Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarkBernstein (talk | contribs) at 14:29, 2 December 2017 (→Odd AE sanction appeal). 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 6 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#RfC_closure_review_request_at_Talk:Rajiv_Dixit#RFC_can_we_say_he_peddaled_false_hoods_in_the_lede

(Initiated 18 days ago on 5 December 2024) - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process

(Initiated 222 days ago on 15 May 2024) Discussion died down quite a long time ago. I do not believe anything is actionable but a formal closure will help. Soni (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 77 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 76 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Not sure if anyone is looking into this, but might be a good idea to wait for a few weeks since there is ongoing discussion. Bogazicili (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 68 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)

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

(Initiated 57 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 44 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 40 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)

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

(Initiated 40 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:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC Indian numbering conventions

(Initiated 37 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 33 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 15 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)

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 38 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)

Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead

(Initiated 7 days ago on 16 December 2024) RFC is only 5 days old as of time of this posting, but overwhelming consensus approves of status quo, except for a single COI editor. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The CoI editor has now accepted that consensus is for the status quo, but I think a formal close from an uninvolved editor, summarizing the consensus would be helpful, since the issue has been coming up for a while and many editors were involved. — penultimate_supper 🚀 16:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

yes, despite multiple posts to WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:3O, several talk page discussions, and now an RFC, I doubt the pressure to remove word oligarch from the lede of that page will stop. An appropriate close could be a useful thing to point at in the future though. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox country#Request for comment on greenhouse emissions

(Initiated 88 days ago on 27 September 2024) Lots of considered debate with good points made. See the nom's closing statement. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (A)

Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has now been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 16#Category:Origin stories

(Initiated 22 days ago on 2 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 14#Template:Support-group-stub

(Initiated 10 days ago on 14 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:06, 24 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 90 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT history in Georgia#Proposed merge of LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT history in Georgia

(Initiated 78 days ago on 7 October 2024) A merge + move request with RM banners that needs closure. No new comments in 20 days. —CX Zoom 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 69 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 66 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 48 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:JTG Daugherty Racing#Requested move 22 November 2024

(Initiated 31 days ago on 22 November 2024) Pretty simple RM that just needs an uninvolved editor to close. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 26 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)

 Doing... BusterD (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 56 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)

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

(Initiated 10 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Bambenek related vandalism

Since it was reported to me by others, wanted to make clear that I (John Bambenek)have nothing to do woth the recent vandalism. I assume it is obvious that it was the case. If you have need to contact me, a google search will reveal legitimate contact info. 2600:1008:B013:AC44:990F:9E73:2994:C634 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Anyone know what this is about? We just had Bambenek’s annual sockpuppet trip to DRV. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• Probably the vandalism by Bambenekcd1 and American Canadian Expat In London 10404; these appear to be a vandal based in the UK, and not Bambenek. From Special:WhatLinksHere/John Bambenek, the 2014 deletion review nomination (by NigelHowells) and one of the two in 2013 (by Sharoncooper1963) are probably the same vandal. User talk:Bambenekcd1 was deleted because of impersonation, another of the vandal's accounts (Renamed Imposter Account 000001) was renamed for the same reason, although there it was by taking the former username of a user who had vanished. Peter James (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2017 (62:26C7:A9FF:B3D1:1C4E:FB42|talk]]) 21:07, 26 November 2017

• (To User:JzG) As above, those edits weren’t me as another editor and someone who did checkuser (I assume) can attest to. I can’t edit your page so I am asking here, there hasn’t been any real DrVs since 2009 which weren’t me either. Can we just after 12 years drop the WP:DEEPER and all of this please? All this went down 12 years ago, I have long since moved on and hope we can just bury this hatchet for good. RealJohnBambenek (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Remove edits

Hi. Please, kindly remove this and this edit done by me on my user page. Essentially, I do not want people to see those quotes in the history of my user page.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Classic line, classic film. — fortunavelut luna 12:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It's stuff like this that's the only reason I'd ever want to become an admin -- I want to know what classic line from what film. (That's OK, unsatisfied curiosity makes the world go 'round.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz 13:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked IP addresses

Hi, fellow administrators! I'm currently going through the database report of indefinitely blocked IP addresses, and I see numerous IP addresses that have not only been blocked indefinitely but over 10+ years ago. I had some questions I wanted to ask, as well as some specific blocks I wanted to ask about adjusting their block duration to eventually expire. First question is: If the administrator of a company or department requests the IP to be blocked, do we still do so indefinitely? What about blocks like this made 9, 10, 11 years ago? I also saw an indefinite block on this IP with a summary that there was consensus at ANI to block - was this indefinite as well? What situations today would call for an indefinite IP address block? What blocks on this list should stay as-is? I think the issue with many of these old indefinite IP blocks is that (I believe) WP:IPBLENGTH was enacted after many of them were made. I wanted to draw some attention to this database report, and get input regarding what's on this list. I think that many administrators will find that indefinite IP blocks set by them were by accident (such as myself - I had one listed here). Any input, feedback, opinions, and assistance regarding this list would be very much appreciated; I've been running into old blocks like these, and I feel that I should at least take some initiative and re-evaluate them if they don't reflect today's etiquettes, norms, and guidelines. Thanks, everyone :-) ~Oshwah~ 14:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Some of these IPs are still assigned to the organizations that requested the blocking. What I am more interested in are the criteria by which we decide when to act on such a request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, since you recently blocked a school's IP based on an OTRS ticket, probably you ought to offer input. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

My own indef block is a special situation, and I think it was a good decision — at one time, it was common for Toolserver bots to edit logged out by mistake (e.g. you'd see an IP clerking WP:UAA), despite the clear requirement at WP:BOTACC (in other words, this was a mistake, not ignorance or bad-faith bot operation), and this was one of the IPs they used, so I indef-blocked it while permitting logged-in editing. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) X 2 - Jo-Jo Eumerus - I also am interested in how we act upon requests from the organization or owner of the IP address as well. The issue I see with many of these database report entries is that the blocks are indefinite, made over 10+ years ago, with no diff or ticket number in the block summary (so it can't be reviewed), and by administrators who have long since left the project and are no longer active here. I've modified a few blocks from this report that I definitely don't believe need to be indefinite in duration anymore (old blocks and in the situation I just described); I'm interested to hear input by other admins and to get an understanding of indefinite IP blocks as a whole. ~Oshwah~ 14:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The older OTRS blocks were reviewed in 2014. Some essential reading (IMO): this stuff. I'm personally content to leave an indef-block alone where the school admin has requested a block and the IP remains assigned to the school. I probably wouldn't make any new indef blocks on request, unless there was some guarantee of a review. CAT:OP, which is typically excluded from the database report, has been in a horrible state since forever. So yes please more eyes on these blocks. -- zzuuzz 14:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

zzuuzz - I plan on going through this list to make sure that any indefinite blocks that have been set are still necessary. I've already started pinging some administrators on their user talk pages about old blocks and asking for their input about setting a definite duration. ~Oshwah~ 14:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah, sorry about the edit conflicts. I've requested checkuser on the IP I blocked (to see whether it's still being used by approved bots) and on the approved bots (to see what IPs they're using), and I'll unblock this IP if it's not in use and block other IPs if they are. {{Toolserver IP}} instructs admins to indef-block the IPs in question, but if the Toolserver IPs are no longer used by WMF, we'll probably need to unblock all of them. Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend - Don't be sorry; it happens and it's nobody's fault. Thanks for responding to my concerns here and for your input. This is good information that I didn't know much about, so I appreciate it greatly :-) ~Oshwah~ 15:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I've filed an WP:ARCA request about the two IPs that were blocked as arbitration enforcement; one was blocked in 2014 and the other in 2008, so I'm guessing that neither one is needed anymore. Also trying to learn more about the Toolserver IPs and the IPs currently being used by the bots. Nyttend (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure some of these can be unblocked.

• User:90.217.133.223 blocked four years ago and is a dynamic Sky Broadband IP, this will have been reallocated since then.
• User:63.232.20.2 was used for block evasion, but that was eight years ago.
• User:198.135.70.1 is a public IP used for vandalism but, again, is seven years old.
• Orangemike has blocked indefinitely a lot of IPs for WP:NLT because "these should be indef", but many of these are also dynamic.

• Might be worth going through them and knocking off ones like this. Black Kite (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite - I agree. ~Oshwah~ 15:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• As stated in the block reason, the school contacted OTRS and wanted to have Misplaced Pages blocked entirely for that IP. Not sure what input I can really give, seeing as they requested it and I found no reason to decline their request. Primefac (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Primefac - I don't see anything wrong with that at all; I'm just wondering about the duration of such blocks and if we should be doing so indefinitely. The past indefinite blocks made many years ago seem quite unnecessary to me. Even if we modified them to a duration of 3+ years from today, I feel that it's better than keeping them blocked forever. Now we have IP blocks that are over a decade old, and certainly don't need to apply anymore - even if it was by request from the IP itself. I don't see why I couldn't go through this database report, verify that the IP is still in fact under the same ownership (and if not, unblock), and change these block durations so that they start counting down. I've already changed a couple from being indefinite blocks to a duration of five years from now. It's still quite a long time from today, but those blocks will at least expire someday, which I think that all IP blocks should eventually do. What are your thoughts? ~Oshwah~ 22:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't really give a long thought-out answer because honestly I've never really given it any thought. If a school/institution specifically says "here are our IP addresses, please block them" I think we should honour that agreement until such time as they cease holding that IP. Now, something like 168.11.200.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which was a "until we fix the issue", sure, go for a shorter duration.

Maybe for the existing indef's from schools that are 5+ years old we should reach out to the sysadmins and ask if they still want the protection.

Maybe in the future when we receive such OTRS/etc requests, we should ask if they want indefinite protection. My guess is that they would say yes, but at least it would give us justification for the indef.

I guess what I'm saying is that indefinite blocks might not be a bad thing, but I agree with your initial concern that there should be justification for such a move. Maybe a yearly check to ensure that the indeffed IPs still belong to the original "owners". Maybe I'm giving too many maybes. Maybe. Primefac (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I actually don't think we should follow the school's wishes here for an indefinite block. If they don't wish students to be editing Misplaced Pages, that's their business to enforce. If the IP is editing constructively, why should we block it? (If it's not, that's quite a different story.) I certainly don't think we should overrule our usual blocking policy when it comes to indefinite IP blocks at a school's say-so. ~ Rob₁₃ 23:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 - I'm okay with honoring the request from the administrator of the organization if the IP has a history of disruption and abuse and such disruption is currently ongoing, but any such blocks should be temporary and definitely not set to an indefinite length. I agree that we should not overrule our blocking policies (not just in this situation... but in general, really). They're there for a reason. ~Oshwah~ 23:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Ran a quarry to filter some additional indefs, the list is at about 285 with ~15 admins being responsible for a third of the blocks:

1. User:Orangemike: 15
2. User:Jimfbleak: 12
3. User:TigerShark: 12
4. User:Yamla: 6
5. User:NawlinWiki: 6
6. User:Jayron32: 6
7. User:Mackensen: 5
8. User:Ponyo: 5
9. User:Netsnipe: 5
10. User:Materialscientist: 5
11. User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me: 4
12. User:Infrogmation: 4
13. User:Kudpung: 4
14. User:Good Olfactory: 4
15. User:Andrewa: 4

SQL 00:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Many, though not all, of my indefinite blocks were from before WP:IPBLENGTH was enacted. I have reviewed and lifted the six blocks I placed. One (or two?) were at the request of the administrator of the IP address, but I can find no evidence that the IP address is still assigned there. --Yamla (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I probably phrased that badly. Thanks for looking into yours! I'll update the list periodically. SQL 01:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't take offense. It's worth having the blocking admins review these blocks, as a first approach. But I think eventually, other admins are going to have to review the rest. Just getting mine out of the way. :) --Yamla (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like my five remaining blocks were all for open proxies and aren't related to past checkuser activity. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Any ideas on how we would even begin unblocking User:00.00.00.00? Software automagically changes it to User:0.0.0.0. SQL 01:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

SQL -  Done. I used the API to find the original block log:

API response

{"id": 281857, "user": "00.00.00.00", "by": "Gurch", "timestamp": "2006-10-20T09:41:50Z", "expiry": "infinity", "reason": "username", "rangestart": "0.0.0.0", "rangeend": "0.0.0.0", "autoblock": "", "allowusertalk": ""}

...and I used the block ID from the API response as the parameter to unblock the user:

API response

{"id": 281857, "user": "0.0.0.0", "userid": 0, "reason": "Remove block to stop IP/User confusion with database report"}

The block log shows that I unblocked 0.0.0.0 and the page is definitely confused... but this was the sure method I could come up with that would actually unblock what was blocked. It's weird, because I went through the block log to find the block of this user, and nothing exists during the timestamp of the original block... So... I think the logs are going to look wrong... ~Oshwah~ 03:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Any chance you could publish the full report, SQL? I'd like to review any accidental indefinite blocks on IPs that I placed, but they're not easy to locate. ~ Rob₁₃ 08:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 - I just ran the full query and searched the API response for any blocks that were made by you - nothing came back. ~Oshwah~ 09:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There are more under Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Range blocks. The one listed under my name is incorrect; it was reblocked by someone else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply by andrewa

I can only see two blocks at User:SQL/indefip that I made. I've reviewed both of these and the comments I made at the time. Both are soft blocks of IPs that were at the time assigned to educational institutions. And you don't know this, but both user talk pages are permanently on my personal watchlist.

It seems to me reasonable to leave those blocks there indefinitely, in view of the history before the block. And I note that Misplaced Pages:Blocking IP addresses (referred to above as if it had modified the blocking policy) is an information page. Andrewa (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

From Jayron32

Feel free to unblock any of mine. They are all so long ago as to be likely not needed anymore. --Jayron32 11:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Jayron32.  Done. ~Oshwah~ 17:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply from Ponyo

It has never been my intent to block an IP indefinitely and is likely a result of choosing the wrong drop down option when blocking an IP and their registered account back to back. Feel free to unblock the 5 attributed to me. --Jezebel's Ponyo 20:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ponyo!  Done. ~Oshwah~ 17:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply from The Bushranger

Huh, I actually have one in here, way back in 2012 when the only grognard editors were pterodactyls. Pretty obvious it was a case like Ponyo's where I mis-clicked the menu, so I've gone ahead and unblocked it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bushranger, thanks for following up and for taking a look. ~Oshwah~ 17:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply from Lankiveil

My only entry is an oversight block, of User:74.143.90.218. I invite opinions on whether this is a dynamic IP and thus potentially safe to unblock. The same IP was used by the same individual over a period of at least a year to post oversightable material, so I'd rather not unblock it unless I am absolutely certain it has changed owners. Lankiveil 11:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC).

Lankiveil - Did you pull a WHOIS on this IP? It's ISP is Time Warner Cable with a 74.142.0.0/15 direct allocation, which looks like a Residential HSI connection to me, so it's most certainly not a static IP. It can certainly stay the same if the modem never disconnects past the DHCP's lease period (typically one week), but the IP can change if conditions are met (mostly with disconnecting the modem or changing services). So if it helps at all: It's possible that the IP can change, but it's normal to see it stay the same for a long period of time. ~Oshwah~ 03:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Time Warner Cable dynamic IPs can stay the same for *years*, for what it is worth. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::As a former Time Warner Cable residential customer, just a heads up - I held the same IP for roughly 2 years. SQL 03:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah, that does appear to be a static IP assigned to the business portion of Time Warner. See the "biz.rr" in the record here. Cross check indicates that it is static. That IP block was an acquisition from Insight Communications and I believe that the business static lines would have been preserved and not reassigned.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Berean Hunter - Ah, shit. I didn't dig that far deep; guess I should have :-). I didn't notice the business registration - thank you for pointing this out to me. ~Oshwah~ 04:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Aye, I thought that it was residential home cable, but given that the account was posting the same nonsense over a period of months, I was a bit dubious about taking the block off. Thanks for the information. Lankiveil 01:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC).

Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers

Resolved by motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions:

Resolved, That temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Matiia, RadiX, Shanmugamp7, and (alternate if necessary) Mardetanha for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2017 Arbitration Committee election.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers

Closer needed

Could an uninvolved admin or experienced editor take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations and reclose it? It had been previously closed but that was reverted for sound, albeit procedural reasons. I am INVOLVED so I can't close it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem - I'll do it. ~Oshwah~ 09:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem - The deed has been done. ~Oshwah~ 19:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem - You bet; always happy to help :-) ~Oshwah~ 23:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

It’s that time of year again. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday, 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC) to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Saturday, 00:00, 28 October 2017 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 00:00, 1 November 2017.

Please review the candidates' statements and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I would like all the winners of the election to know in advance that I voted for you, and I'll be coming around to collect my compensation soon after you get your crowns and sceptres from Mr. Wales. (Payment can be postponed in favor of future considerations.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at my PayPal account and through the $100 transfers that I've received, I think I know who will best serve the community on the Arbitration Committee to the best of their abilities, and with they will have my full support. The Rambling Man, Your payment didn't go through. Would you like to try again with a different credit card? ~Oshwah~ 10:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie - To answer your question, yes - that is American Dollars - $100. ~Oshwah~ 10:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah I'm not sure I have a sufficient number of $100 bribes to buy myself into this one...! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Nah. That $50 money order you sent me before your RFA was returned as stolen. My children went hungry that day, I ran out of gas on the turnpike, and I got a zit on my chin, and it was all. your. fault. Katie 17:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie - Wait, no gas, no food, ...and you got a zit?!! I'm sorry... that money order was good, I swear. Nonetheless, for the inconvenience, I'll credit your bribery funds $50 and I'll give you a coupon good for 10% off the purchase of a support vote in WP:RFB. ~Oshwah~ 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't vote in those elections, anymore. After I returned to Misplaced Pages in May 2014, the voting system was already changed. GoodDay (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why not. Your account dates from 2005, you have almost 200,000 mainspace edits, and you're not currently blocked. What stops you from voting? I don't think your one-year ArbCom ban in 2013-2014 disqualifies you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The voting system itself was changed, while I was away. Ya can't just poke a dot next to a candidate's name, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, sure you can. There are three dots for each candidate, "Oppose", "Neutral", and "Support", and you just poke the dot you want. Any candidate for whom you don't poke a dot stays "Neutral". What about that would prevent you from voting? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't trust the "Go to the voting server" bar. That route wasn't there, back then. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, so the problem isn't that you can't vote, it's that you won't use the system that's been set up for voting. What do you imagine are the possible problems that could come up by being redirected to the SecureVote page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Bishzilla as usual support all little candidates resident in her pocket. Come one come all! Best hurry before Bishonen make puny fuss. bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

Old indefinitely full protected articles in mainspace

Hi, fellow administrators! Given the list of indefinitely blocked IP addresses discussion above, I took the next initiative and also pulled a list of articles in the mainspace that were under indefinite full protection and found that were were a handful of them (31 articles to be exact); most of which were applied 10+ years ago and definitely don't appear to be necessary or needed at all. I removed the protection from some of them (you'll see it in my log) - and I messaged some administrators asking about the protection they set so that I can verify with them that they weren't set indefinitely by accident. I'm sure that these articles don't need the indefinite full protection that I found and removed, but I wanted to create this noticeboard discussion to let everyone know (in case I unprotected any articles that do need it and for a reason I'm not aware of). If this is the case, please accept my apologies in advance, let me know, and I'll be happy to throw it back on immediately. Thanks again, everyone! :-) ~Oshwah~ 04:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I helped find a lot of these via Quarry as above. There weren't a lot of mainspace - but just user_talk, there are nearly 3,000 - and close to 10,000 all namespaces combined. Probably something we should look at. SQL 04:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but noting that these appear to have been saltings against re-creation, not actual articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad - Yeah, I saw that too. Some of them were edit / move indefinite full protection, some others were salts. If you (or anyone for that matter) think I should raise the protection bar up any on any of the articles I took indef full protction off from, let me know. ~Oshwah~ 04:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Since the articles you unprotected will scroll down on your log as you perform other admin tasks, could you put them on a list in your user space? I ask so that if problems pop on one of the pages -- say Dumbass -- it can be easily checked that it was once under full protection, which I think would probably ease the process of getting it protected again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken - Sure,  Done. The list is here. ~Oshwah~ 05:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You bet. ~Oshwah~ 05:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: IMHO, those that were salted should keep their full, regardless of how long ago the salt was applied. Some of them will probably have been salted as the result of consensus at AfD (AfD consensuses? consensii?), while others may have had BLP/BLPREQUEST issues. The "Internet Slang" ones you've unprotected so far may or may not work out - we have no idea how many would-be vandals saw it was protected and moved on, after all. Now, a 10-year-old full protection on an actual page can probably go away, although some vandtrollers can be remarkably persistent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bushranger - I tried to avoid changing protection on articles that I thought were likely protected due to consensus or something extreme. What specific pages concern you? I'd like to take another look. ~Oshwah~ 08:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

None in particular, just general 'well, in my position...' musing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bushranger - Ahh, got'cha. It's all good; I was just making sure :-) ~Oshwah~ 08:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:ECP can be used with salted articles, so maybe there is still an opportunity to downgrade those protections. --Izno (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. As it is not clear whether these are still vandalism targets (although some are), it makes sense to see whether protection is still warranted. (Unfunny memes that needed SALTing ten years ago probably can be dealt with by less extreme measures now). —Kusma (t·c) 16:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I started a discussion at WP:VPR about reducing old creation protections from full to ECP. ~ Rob₁₃ 19:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

IP block needed

204.126.11.192 (talk · contribs) seems to pass the WP:DUCK test of being an IP sock of user Jack Gaines (talk · contribs), who was indef blocked for disruptively changing song genres. Nearly all of the IP's edits are changing the genre field in country music songs to "bro-country" with no other citation besides "Look at the lyrics". This is a very flagrant WP:OR and WP:POINT violation. The IP has been blocked before. Could someone please find a way to put a stop to this? Ten Pound Hammer • 16:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~ 19:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

'Greed' article

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

On the page Greed, an IP is repeatedly adding this content which does not appear to be neutral and reliably sourced; this has been happening for the past two days despite repeated reverts. Admins, could you please give your input on the matter and help to get it resolved?

Entranced98 (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I filed a request at WP:RFPP for you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. As a note, requests for protection really should be taking place at WP:RFPP. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Other articles that need protection due to the Net Neutrality repeal in the U.S.

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

Just like the article Net neutrality, the articles Net neutrality in the United States and Net neutrality law can be subject to vandalism or edit wars. Net neutrality law had already been vandalized --200.78.194.72 (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Motion: Crosswiki issues

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration titled "Crosswiki issues" and decides as follows:

(A) Whether and how information from Wikidata should be used on English Misplaced Pages is an ongoing subject of editorial disputes, and is not specifically addressed by current English Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Aspects of these disputes may include disagreements over who should decide whether and when Wikidata content should be included, the standards to be used in making those decisions, and the proper role, if any, of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) in connection with this issue.

(B) To allow the English Misplaced Pages community to decide the policy issues involved, the Arbitration Committee recommends that a request for comment (RfC) be opened.

(C) While the RfC is being prepared and it is pending, editors should refrain from taking any steps that might create a fait accompli situation (i.e., systematic Wikidata-related edits on English Misplaced Pages that would be difficult to reverse without undue effort if the RfC were to decide that a different approach should be used).

(D) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all discussions about the integration of Wikidata on the English Misplaced Pages for a period of one year from the enactment of this motion, unless ended earlier by the Arbitration Committee.

(E) Editors should abide by high standards of user conduct, including remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, in the RfC and in all other comments on Wikidata-related issues. Editors who are knowledgeable and/or passionate about the issues are encouraged to participate and share their expertise and opinions, but no individual editor's comments should overwhelm or "bludgeon" the discussion.

(F) The request for an arbitration case is declined at this time, but may be reopened if issues suitable for ArbCom remain following the RfC.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Crosswiki issues

Draft:Superman (1978–2017 film series)

While checking on some non-free images, I came across Draft:Superman (1978–2017 film series) and Draft:Superman (1978-2017 film series). I'm not sure why but it appears that they were created by same new editor. It looks they didn't know quite how to move the page to fix the hyphen/ndash issue they had with the title of the first one they created, so they simply created it again. Not sure what to do here. Does the first one Draft:Superman (1978–2017 film series) need to go to MfD or can it just be tagged for speedy deletion? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• To be honest, it doesn't really matter because they're never going to pass AfC - we've already got an article Superman_in_film and they'd just be deleted A10 as duplicates. Black Kite (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've G7'd Draft:Superman (1978–2017 film series) because the creator wrote they were marking it for deletion. Normally if a user makes a cut-and-paste move we would do a history merge, but it wasn't necessary in this case because the creator was the only contributor before the cut-and-paste move, meaning there were no attribution issues to resolve. Jenks24 (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @Black Kite and Jenks24: Thanks to you both for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Actually, if the creator of a page does a cut-and-paste move, and they're the only editor who has edited the page, then all that is necessary is to turn the original into a redirect. There's no point in a histmerge if the attribution links to a single individual. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Pretty sure that's what I said. Jenks24 (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
          • Indeed. Misread your original post. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

SPI backlog

WP:SPI is badly backlogged. We sure miss Bbb23! Bless his heart, he posted today - for the first time in more than a month - and closed a complex SPI case. But he says his time for Misplaced Pages still extremely limited. Any other checkusers willing to step up and handle some of these requests? --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There is only a single endorsed request for checkuser, and it's a relist. The call-out needs to be made to Clerks to review the 6 checkuser-requested cases and Clerks and Admins to review all of the rest of the open categories. There is always a shortage of Admins willing to jump in due to the burnout to reward ratio; it's a slog.--Jezebel's Ponyo 17:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Clerks, admins, we need you! --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the kind words, Melanie. I dealt with the relist, so there are no more masters in the endorsed category. CUs, in particular the new energetic crop, have been doing a terrific job. As Ponyo gets back up to speed, she will make her usual dent.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

First off, seeing your name pop up in my notifications was like Christmas come early. Second, I'm getting older - this is me "up to speed". There is no other gear!--Jezebel's Ponyo 18:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

All I wanted for Christmas was to see Bbb23. :-) Katie 23:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

People know my thoughts on backlogs on here. OK, quick win time - isn't the admin newsletter due soon (1st of the month, I believe)? Along with the standard movers and shakers section, a quick paragraph about the most backlogged areas along these lines: SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. That'll hit 1,000+ user pages and maybe reach a few who aren't as active on this board. I'll even draft that bit up, if someone shows me were to go (fnar, fnar). Lugnuts 18:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' newsletter/2017/12. Nihlus 18:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: AIV is never actually backlogged. It has a bunch of denied requests that most admins would prefer to leave stale than template deny. The solution to the AIV backlog is for vandal fighters to stop reporting good faith users. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

And to stop reporting after two vandal edits. Points #2 and #3 on that board are too-often ignored. --NeilN 19:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Possibly also not to use AIV as 'WP:REQUESTS FOR BLOCKS', for random socks, impolite editors, and POV warriors. SQL 23:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I personally don't mind the random sock reports as long they're obvious. Better than clogging up SPI or ANI. --NeilN 23:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

One of the problems is that they aren't usually very obvious. And when declined, someone else usually follows behind and blocks anyhow - validating, and even encouraging the reporters misuse of AIV. SQL 23:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ditto x2 @UAA — fortunavelut luna 19:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree on AIV never being backlogged. It normally gets backlogged around 12am-10am UTC. Nihlus 19:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

And most of those reports are bad. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nihlus and Tony. I've updated the newsletter. Feel free to change anything. Hope that helps. Lugnuts 19:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, you probably don't need to mention RFPP. Backlogs there tend to get dealt with very quickly; they seldom last more than a few hours. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

IIRC, it has been raised here a few of times in the past months. Can't do any harm to mention it. Lugnuts 20:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes, RFPP gets backlogged for more than 24h (often Saturday European morning - may be the majority of the admins are from North America?), and, indeed, I had to post here a couple of times in a couple of months, and I have also seen others bringing it here. A good thing is that it is actually easy to handle RFPP backlogs.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I knew I wasn't making it up! Right, we'll give this a go and see if there's any improvement. I know that can be hard to quantify, but a reducation of requests here would be a good benchmark. Although, there might be a spike between the 24th and 26th of next month. Christmas is now cancelled. Lugnuts 08:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Update of Administrator Confidence Survey results

The Administrator Confidence Survey results have been updated to include comments from the survey about policy, reporting, harassment, and community culture.

The Wikimedia Foundation Community Health Initiative team is using the survey comments to guide our prioritization for tool development and to plan next steps for research around the topics of harassment and conflict resolution. We are interested in learning your thoughts about the results and your ideas about how they should influence future decision making at Wikimedia Foundation and by the English Misplaced Pages Community.

You can discuss the comments on wiki on talk page or by email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Hey fellow admins, I don't have time at present to handle this, so I thought I'd bring this here in case someone has a few minutes. SSangeertha and Sangeertha satkunarasa appear to be the same person. I don't know if they're doing this to circumvent scrutiny, or if they're just totally confused, but both of these accounts have created:

• SSangeertha
  • Draft:Puviarasu(actor)
  • Puvi (actor)
  • Puviarasu Muthusamy
• Sangeertha satkunarasa
  • Draft:Puviarasu Muthusamy (2)
  • Draft:Puviarasu(actor)

If anyone has some time to look into this, I'd consider it a favor. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Robert McClenon, as he's had some exposure to this and may be interested in scope. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the drafts, as the person had blanked and added AfD tags to them. Seems like it's been consolidated to one article now. I doubt the multiple accounts are an attempt to avoid scrutiny since they edit the exact same things and are so similar that it's pretty obvious they're the same person. ansh666 08:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

thanks for delete those articles how am i improve puvi (actor) i want to deactivate my account Sangeertha satkunarasa how to deactivate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSangeertha (talk • contribs) 09:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@SSangeertha: I don't think it's possible for you to deactivate or delete a Misplaced Pages account once it has been created per WP:UP#Deleting and merging accounts. If you created multiple accounts in error, you probably can just pick the one you wish to continue using, and simply stop using the other one. If you are planning on never editing Misplaced Pages again with any account, then you might be able to request a Misplaced Pages:Courtesy vanishing, but it doesn't sound like this is what you want to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked User:Sangeertha satkunarasa per the request above. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

User:SSangeertha - For advice on how to improve an article, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Cyphoidbomb - Duplicate articles, in my experience, are developed for two main reasons. The first is to avoid scrutiny, either to re-enter them after they have been deleted, or to overwhelm or confuse the AFC reviewers, or in more complicated situations. The second is simply in good faith by an inexperienced editor. The former is more common, and often but not always involves sockpuppetry, but the latter is not that rare, and we should assume good faith unless we have reason to suspect subterfuge. This is clearly a good-faith case, since the author has asked for help and blanked the duplicates. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Pahlevun (Extreme partiality, vandalism and censorship)

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

• Using of repetitive inline templates to vandalize the article : Tavaana: E-Learning Institute for Iranian Civil Society
• Censorship of the historic background of the mosque door approved by the official website of the mosque Great Mosque of Kufa. The Hadith is mythical and imaginary but is the base of the door name.
• Misplaced Pages:Content forking in the article : Iranian Constituent Assembly, 1949 to Iranian legislative election, 1950 and moving the first article to Iranian Constituent Assembly election, 1949 caused the wikidata link to be broken on the corresponding Farsi article. (https://www.wikidata.org/search/?title=Q17005976&action=history) The subject of both articles is same in 1949 and 1950 but the user tries to fork them.
• more and more I have seen repetitively in different article histories

I remind the username Pahlevun (Pahlevan) means "champion" --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 12:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

And I remind the admins reading that the editor who uses the sig "IsNotNationalist" is actually User:IranianNationalist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Who has been blocked for violating 3RR on another article. --NeilN 17:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

And is now continuing their non-nonsensical and borderline-incomprehensible complaints on their talk page. Is revoking talk page access or extending the block indicated in such a case? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I took away his talk page access since he was just using it as a venue to continue the dispute. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Eyes on article

Admins may want to put some extra eyes on the Matt Lauer article. Major news in the U.S. Could see some increased activity with BLP issues. --Jayron32 16:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Request clarification of WP:BLANKING policy

I’ve been an IP editor on Misplaced Pages for quite some time under various IP addresses, so please don’t question the legitimacy of this thread.

Throughout my time at Misplaced Pages, I’ve seen numerous blocked users remove content from their user talk page, or even blank it altogether. This is allowed by policy, with the exception of declined unblock requests. However, I’ve seen numerous administrators and other users who have reverted the blanking of a blocked users talk page by the user themselves, often with rollback or another automated anti-vandalism tool without providing an edit summary or other notification. First, that is blatant misuse of rollbacker userrights (in the cases of rollback) since talk page blanking when done by the user who the talk page is for is not vandalism. Additionally, since users are allowed to blank their talk pages, blocked or not, it is incorrect for the admins/users to revert them, let alone revert them as vandalism.

Sometimes, administrators even go so far as to change the block settings to include “cannot edit own talk page” simply due to blanking that did not include declined unblock requests. The most recent example of this that I can find is Special:Contributions/Harry0gle. Admin TheresNoTime revoked talk page access simply because the user removed the block notice and some other content, both of which are perfectly allowed. To make matters worse, the first editor who reverted the talk page did not leave a notification nor an edit summary, and TNT did not leave {{blocked talk-revoked-notice}} upon removing TPA nor an edit summary. The removal of talk page access here was incorrect. Period.

Another, older example of this is Special:Contributions/Ryan_HoganBruen's_life. Again, they removed content from the talk page that did not include declined unblock requests, yet multiple users reverted them and Favonian then revoked talk page access for no apparent reason. At least Favonian left the talk revoked notice, but no notifications were given prior, and, notifications would not have even been needed in this case or the case above since the blankings were perfectly allowed.

TL;DR I would like to request a clarification of the WP:BLANKING policy that allows users, blocked or not, to blank their talk page with the exception of declined unblock requests. I’ve seen admins and other users not allow users to blank their talk pages in accordance with this policy, and therefore I would like to know whether or not the policy has changed and just failed to be updated, or if we are looking at cases of misuse of rollback, or, at the worst, a case of WP:ADMINABUSE. Thank you. 159.122.86.43 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I think in the specific case of User talk:Ryan HoganBruen's life, I hit the revert button while trying to review the unblock request, though I grant there was an hour from the blanking to my revert. Users are normally free to remove anything they want from their talk pages, with a few exceptions. An exception is a decline for a currently-active block. At least once in the past, I (incorrectly) reverted such blanking when it turned out the block had expired a few hours before. I believe policy should prohibit blanking of block messages, too, not just declined-unblocks. This is particularly true of users like Ryan HoganBruen's life who are blocked indefinitely. I want to be clear, though; that's what I think policy should be. It isn't what our policy currently says, to the best of my knowledge. --Yamla (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree; block notices should be required to stay as long as the block is active. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

See WP:OWNTALK. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why Harry0gle's talk page blanking was reverted (twice), let alone revoking talk page access, as policy specifically allows the talk page to be blanked. Perhaps There'sNoTime can explain? --Jezebel's Ponyo 21:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Good catch both, that was a daft TPA revoke in Harry0gle's case - I was asked by an editor to do so, and didn't give due thought to the action. Normally I am well aware of WP:BLANKING, to the point of reminding others to not edit war over the same sort of situation. I've undone my change of the original block -- There'sNoTime 22:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

For my part, I revoked Ryan's talk page access and reverted, not because of blanking, but because of this silliness – the final confirmation that he had nothing worthwhile to say. Favonian (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Makes total sense to me. That's just plain disruptive.--Jezebel's Ponyo 21:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

For me I must have had a slip up, I honestly recalled the guideline incorrectly an honest mistake and I appologize. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 23:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh boy, I can't wait for that report. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

HAhahah... — Insertcleverphrasehere 05:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling about this... Sorry, someone had to say it... DonIago (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

New vandalisim to Net Neutrality pages

The articles which I asked protection for, Net neutrality in the United States and Net neutrality law had been both vandalized and are still open to further vandalism.

• Net neutrality law
• Net neutrality in the United States

--200.78.194.72 (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You'll get an actual response at WP:RfPP, but I don't know if there's enough to justify protecting the latter article (at least yet). ansh666 22:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

School IPs and block evasion

How does one typically handle a {{SharedIPEDU}} that's evading a block?

Im4god persistently disrupted Church of God of Prophecy with edits like this, so I recently filed an ANI thread that resulted in JzG blocking the account indefinitely. I just noticed this edit, which is obvious block evasion and would easily lead to a {{uw-sockblock}} if it were made with an account, but for one thing it was a day and a half ago, and secondly the IP is registered to a community college and makes edits on lots of topics. Should this just be reverted and ignored (I already reverted it), or is a block somehow appropriate? This is the first disruptive edit by an IP since January 2016 (and there were several IP edits since then that undid disruption), so there's no way that we should be semiprotecting it right now. Nyttend backup (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Close RfC

Hello, proposing that someone close an RfC located Talk:Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_abuse_allegations#RfC:_Whose_photographs_should_be_included_in_this_article? Hopefully this is the right venue to request. I have voted in the RfC so maybe I am not allowed to close it. The RfC is about two weeks old and I think consensus has pretty clearly been reached. Thanks, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I closed parts of the RFC, but wasn't sure about the remaining one, so someone else should check. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

1. The proper mechanism is at WP:ANRFC. 2. I have replied on the article's talk page, here. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ancient User Sub-Pages

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

Hey all, I came across three ancient user sub-pages from both my account now and predecessor handle "Husnock". These are unused pages and should be deleted. The last one seems to be a page someone else created without my knowledge. Delete them please! -O.R. 16:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• User:Husnock/RebuildProjectSpecialRanks
• User:OberRanks/Meadowoods
• User:OberRanks/new article

All deleted as a user request to delete pages in their own userspace (CSD U1). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Mass U2/G6 deletion request

I have created User:Train2104/bad userspace moves off quarry:query/23382, which is a list of all redirects from userspace to mainspace where the page name of the origin is the same of the target, and the user account does not exist. These are most/all the result of pagemove namespace-mistakes. Could someone please delete them all, as U2 and G6 obviously created in error? (feel free to find-replace the noredirect templates to plain wikilinks, if it makes your script easier to handle) – Train2104 (t • c) 19:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

 Doing... (want to check whether they are all indeed U2 eligible) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The database claims so... This list is those whose eventual mainspace target is different from the redirect name, perhaps the result of two moves. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

For example this one is not U2-eligible. I would say it is also not G6-eligible (probably needs to go to MfD)--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yea, bunch of actually existing accounts there. And there is no magic word to tell whether an user exists... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That's really strange. I joined the user table to see if there exists a user name by that page name, and it reported no. That's bizarre. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It is still very useful, thanks a lot.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

A quick way to tell whether a username exists is to look at the "Tools" menu on the left when you're viewing the user page - if the account exists there's a "User contributions" link, and if it doesn't there isn't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

(I've looked at about a dozen in the list, and only three of those accounts do not exist - the rest do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC))

It also shows when you try to edit the user (talk) page. But in this case Train2104's list does not show this information, making reviewing these requests a pain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Odd AE sanction appeal

An AE case was opened against me yesterday. I violated AE 1RR sanction on Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations here . The AE case cited AP2 as the underlying Arbitration case. However, TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) noted that he had placed the 1RR restriction per the BLP arbcom case, not AP2. BLP wasn't raised as an issue in the AE discussion. For the 1RR violation on the article, TonyBallioni unilaterally proposed a 0RR on all living American politicians and related subjects, broadly construed, and a topic ban on living American politicians and related subjects, broadly construed. In fact, Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) commented that he considered that my edits were furthering the cause of BLP but not beyond 1RR infraction. I asked TonyBallioni for diffs related to BLP as DS are not arbitrary and must fall within the scope. He did not answer the request, rather he closed the AE with DHeyward is topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed. and logged it under BLP discretionary sanctions.

This seems rather Kafkaesque in that the punishment is to stop BLP disruptions but the infraction was edit warring over non-BLP contributions and no BLP issues listed. Putting aside the current debate about 1RR as a DS, creating a BLP topic ban over non-BLP edits seems to overreach. No other admin proposed a BLP topic ban. It seems odd that Roy Moore was placed under a 1RR AP2 DS by TonyBallioni while Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations was placed under 1RR BLP DS and the sanction was a topic ban on American politicians. Anyway, the sanction didn't seem to have consensus on the AE page and it looks to me as if the punishment was created to fit a poor DS choice rather than to address the violation. Imagine I edit warred on Roy Moore with exact same edits, no reasonable admin would issue a BLP discretionary sanction because BLP wasn't applicable, they'd just block for edit warring. Common sense would dictate that the same thing on a page that isn't a biography warrants similar treatment, not imposition of an out-of-scope discretionary sanction. This is the admin version of CRYBLP when it doesn't exist.

Please remove the sanction. I don't plan on editing that article again. --DHeyward (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: If you're not editing the article again, why do you want the sanction removed? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Because it prevents him from contributing to other BLPs. It's a very broad topic ban considering this one is the only one he is cited for.--MONGO 03:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@MONGO: DHeyward is a big boy, he can answer his own questions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

'unconstructive' — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)

Please don't hat my questions, DHeyward. If you want a topic ban removed, you should be able to answer questions like 'why do you want it removed'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Four reverts in less than 24hrs on an article that's under 1RR. Yes, BLP came up, though indirectly. The "discretionary" in "discretionary sanctions" means it's up to the closing admin to decide what sanction works best. If this had been taken to 3RR you might have gotten a two week outright block. Volunteer Marek  03:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• It was logged as a BLP sanction because I had placed the article under 1RR/consensus required to avoid WikiLawyering as to whether a split from the main article was "highly visible" under AP2, when the article was obviously a sensitive BLP article that would likely be subject to content disputes. DHeyward had a 3RR violation on a 1RR article and his self-revert appeared to be gaming the system by removing all of the content he objected to. When he responded to the AE post, he didn't see how his edits were about a living America politician (despite being on an article about probably the most visible American politician BLP scandal around). Given the large violation of the sanction (4 reverts on a 1RR article), and then a "self-revert" that removed all the content he objected to, this was a flagrant violation of the discretionary sanctions on the page, with no realization as to why they were an issue. Because of his response at the AE page, and here, focusing on the technicality of what was reverted rather than the broader disruption issues, I went ahead and made this a topic ban rather than 0RR.Re: logging it as a BLP sanction and the wording: since the page sanctions were placed under the BLP case authority, I limited it to living politicians rather than a broader post-1932 ban, which would have covered much more than this. If DHeyward or the community would prefer that this be logged as a AP2 sanction, I'm fine with making that adjustment, but I would have made the same topic ban either way. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• I don't recall ever reading an admin threatening to increase a sanction when their actions were questioned. And no, it wasn't a 3RR vio. VM counted every edit rather than reverts. It was a 1RR vio and I admitted to that. Rewriting from scratch is not a revert. You can read my response at AE to see why. I admitted that it was a 1RR vio, why would you think anything in my response indicated that I didn't understand? --DHeyward (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• That article is a lose-lose situation. Misplaced Pages is wise to make it clear nothing on this website is to be taken as fact and these articles and especially spinoffs as the one in question are truly the worst rags on this website. Tony would be doing you a favor to ban you from that article and related ones, but seems excessive to implement a ban that is so broad.--MONGO 04:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

"And no, it wasn't a 3RR vio. VM counted every edit rather than reverts" - that is completely false. You actually made TEN edits to the article within 24 hours. FOUR of these were reverts, which is pretty plain to see. So no, I did NOT "count every edit". This is easy to check so I'm not sure what you're trying to pull here. This is a bit like when you reverted all the text you disliked and then claimed that was a "self-revert" which immunized you from 1RR. It's just straight up WP:GAMEing. Volunteer Marek  05:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't plan on increasing the sanctions (I'm sorry if that sounded like that), and I certainly don't mind having my actions questions ever: I make mistakes and believe very deeply in admin accountability. My concern here is that you didn't understand (and still don't seem to) that your edits were disruptive on an article that was about an American politician and that this wasn't just a !RR violation, but a major one (4 reverts on a 1RR). I choose this sanction to do my best to prevent blocking you and also to keep the topic ban limited to the sanction area that I had placed the article under. I think it was justified because how large the violation was and then trying to game the system. I believe that this is a serious level of disruption on a very sensitive article and the willingness to try to game the system demonstrates the potential for disruption on similar articles that are under very similar sanctions. I did my best here to avoid a block, because I absolutely hate blocking good contributors. My goal here was only to prevent disruption, not to punish anyone.As I posted on the ArbCom page, my home internet isn't currently working and if I post tomorrow it'll likely be limited or not at all. I feel I've explained my reasoning here, so I'm comfortable letting others judge at this point. I just wanted to point out that if I don't respond, it isn't for ignoring anyone, but is for a technical reason. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Since you didn't reply at AE to my statement, I can't understand why you think I don't understand it was disruptive. It violated 1RR. You don't seem to want to hear that this isn't a revert. It moved and rewrote the material. It's still a 1RR violation but you are mischaracterizing it as 3RR. No content was removed. Lastly, Volunteer Marek is topic banned from all articles related to Donald Trump, broadly construed. That article prominently lists Trump as a person that believes the accusations are false and these edits are about a false accusation. Reverting banned editors is not a violation but again, you didn't address that when I raised it. It doesn't excuse my edit warring but it certainly is food for thought. In what way do I not understand it? My statement was that my edits were not related to BLP and were noted by Masem as a fix to the problematic edit by VM. BLP issues were not raised by anyone which should be a predicate for a BLP sanction. I have no blocks for edit warring in over 10 years editing so I think I get it. --DHeyward (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This is most certainly a revert. You say "It moved and rewrote the material". Yeah. Rewrote it to remove the edits and text made by another user. That's a revert and you've been here long enough to know that. So stop pretending otherwise.

I am not banned nor have I made any edits that violate any sanction I might be subject to. Once again you are being deceptive and dishonest. This is a third instance of such behavior in this particular incident ( (1) Fake "self-revert" that actually was an additional revert, (2) False claim that I "counted every edit" rather than actual reverts, (3) That somehow my edits violate some sanction (they don't)). This is a pattern now DHeyward, and it amounts to WP:ASPERSIONS in addition to WP:GAMEing, which itself is sanctionable. Let me repeat - you are lucky to get away with the mild and short topic ban here. But by all means, keep going...  Volunteer Marek  05:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, here's another falsehood. There are four reverts here. Up above you try to weasel out of one of them by claiming that it was a "rewrite" (which included removal of text another editor added, which still makes it a revert). That would still leave you with THREE reverts on a 1RR article. At WP:AE you claimed this edit was not a revert because it "The third on his list () was removing the "raped" allegation that VM pointed out in his edit". Look at that edit. You are actually adding the rape claim that is not in the source. Quote: "her story led the post to believe she was lying about being raped by Moore". The version before your edit did NOT have the word "rape" in it. You just used a false edit summary which claimed you did something OPPOSITE of what you actually did, and then repeated that same falsehood at WP:AE. And since this also reverted other text (like the section title) it was most certainly a revert.

That makes it FOUR instances of outright deception and ... mistruthing, in just this one particular instance. Why should anyone believe anything you claim?  Volunteer Marek  05:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that I look at your behavior here (I didn't bother reading your comment at WP:AE) and the way you repeatedly and false portray your and other's actions - when it's very easy to check - I actually DO think the sanction should be increased, per WP:BOOMERANG, WP:TEND and even WP:NOTHERE. Volunteer Marek  05:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

People can read the diff. That one edit is not a revert, the others were and I don't dispute it. You are still subject to the Trump topic ban. The iban was lifted. Are you not ... banned from all edits and articles related to Donald Trump for one month. The lede prominently features President Donald Trump, however, expressed support for Moore, and accepted Moore’s denials of the alleged conduct. --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, yes they can. So let's go through the diffs again:

• In this edit you falsely claim to be performing a "self-revert". Actually, you're just making another revert, restoring your own preferred version. This deception was noted by admins at WP:AE (User:MastCell and User:GoldenRing)
• In this edit you falsely claim that you are "removing" a rape allegation. Actually, you are ADDING a rape allegation to the text.
• In this statement you falsely claim that the above edit (which you already lied about) was not a revert. But in addition to you adding (not removing) the rape allegation, you are clearly ALSO making other changes. Like changing the section heading and restoring your own version of the text. It's clearly a revert.
• In this statement you falsely claim that " VM counted every edit rather than reverts". No. You made TEN "every edits". I reported the FOUR which were reverts. This is easily checked at article history
• In this statement and in your comment above you falsely claim that I am violating a topic ban. I'm not. In fact, you brought this up at AE and nobody took you seriously. In addition the admin who placed the restriction agrees. You can always file a new WP:AE report against me and ask. Well, except you can't, cuz that may violate YOUR topic ban.

You've been on Misplaced Pages for some time. You know what a revert is. You know what an edit summary is. You know what WP:ASPERSIONS are. And just generally, as a mature adult, you should know what a lie is. You're trying to WP:GAME the system by making these false claims. This has already been noticed at WP:AE by a couple administrators, and here you are providing more evidence as to the nature of your behavior.

Appeal should be rejected, additional sanctions should be placed for these kinds of dishonest shenanigans. Volunteer Marek  06:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

So VolunteerMarek is under a article ban and two Ibans yet they are here screeching for further penalties against you? That's cute.--MONGO 06:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Mongo, since you're not here to contribute to the discussion, please go away. Volunteer Marek  06:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok...just find your arrogance to suggest that DHeyward is NOTHERE when you yourself are under a topic ban and two Ibans to be rather humorous, which is sad considering I concur with DHeyward that the article in question appears to be one that you are trying to make into your own little POV coatrack.--MONGO 06:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I have a short duration topic ban and an IBAN which are completely unrelated to this issue. DHeyward violated a discretionary sanction and was sanctioned for it. Now he's here trying to spin and twist in a dishonest way (see above). Where exactly am I being "arrogant"? You sure you're not just trying to deflect attention from your buddy's misdeeds? Like I said, if you don't really have much to contribute here, then find some other places to annoy people. Volunteer Marek  09:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

A similar case today, the admin said the article Patriot Prayer fell within the same topic ban as Volunteer Marek and therefore reverting James J. Lambden(Lambden and Marek were tbanned) and the reverting editor wasn't subject to 1RR.. --DHeyward (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

One of the edits you did that was used as an excuse to see you sanctioned was this removal which MrX claims there is strong consensus for it being in the article. The section you removed was a story involving the Washington Post that was published by...the Washington Post...in other words a first party source. Since when are first party sources used especially on a sensitive subject such as this article. I'd say your removal was fully in keeping with REF, BLP and NPOV and followed the sprit of sourcing especially pertaining to BLPs as documented in this section of identifying reliable sources. I see on the article talkpage others mentioned this issue had been widely reported outside the Washington Post, but in the version you removed from the article, only the Washington Post source was used to substantiate the claims. On the talkpage there are several who claim there are many sources in the MSM besides the WaPo, but offer none in the article at the time of your edit.--MONGO 07:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

If the story has been widely reported by sources other than the Washington Post, then it seems to me that the best course of action is to add two or three of the best of those sources to the article, rather than complaining about it here. But some folks seem to love endless debates. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet no one did so when DHeyward took it down it only had the WaPo reference, so his action was correct. It was restored by MrX still lacking further sourcing.--MONGO 08:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of you, MONGO. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Im not adding it in...even with supporting cites I think that section misdirects to equating Moore as having something to do with the situation with the WaPo.--MONGO 08:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

So you repeatedly mentioned the lack of citations, which were readily available, even though your real objection was on another basis? That seems strange. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I did not make the claim the other sources were readily available...those that wanted that passage included did on the talkpage. Yet those wanting inclusion never added them to the article text, not even when they reverted DHeyward who took down the version that lacked the other references. Getting back to where we were here the issue was brought to AE by one with a currently checkered history themselves, and hardly room to complain about others, and the sanction was applied with excessive zeal and misdirection likely due to their inability, not unlike your own, to identify and apply a reasonable and prudent resolution.--MONGO 08:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've read every single comment in this thread about three times and I'm still not seeing a legitimate reason to overturn. You admitted to breaching 1RR, and you were legitimately slapped with a DS for 1 month. Apart from not liking that, what exactly is your grounds for the invalidation of a legitimate DS? Swarm ♠ 09:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's a BLP topic ban when the only comment for BLP by admins praised my edit as correcting a BLP. BLP sanctin, whether AE or not, should not punish editors that have improved. A 24 hour block would be over now and there's no reason to suspect it would be longer. This is AE overreach and the admin version of CRYBLP. How does a broad and long BLP punishment stop a single page incident that didn't involve BLP edits? ArBCom cases are named and scoped. --DHeyward (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• As I have explained to you three times now, you violated 1RR (and pretty massively) on a page where 1RR had been placed under the BLP case authority. That is why it has been logged and worded as a BLP sanction: you were causing disruption on a BLP article so the goal is to prevent disruption on similar BLP articles. There doesn’t need to be a BLP violation for you to be sanctioned for causing disruption on a BLP page where you violated specific page level sanctions. You are essentially asking that the page level sanctions for 1RR only be enforceable if it involves a BLP violation, which would make them almost useless at preventing the disruption they were intended to prevent. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• It might benefit the project to observe the repeated dishonesty here in the service of a partisan goal. This is merely the latest component of a long-standing pattern of behavior. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog