than mine) to nominate good candidates in this particular drive to redress the balance. WJBscribe (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:RPP

Reduction in protection leve l in Template:FULLDATE. --219.79.180.148 (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I've lowered it to "template protection" as I would probably have applied that level of protection back in 2008 had it been available. WJBscribe (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Dodger67's RfA

Hi there. I noticed you are monitoring this RfA. Do you think you could - at your discretion of course - move some of the discussion to the talk page? Esp. the one below SilkTork's oppose takes a lot of room (almost a whole page on my 24" screen) and the page might be hard to read for people with smaller screens. Since I !voted in said RfA, I don't think I should do any clerking which is why I came to ask you. Regards SoWhy 13:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @SoWhy: I'm not sure exactly how WJBscrie handles moving discussions, but personally I will only move discussions that are not pertinent to the candidacy. The discussion under SilkTork's oppose seems not to qualify. Also, RfA is, at base, a discussion and "taking up a lot of room" doesn't stand on its own as a reason to move a discussion. –xeno 14:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that my thinking is along the same lines as Xeno's - I'd move off-topic discussions to the talkpage, but I'm not convinced that relevant discussion should be moved just because it is lengthy. WJBscribe (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

No argument from me. As I said, as a participant I am certainly biased and thus don't feel in any way qualified to determine what parts of the discussion should be moved to the talk page. Regards SoWhy 15:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

← I made some changes to the RfA talk page header to clarify that it is not simply the length, but the nature, of the discussion that qualifies it for a change of venue. –xeno 15:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) xeno that looks good and in line with the actual expectations. — xaosflux 15:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Misplaced Pages, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Misplaced Pages seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

5 pillars of wikipedia

Now that five pillars of Misplaced Pages is redirected to WP:Five pillars, shall the other page "5 pillars of wikipedia" be undeleted/resurrected to that page? --George Ho (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I've redirected that page to Misplaced Pages#Policies and laws, to avoid the CRN and to reflect the earlier RfD for that page. Where there is mainspace content, that should be prioritised over internal Misplaced Pages documents. I've recreated 5 pillars of wikipedia as a redirect to Misplaced Pages#Policies and laws and agree that the two should have a common target. I think a fresh RfD would be needed to retarget them to WP:Five pillars. WJBscribe (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... no need. I think retargeting to "Misplaced Pages#Policies and laws" is fine for both. We can have both redirects discussed at later time when things go less stable. George Ho (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Desysop

It's a long time ago, as you say, but I think my motivation was that I didn't want to roughshod reverse another Crat's action, especially as there seemed a courteous route to take, which is the one I went for. I think I may have inadvertently offended you, and I apologise for that. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wasn't offended. If my comment revealed a small amount of irritation, it was general rather than specific - it wasn't your action to overturn, but I was disappointed to be the lone voice to be calling for the action just to be undone. I felt that your approach prioritised courtesy to WTT over courtesy to Mr Gufstafson, who shouldn't have had to ask for the permissions back. WJBscribe (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

As ever, much wisdom in what you say. I might have got that wrong. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Unblock

{{Unblock|reason=Hello ], this is 106.68.197.3. I noticed that you blocked me again. First, edit war is true, but I would like to explain it. I made some edits without using talk page, which made you frustrated and consider as vandalism and edit war. I apologise if that distracted you. Second, for changing behaviour, I am changing. I just need more time to get used to productive edits. As a user who has access to protected articles, I would like to say that I am trying to follow Misplaced Pages rules, but if administrators keep block me, I cannot develop as a good user and I won't be able to make good edits anymore in Misplaced Pages. It is very disappointing because I thought you are going to give me chance to reform, but you just destroyed the chance. I think it will be better if you give me chance to develop. Thank you :) ] (]) 15:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)}}

See my post on your talkpage. This IP address isn't blocked. Do you have an account that is blocked? WJBscribe (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@WJBscribe: The blocked account is here. It should be undone by now. 106.68.197.3 (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not your account. WJBscribe (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The Socratic Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Reading through the cacophony various points and counterpoints at the recent Arbcom discussion I found yours to be consistently on point and addressing not only the issue at hand but keeping an eye to future outcomes and precedent. They were insightful, exceptionally well thought out, and I believe contributed greatly to the overall discussion. It is my pleasure to award you (yet another, but equally deserved) Socratic Barnstar. ~Mifter (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all you do. Mifter (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Seconded --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I confess that I feel rather depressed reading the latest contributions to WP:AE today. AE is a useful feature for dealing robustly with edit warriors and POV pushers, but it's sad to see it being used against a longstanding productive editor in this way. There would never have been a consensus for a 1 month block had it been proposed that one be imposed, but we've created a process that grants a tremendous advantage to the first mover. WJBscribe (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I was there. It made me give up my pride and appeal, to not have to face it again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

ps: my thoughts about AE date from 2015, nutshell: "I dream of a Misplaced Pages where AE is not needed". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the question is how can we modify (if at all) to try and minimize that first mover advantage? As it stands, its quite a bit of luck if the patrolling admin happens to have mercy or use the full power authorized by the sanction. I don't think a full 24 hour waiting period for AE solves our problem but closing a request 40 minutes after it is posted is not even close to getting community input or consensus (some users at AIV get longer between being reported and blocked). Mifter (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

MCann's actual complaint

It is important to read McCann’s article to understand the nature of his complaint. He does not like it existing at all, but then he says ‘even if my privacy no longer mattered, the issue of accuracy still did’. Then

(1) his first complaint is about the endless fruitless attempts to make contact via the Talk Page. He did not know that there was another avenue, but that is because the avenue was not advertised well.

(2) when he did get a reply, the editor questioned his identity. This is the ‘rabbit hole’ McCann complains about. The issue of principle is how the victims of BLP abuse are to prove who they are.

(3) Then he tried clicking the ‘edit’ button and was warned about ‘vandalism’. This is obvious to anyone familiar with Misplaced Pages, but he was not.

(4) Only then did he find out there is a formal procedure, but it is labyrinthine and tortuous. ‘The initial email I received from the ‘Misplaced Pages information team’ listed seven links to tortuously elaborate and badly written geek-speak ‘policy’ pages, which I was expected to study before commencing with a complaint.' I have to agree with him here.

(5) Finally he gets stuck in a discussion on the talk page that was not 'a calm and sober discussion. It was more like a squabble in the schoolyard, with both my request and me being ridiculed and abused'. I agree with him. At this point Blofeld, totally unprovoked, tells him to 'shut up'.

(6) He also complained, not in the article but on one of the pages, about the obscure terminology used on Misplaced Pages. Many three letter acronyms, and the term 'red link' which he does not understand. It's basic common sense that hospitality to strangers means avoiding all shop talk. It's not just confusing, it's also rude. Peter Damian (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Most of McCann's complaint therefore revolves around the tortuous and labyrinthine nature of the process, and the inaccuracy of the article, not the very existence of it. Surely there is a way to make complaints by BLP victims easier? Regards, Peter Damian (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Even without reading the article, I rather gathered that those things would be issues - they are sadly all too common to the experience of BLP subjects who try to raise concerns about their articles. I still remember an incident from many years ago where the subject of an article wanted to correct an error with some basic information - it was either his birth name or birth date. The problem was that the Misplaced Pages article had copied an error in an article about the subject from a reliable publication. The article's subject was willing to provide copies of his passport and birth certificate to have the mistake in our article corrected. A length battle ensued in which Misplaced Pages editors objected to changing the article because this would mean using primary sources and constitute original research. Acronyms were thrown around & tempers flared.

Frankly, if WP:BLPKIND (excuse the acronym) had been followed, most of the issues complained of by Mr McCann should never have arisen. Perhaps we need to expand somewhere some conduct rules on how BLP subjects are to be treated - which also includes trying to avoid/explain commonly used jargon.

In terms of improving things, is it worth creating a short guide for BLP subjects explain how to go about raising concerns about their articles, maybe in the form of an FAQ? It could include an explanation of who to contact if they are being treated badly by other editors. It could also be free from jargon and try to explain the most likely jargon they will encounter. We could try to mandate that anyone claiming to be the subject of a BLP must be pointed to this guide? WJBscribe (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup can't disagree. Perhaps a guide for users too, perhaps as an addition to BLPKIND. I haven't looked at the tortuously elaborate and badly written policy pages. Do you have any sense of what these were? Ideally you need a clear sign on BLP articles of where to go, plus a one page stop to help you. Peter Damian (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

My recommendation to people who wish to complain about their article here is to come straight to the BLP noticeboard; I think going to the talk page is bad advice as you're likely to encounter people who have worked closely on the article and clash with them. A while back, I had a friend of a friend who didn't like an article somebody had created about him as he felt it was borderline libellous. I've just looked for it but I've obviously forgotten the name as I can't find it, but I do know I made this edit to the help page in direct response. They had absolutely no idea where to turn or how to get relief from something plastered over the internet that they knew was incorrect. Ideally, there would be some WMF "customer service" representative who could handle complaints and manage the workload in a professional capacity. This is kind of analogous to the front desk of your local council who deal with Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' green ink letters about reduced speed limits, traffic calming, or changes in bin collection. Ritchie333 14:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I suppose OTRS is supposed to be our equivalent, but I don't have any recent experience to know how effective they are at dealing with people who raise concerns about their biographies. WJBscribe (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

On supposed legal threat

Blofeld has archived this remark now, but I find it disturbing how he consistently misrepresents what happened. McCann did not say 'DO IT NOW, or I'll sue"', nor was he 'throwing his weight around'. He actually said 'I would like this to be solved speedily and cordially by removing the entry. If not, I will take legal advice, because this is an incomplete, misleading and potentially damaging. Graham McCann 92.23.93.50 (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)' Note the word 'cordially', and note he is looking to take legal advice, which is a world away from suing. I am still very uncomfortable with all this. Peter Damian (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that I thought Dr Blofeld's characterisation of his interactions with Mr McCann were somewhat self-serving and unsatisfactory, but I think it's human nature to try and portray oneself in the best light, even if that involves trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole. I agree that that there wasn't a legal threat. That said, I think it's probably best to draw a line in the sand now that Dr Blofeld has agreed to avoid Mr McCann & his article, and to avoid interaction with BLP subjects. WJBscribe (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I fully understand your meaning here, Will. Peter Damian (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

CHEERS

Huldra

She is female as evident from her user page.--Shrike (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - corrected. WJBscribe (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we have another editor running afoul of the provision-that-keeps-on-giving, one who also wasn't quite cognizant of it or understood it. Honestly, it dosen't inspire that much confidence in the provision, when someone as careful as Huldra and with such a clean block log for an editor as intensely involved in ARBPIA articles, gets blocked over it. Maybe unblocking with a warning would be a good idea, in this case—I'm sure she'd had self-reverted if she knew that the provision encompassed her, too. El_C 16:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see misunderstanding a sanction and not knowing about it as being on the same footing. I have to say that I also don't see the AE sanction as being ambiguous. If you try and game a provision - which is what I think Huldra was doing - and get it wrong, you deserve the block. I'm sure that are lots of editors of ARBPIA articles who have managed to stay the right side of a block under the old 1RR sanctions, who will get caught out by this new sanction because it requires genuine discussion and consensus building. That has sadly become all too rare in this topic area. To my mind, challenging the attitude that everyone is entitled to 1RR without discussion is a feature, not a bug.

That said, if you and others disagree and think unblock & warn is an appropriate outcome to her appeal, there would be no hard feelings on my part. WJBscribe (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a genuine misunderstanding on Huldra's part that I don't see as likely to be repeated. I'm leaning toward an unblock due to that, unless you object. El_C 17:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)