Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lorstaking (talk | contribs) at 17:43, 3 March 2018 (→Why Am I receiving a FINAL WARNING?). 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#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

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

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for closure review

(Initiated 10 days ago on 16 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 59 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

(Initiated 43 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 41 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 40 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 36 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 42 days ago on 14 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 42 days ago on 14 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 37 days ago on 19 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 21 days ago on 5 December 2024) If there is consensus to do one of the history splitting operations but the closer needs help implementing it I would be willing to oblige. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 17 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 17 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

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

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

(Initiated 71 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 69 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 48 days ago on 8 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 29 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 29 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)

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

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

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Pre- and post-nominals discussion needs reopening

John from Idegon closed a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Pre-nominals and post-nominals just when a better mix of editors began appearing. At User talk:John from Idegon#Pre-nominals and post-nominals I have responded to his given reasons for closing the discussion, received his response, and notified him of this request for administrator assistance to reopen the discussion. Jzsj (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

For background, please read Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Pre-nominal and post-nominal BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this Swarm. I'm unable to respond in detail earlier than midday Tuesday (holiday weekend), but suffice it to say, I stand by my closing rationale. If an administrator wants to revert it, of course I have no objection on procedural grounds as I am WP:INVOLVED. In retrospect, it would have been better to have requested Kudpung or Tedder to shut it down for the procedural issues (misplaced and CANVAS) I cited. Please be aware that when I return Tuesday, I will be seeking WP:BOOMERANG. This foolishness has gone on quite long enough. John from Idegon (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to relist the discussion at WT:MOS or WP:VPP. The discussion was taking place at WT:WPSCH/AG, but involved changes to MOS:POSTNOM. No matter what consensus emerged from the discussion, per WP:CONLIMITED, the editors at WP:WPSCHOOLS cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no justification at MOS for confusing these with honorifics. It's the broad interpretation of the "etc." at Schools Project that introduces confusion and may seem to justify the removal of these religious pre- and post- nominals. Jzsj (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no quibble with what is said at WT:MOS. I repeat here what I placed at User talk:John from Idegon#Challenge to your closure of discussion on religious pre- and post-nominals:

I disagree with both of your reasons given for closure. As to 1), as stated in my comments in that discussion, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Infobox contents has gone beyond anything mentioned at MOS. As to 2), I'll let an administrator decide whether placing a neutral alert at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Catholicism to widen the input is canvassing. Please reopen this discussion or I will challenge the closure. @John from Idegon: Jzsj (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

My contention is that the ambiguity of the Schools Project guideline on pre- and post-nominals ("CEO, Dr, BA, BSc, MA, PhD, etc.") allows editors to remove religious ones like "Fr.", "Sr.", Br.", "SJ", "SNDdeN", "OSB", though these are used in hundreds of school article infoboxes. An example of editors' removing these is at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Pre-nominal and post-nominal... a discussion which someone hid there, suggesting that it be brought up in a larger forum. Then when I brought it up at Schools Project Talk it was closed, for two reasons neither of which is valid. Please reopen the discussion there. This is about removing the ambiguity in the Schools Project Guideline which I am saying needs to be removed (the "etc."). Jzsj (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

And this is what all the editors working on NDCRHS have been dealing with for the last 6 weeks. I'm pretty tired of the Father's WP:ASPERSIONS being directed a Wikiproject that I happen to be a coordinator of (pretty much, as I'm sure you all know, a meaningless title). There are 5 editor's completely opposing him at that article and one mostly opposing him. Only 3 of those editors are members of WP:WPSCH. He's clearly made the Wikiproject the demon in this, and using that to justify his tendentious editing and discussion. I'm at a loss for how to process here. 3O is obviously not an option. I cannot see how mediation could be helpful. The only options left are a bit nuclear. I'll be back in a couple hours with diffs, and I'm asking minimally for a topic ban on the particular school article. I just am at a loss here. The last thing I want to be doing is dragging a priest into "Wikicourt", but more reasonable options are not presenting themselves.

This is the link to the canvassing post I referenced in the disputed close (also note the one immediately above it). The Father has already linked the discussion at the article talk which generated his discussion at WT:WPSCH. Please note that no one even suggested they were opposing his position based on school article guidelines and indeed it was suggested, just as I suggested in my contested closing at WPSCH, that he take it up at MOS. A read of the talk page (if you can do so and keep your sanity) will clearly illustrate my, and all the other, editors there, cause of frustration with Jzsj. If y'all wanna take a crack at reading that mishmash good luck. I'll be bringing diffs showing clearly the OP's COI here. It's really questionable whether he can edit any article regarding Catholicism neutrally, and I'll have diffs for that too. Y'all gotta do something. Block him block me but I'm tired of spending an hour a day beating my head against the wall over an article about a tiny little school that is low importance to every project watching it and that averages less than 10 page views a month. John from Idegon (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note that there are seven simple proposals at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#History on which a few have been constantly obstructing my efforts. Others have supported my efforts but have been shouted down. Please check my seven proposals recounted near the end of this History section, and my compromise proposal for some of these issues near the end. Also, please read my explanation at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Pre-nominals and post-nominals in contrast to what John presents here. Jzsj (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I was in charge of English at one time for a group of 47 Catholic high schools in an archdiocese and also lectured linguistics in a Major Seminary. Without any relevance to my own religeous leanings (if indeed I have any), I have the highest respect for the Society of Jesus and it puts me on the fence when having to discuss our guidelines with one of their members. I would appeal to Jzsj to understand the difference between being 'shouted down' and a community consensus in which he is misiterpreting - in good faith - the way we work on Misplaced Pages. And as John so often says, the project coordinators at WP:WPSCH are only janitors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't refer to myself as a priest and I don't see it as relevant to this discussion. Note that the whole discussion at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#History became alarming to me when early in the first section religious pre- and post-nominals were referred to as "alphabet soup" and likened to "crap", though they are used in hundreds of school infoboxes. My use of "shout down" here is an accurate description of the difference between my keeping my cool through all this while some others have made all sorts of threats.

If you are going to keep the "etc." at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#infobox contents, which goes beyond the Misplaced Pages official guidelines, then I suggest that you mention there that religious pre- and post-nominals are not honorifics. @Kudpung: Jzsj (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

We really need to get some guidelines clearly established in this area! When in an infobox I linked the "Fr." and "SJ" in Fr. Joseph Parkes, SJ, my links were removed, though I thought I was introducing an improvement − at here. The editor has no talk page so I could not ask about it. Can anyone explain? (The refs were the usual WP:CREDENTIAL & WP:POSTNOM which leave questions like ours unanswered.) Jzsj (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Does anyone object to opening a new RFC at WP:PROPS and continuing this discussion? I doubt there is a community consensus to change WP:POSTNOM, but, as jzsj points out, the current wording does not directly address religious orders. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

WT:MOS or Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies would seem more appropriate. 32.218.46.19 (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Since Jzsj’s proposal concerns non-biography articles, I feel WT:MOS is more appropriate than WT:MOSBIO. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

MOS:BIO states "While this guideline focuses on biographies, its advice pertains, where applicable, to all articles that mention people." (emphasis mine) In any case, this is really a style issue; WT:MOS would be fine. 32.218.34.240 (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to forgo any request of BOOMERANG here in favor of posting a full report and request for sanctions in a few days. I repeat, I have no objection to an administrator reopening the discussion on my procedural error of involved close. However, it appears to me that there is a fair consensus that at least part of my rationale, wrong place, was correct. I await my serving of trout. John from Idegon (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Jzsj: I think we have a consensus to reopen your RFC at WT:MOS. If you do reopen it, could you

• Read the 2008 discussion about a similar issue?
• Notify WT:WPSCHOOLS and Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School, as well as any other venues you previously notified. It would be best if you could list every notice you placed in a comment to the RFC.

If the RFC is relisted, I agree with the above editors and support closing this thread. If John or Jzsj feel further administrator intervention is needed due to broader editor conduct issues, they can go to WP:AIN. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I remain convinced that we need to reopen that discussion, and if someone claims that the question I've raised is settled elsewhere, please let them quote the words that settle it and not just the name of a page. I've read the 2008 page and I suggest that the honorifics talk may be "similar" but came to no conclusion about the issue at hand. Note that being a "father" or member of a religious congregation (OSB, OFM, SND) places you in a position of obedience to a bishop or religious superior for life: mere honorifics don't do this. We can argue over whether "Rev." is an honorific like "His Excellency", but if we could just clear the "Fr.", "Sr.", "Bro." ones and the post-nominals for religious congregations it would handle the infobox question raised here. Jzsj (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SNOW, I doubt any admin will reopen the original RFC since it was in the incorrect venue for such a change. This thread is reserved for meta discussion of the RFC close, not for rehashing the argument from the RFC.

Many editors may disagree with your proposed style changes, but you are making reasonable arguments in good faith. Let’s open a new RFC at WT:MOS and have a full discussion about your proposal. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The placement at Schools Project was to get rid of the "etc." added there. If policy/guidelines were clarified elsewhere, would the Schools Project still have an "etc." that seems to override that policy/guideline? The importance of the guideline to schools is that the pre- and post-nominals in infoboxes succinctly indicate the extent of control that a diocese or religious congregation has over the school. Jzsj (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The importance of the guideline to schools is that the pre- and post-nominals in infoboxes succinctly indicate the extent of control that a diocese or religious congregation has over the school. No, that would be the job of reliable sources which explicitly discuss the extent of control that a specified diocese or religious congregation has over a specified school, not of tea-leaf-reading of arcane Roman Catholic jargon. --Calton | Talk 13:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

By "extent" I don't mean here a full assessment of the extent, but the common sense understanding that when a bishop or religious superior places an administrator at a school it is to fulfill the vision of the diocese or the religious congregation. I would also borrow here from one of the few "new eyes" that found our NDCRHS discussion, at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Postnominals: "My reading of MOS:POSTNUM is that in this case it clearly supports post-nominals in the infobox. It says "should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization. (a) This order of nuns is over 200 years old and has a presence in 20 countries on 5 continents. I think an argument can be made that this order is "widely recognizable." (b) Furthermore, this is a Roman Catholic order, and the Roman Catholic Church is widely recognized. According to MOS:LEADELEMENTS the infobox is an element of the lead. In conclusion, since either the order or the Catholic Church are widely recognizable, and since the infobox is part of the lead, the Sisters postnominals should be restored to the infobox." – Lionelt 22:21, 21 February 2018 @Lionelt: Jzsj (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean here a full assessment of the extent, but the common sense understanding that when a bishop or religious superior places an administrator at a school it is to fulfill the vision of the diocese or the religious congregation.

In other (long, convoluted) words, exactly what I said: tea-leaf-reading of arcane Roman Catholic jargon. This aint' L'Osservatore Romano, this is a general-purpose encyclopedia with a specific, very hard rule about sourcing. In this case (again), reliable sources which explicitly discuss the extent of control that a specified diocese or religious congregation has over a specified school. --Calton | Talk 02:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Most unrealistic! This is hardly ever explicitly stated, much less in the media. It also flies in the face of the usage on hundreds of article websites. It's this attempt to turn around common usage in Misplaced Pages, that shows the common understanding of guidelines, that has alarmed me from the start. Jzsj (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This is hardly ever explicitly stated, much less in the media.

1) "The media" -- whatever that is supposed to mean here -- is not the only reliable source acceptable on Misplaced Pages; far from it.

2) If it's not explicitly stated, then how important could it be?

3) Common use? Common understanding?

a)

b) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.

--Calton | Talk 00:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and you may wish to look up "common sense", since you're not using the term correctly here. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The current practice in hundreds of articles would seem to me to reflect "common sense". Jzsj (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Your (usual) evasive reply would seem to me to reflect WP:IDHT. Try reading all three lines of point number 3. And, again, THIS PLACE IS NOT FOR CONTENT DISPUTES, no matter what canvassing you do. --Calton | Talk 14:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

So, someone served me up with trout, it sure doesn't look like anyone is going to do anything about re-opening the discussion in question so how about some admin type closing this down? Since someone doesn't understand that this isn't the place to discuss the subject of the discussion in question, nothing good is going to come from continuing this. John from Idegon (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on biography

There is a malicious sockpuppet who keeps trying to add negative tabloid journalism onto Nam Joo-hyuk's page.

Here is the sockpuppet removing references and adding negative BLP material: After it was blocked, it keeps on returning as IP address to vandalise the page: . Looking at the page's history, there has been long-term vandalism of the page by the sockpuppet dating back to last year: by various socks of the same user. Is there a way to protect the page from vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.66.203.211 (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, so I've forwarded it to the correct place to handle these requests - Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It's been protected in such a way that for the next 3 months, the only users who can edit it are those whose accounts are over 30 days old and have over 500 edits. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Help the Anti-Harassment Tools team pick 2 Blocking tools to build

Hello everybody! Reminder that the discussion to select the improvements to the blocking tools is going on. Over the past weeks the Community health initiative team took a look at at all 58 suggestions that came out of the discussion about making improvements to blocking tools. Now join the discussion to select 2 to build from the shortlist. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Samee - Automated tool use

I started a section on Samee's talk page after watching them dump over 119k worth of "rescue" deal url code in the Trump article. I have to be honest, I'm not sure where policy is on his other edits. He uses this IAbot and AWB a lot, and a lot of the edits seem very minor indeed. I'm not sure we should be rescuing articles with no dead links, for instance. I'm not trying to get him in trouble, I just need other admin who are more familiar with our policies on automated editing to take a look, and if need be, give him some guidance. He acknowledges the edit was a mistake, but some oversight and maybe guidance might be needed. I've told him I'm going to post here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

While I agree a full page "rescue" on a page that large probably should be done sparingly. Creating the archives themselves has advantages as some page may never get archived unless you ask Wayback to do so, and may die to linkrot without ever being archived. A lot of the sources, especially with the major news sites are going to get archived on their own anyways, but some pages had their first archive created with that bot edit. The "rescue" that was done, basically was more a "preserve", which could have been done without any changes in Misplaced Pages. It isn't really necessary to actually add the archive into the article, but if the bot could be configured to just tell Wayback to archive the source, and not actually add it into the article, it would be ready for a real rescue when needed. Him running the bot and you reverting it did basically that, but a one step approach that doesn't disturb the page would be way more beneficial. WikiVirusC 01:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone else actually reverted him. My concern here is how policy falls on this. Where is the line in the sand? That's why I'm asking other admin with experience in enforcement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiVirusC I’d be cautious next time while ‘rescuing’ the links and won’t add archive links to the articles for working links.

Regarding AWB edits, though they are minor but these minor linguistic changes such as 1 2 3 4, 5, and 6 etc. are important for a professional encyclopaedia. I make these changes in a good faith particularly for readers.  samee  01:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

And to be clear, I'm not trying to get any sanctions on you, I absolutely believe you are editing in good faith, it just seems some of these are borderline and I'm asking for guidance from my fellow admin, not sanctions. If they are out of policy, my goal would be to assist you, not punish you. The Trump article edit really caught my eye and I just need some guidance of my own here. This is why I went to WP:AN and not WP:ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not mean that way. In fact, I am thankful to you and Muboshgu for pointing towards the edit at Donald Trump. I didn't realise the size of the edit and the resultant load on the article .  samee  02:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I remember that there was a discussion/concern on such mass archivals on some other page - I think MelanieN was involved she (?) might remember where it was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Samee: You need to make sure the "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)" is unchecked when using the IABot Management Interface, especially for larger pages. Nihlus 09:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll. Thanks!  samee  13:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. Yes, I raised this issue at the Village Pump last October. Personally I really dislike these archive-everything edits, which can increase the size of an article by 25% or more. I would prefer that people only archive the dead links, not the live ones. And that is the default action of the bot: to archive only the dead links. But not everyone agrees with me, and I haven't seen any consensus develop in the subsequent discussions of the same issue. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a prime case of why it isn't a good idea to "rescue" things that don't need rescuing. Obviously I can't fault Samee, he didn't violate a policy, but his almost 120k addition to Trump is exactly why this is a bad idea, and if it is a bad idea for one article, it would seem a bad idea for all, as (as MelanieN notes) it adds 25% or more to the article size, making a lot of articles harder to access (and more expensive to access) on mobile devices. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Panel requested for a discussion closure

Discussion closed. Message me, Primefac, and/or TonyBallioni if anyone has any questions. SkyWarrior 19:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

I know I already posted this at WP:ANRFC, but I think posting it here as well would give it more eyes (plus this is more of a request to get volunteers together to help close than to actually close it right then and there).

Anyways, the discussion at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown needs closing, and a panel of at least three uninvolved editors is recommended since the discussion is rather contentious. Initially, we had me, Winged Blades of Godric, Ammarpad, and Primefac; WBoG and Ammparad later recused and Primefac said he wouldn't be needed in the decision-making process (though that may've changed given WBoG's recent recusal).

Since I am the only one left and I absolutely cannot close the discussion alone, I am asking for at least two uninvolved volunteers, preferably admins, who are willing to help out. And sorry if this seems like canvassing; that was not my intention. SkyWarrior 15:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If no one signs up, I can take a look. --Izno (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm experienced with closing RMs, and would be fine dealing with it. If it is to be a panel, I'd prefer another experienced RM closer as the process there is typically a lot more nuanced than in other discussion venues. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine, TonyBallioni, twist me feckin' arm... Primefac (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope others will notice anyway that I've raised this at the RM, but just to save time I'll also point out here that a close might currently be premature, and that a panel might be neither needed nor advisable. But we'll certainly need at least one uninvolved admin to close... again in my opinion. And many of the RM regulars (self included) are involved. Andrewa (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Alternate Account

As I create an account named MustafaAliIsAPakistaniWrestler for the reason given at user page, simply I need to know that is it permissible to create alternate account? Second, I need to know about this alternative account I've created that:

• Does it resulting any violation of Username policy?

• Are these added tags and userboxes ok or I have to remove them?

• Will it result in losing any editing privileges?

Thank You. CK (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• WP:Sock puppetry (and WP:SOCKHELP to a lesser degree) have the how tos. You need to link them on each account page. Generally, it isn't a problem to have two accounts as long as you never edit at the same time on the same article using the two accounts. That makes it look like two people are doing so. The key is insuring you never use them to make it look like you are two different people. If you commented or voted at AFD using BOTH accounts, for instance, you would be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To be honest, I really don't see how you would be using that alt. account. You mentioned that you want to stop edit wars at Pakistani-related BLP topics. Why couldn't you do that with your main account? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I really don't see anything in WP:VALIDALT that could be applied here. byteflush _Talk 19:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed this makes no sense, and also you can’t use the name of a real, well-known person in your username, so I’ve blocked that account. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

After loking around a bit I feel compelled to formally ask @Broken nutshell: to voluntarily restrict themselves to one account as they do not seem to have a solid grasp of what is and is not a legitimate use of alternate accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: @Beeblebrox: I agree with you that you have blocked my alternative account and I got it because of Naming violations. No matter about this. Pakistani related BLPs are especially for those articles that related to OVERSEAS PAKISTANI who were born to a Pakistani Family but outside Pakistan, recent edit warring was occured in mid February at Mustafa Ali (wrestler) that he is Indian, Declaring Pakistani person as Indian appears to be incorrect as I've warned 2 IP editors for this thing, You're right at your blocking reason, as I've already appealed protection raise for that Mustafa Ali article.

RE: @Byteflush: You say "Someone Correct Me", I can understand everyone's message as you don't needed to be worry about it I clearly got your message too. By the way, Thanks for helping, at least I got what is right or wrong here.

CK (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Broken nutshell: You don’t actually seem to have answered my question above, so I’m going to ask again: Will you agree to limit yourself to one account? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: @Beeblebrox: Yes I agree and from now I've decided to keep myself in one account. CK (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Good. Thank You. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Block required

Please block Tran9644 (talk · contribs) and revert all edits immediately. They are a WP:DUCK sock of Jack Gaines (talk · contribs)/SuperPassword (talk · contribs), repeatedly changing song genres to "bro-country" and vandalizing articles related to Alan Jackson. I would also propose some kind of edit filter to stop their edits, because I had to deal with one of their socks just yesterday and don't wanna keep playing whack-a-mole every time they show up. Ten Pound Hammer • 21:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like they are blocked and none of their edits is the current revision. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible hateful/vitriolic content in userspace?

So I found this very old sandbox from 2013 that contains some very hateful content in it. Should it be nuked? The user is indef'd anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • 01:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I've just gone and blanked it. Leaving it to the admin corps to decide whether it is worth deleting. Or it could go to MFD. Blackmane (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

...And I lost my innocence. If I were an admin, I'd delete it. But that's just me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMitochondriaBoi (talk • contribs) 01:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's run of the mill idiocy. But it's also a copyvio so nuked. --NeilN 01:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Off wiki harassment

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

Tran9644 (talk · contribs)/EbenezerStooge1 (talk · contribs)/SuperPassword (talk · contribs)/Jack Gaines (talk · contribs). This user has repeatedly been blocked for creating a myriad of socks to vandalize Alan Jackson-related articles. Today, the user has been repeatedly harassing me on Twitter, admitting that they made up some of the stuff they added, but also insistent that some of their vandalism is "correct" (i.e., claiming that a 50-something country singer is covering Wiz Khalifa and Lil Wayne in concert). Said user has been spamming me on twitter with name-calling, memes, and general harassment (their Twitter is here). Their edits on Misplaced Pages are easily discernible by use of edit summaries such as "Look at the lyrics" and "#AlanJacksonKilledCountry", while also using as a "source" a setlist.fm page that was clearly vandalized by them.

Is there a way that this user can be formally banned, and have some of their "tricks" added to the edit filter? I've had to revert and report two of their socks in the past 24 hours, but the Twitter harassment is crossing the line. Ten Pound Hammer • 05:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If you're being harassed, report the account to Twitter and have it disabled. Tamara787 (talk · contribs) certainly qualifies for a site ban, but it won't accomplish anything. There is no difference between an editor who is site banned and an editor that no admin will unblock. And no admin can unblock Tamara787 – the account is globally locked. It is literally impossible for an English Misplaced Pages administrator to unblock this sockmaster; only a steward can do that. As far as an edit filter, you should file a request at WP:EFR. Someone there will tell you if it's possible. If you spot new sock puppets, file a case at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tamara787. I have that watchlisted and will take care of any sock puppets that are reported. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC: update to banning policy for repeat sockmasters is likely to completely remove any perceived need to request a cban of an editor who socks more than once after an indefinite block. (Probably irrelevant here due to the global locking anyway. Although in some cases it's up to us if we want allow an editor who was globally locked to have another account. A publicly compromised password is an obvious example of that.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Should any attempt be made to try and contact Alan Jackson's representatives? A lot of the content being spread by this sock is hateful and could be damaging in the wrong hands. Ten Pound Hammer • 16:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If you have a short list of articles, and this is an ongoing problem, putting EC30/500 protection on them may help as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

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

My name is Roman Spinner. I am 69 years old and have been editing Misplaced Pages on a nearly-daily basis for over 12 years (first edit: January 22, 2006). Here in Commons, is a photo of me. Two years ago, in February 2016, I was banned from editing disambiguation pages and talk pages of disambiguation pages for creating overlong disambiguation page entries. Along with my unbanning request is a quoted excerpt from the February 2016 ANI discussion:
"Are you going to stop editing dab pages in this way? Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, of course, I will stop. Judging by the comments, I am on the losing side of this argument. As I wrote near the end of my April 2014 lengthy reply to your posting, "hese disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one…" Faced with a chorus of disapproval, it would be at least counterproductive, if not masochistic, to expend so much energy/effort for such meager effect. All my future entries will be pared to the bone -- vital dates/defining date, nationality and profession/function/venue. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)"
As a closing note, I will add that the content of my above reply from February 2016 continues to be valid today. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I took the liberty to change the title, as this is an appeal for the topic ban. I've read through the previous AN/I discussion, and I am leaning toward support lifting the topic ban pending response from the main parties in the previous discussion: Jwy, Boleyn, Ubcule and Swpb (Midas02 is not active in the past two years). Alex Shih (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Roman Spinner: how would you disambiguate Abraham Lincoln if he appeared in a disambiguation page? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I would follow an existing example at any US president dab page, such as Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) and copy the form already there: "Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) was the 16th President of the United States." —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• I would be fine lifting the ban on a trial basis and seeing how Roman gets on. If he starts breaching WP:MOSDAB again the topic ban can always be reinstated, but I hope that's not the case as his intentions were good and he seems to have taken the criticism of his prolixity on board. Roman, the example at Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) is actually a really good one for you to refer back to if you're not sure how much to add. As is JFK (disambiguation). Fish+Karate 09:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• I spent so many hours on correcting these and trying to communicate with Roman, I feel weary at the idea of the lifting of the ban. However, it has been a long time and if Roman is now genuinely willing to follow the guidelines, I see no reason not to give this otherwise productive editor the chance to do so. Boleyn (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the topic ban. Given the level of willful disregard of dozens of warnings and the blatant disdain for consensus that led to this ban in the first place, and the various attempts to skirt the ban since it was imposed, I do not believe Roman Spinner has demonstrated an ability to be trusted even an inch when it comes to disambiguation pages. Before I'd consider letting RS edit dabs again, I would need to see from him:

1. A frank assessment of the damage he caused, with no hedging whatsoever
2. An explanation in his own words of why each of the MOS:DAB guidelines he flaunted exist
3. An explanation of what consensus means on Misplaced Pages, and what led him to believe he could ignore it

Until then, we have plenty of trustworthy editors who work on dabs without wasting dozens of hours of the community's time trying in vain to convince them to follow the rules. I have tremendous respect for Boleyn, but I don't share her generosity in this case – all sweet talking by RS aside, the risk of lifting this ban currently outweighs any potential benefit to be had. —swpb 14:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• A thorough read of "skirt the ban" shows there was one attempt to "skirt the ban", and it was more of an error than anything else. And risk? What risk? There is no risk whatsoever in assuming good faith and giving someone a second chance. Fish+Karate 15:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The risk that we'll all be right back here soon. I have better things to do than participate in a fourth or fifth ANI for the same user. —swpb 16:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:LASTCHANCE - it's been two years, and while I appreciate the disruption caused in the past it was in good faith, and RS seems to recognize that his past disambiguation editing was against standards and against consensus. I expect an editor of 12 years' tenure to be able to respect consensus from here on out. I also expect he knows that if he does not then a reinstatement of the topic ban will be swift and may draw additional sanctions. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE. If the problems return, so too can the topic ban. --Jayron32 14:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support, with the understanding that @Roman Spinner: should expect their edits to be watched closely. As others note, future disregard for policies will likely result in a more permanent sanction of some sort. BUT, on the other hand, if they're willing to edit within the scope of policy, then they should be allowed to do so. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Qualified Support per above with the caveat that any uninvolved admin should have the discretion to reimpose the TBAN if it looks like a pattern of disruptive editing is returning. No need for another trip to the drama boards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose; My response on seeing this was the same weariness Boleyn notes. However, I disagree that the ban should be lifted; there's no clear sign that the underlying issues that led to the ban have changed. (Let me make clear that while the following comments may sound harsh, they relate specifically to Roman's dab edits, and not the rest of his contributions to WP, which I assume are largely positive and am not aware of a problem with):-

• The ban was not an abrupt response to recent behaviour- quite the opposite. Roman was first notified eight years- eight years!- before the ban and on numerous occasions following that that his edits were contrary to our agreed consensus on dab page style. He was clearly intelligent enough and capable of understanding MOSDAB (even if he disagreed with it personally) but continued to ignore it for years in favour of imposing his own style on dab pages. In other words, he had no problem happily disregarding consensus opinion- for years- as long as he wasn't being called out on it.
• @Ivanvector:- "I expect an editor of 12 years' tenure to be able to respect consensus from here on out". With respect, I entirely disagree- if someone has been on WP even half that long and still fails to respect consensus on a given topic (despite it having been brought to their attention repeatedly) until basically forced to, it's pretty damning.
• Roman's self-quote in green highlights his self-appointed martyrdom- "hese disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one…" This despite the fact it had *already* been pointed out on numerous occasions that these edits were not what dab pages were for. It's all very passive-aggressive- you already *knew* that this wasn't the agreed function of dab pages. If you wasted your own time and effort- for whatever reason- it's because you *chose* to do so.
• Roman nominally acknowledges that the weight of opinion is against him. ("I am on the losing side of this argument. Faced with a chorus of disapproval, it would be at least counterproductive, if not masochistic, to expend so much energy/effort for such meager effect)"). This still smacks of martyrdom and passive-aggressiveness; he's acknowledges that he's on the losing side, but not *why* the majority disagree with him. He's entitled to think his version is "right", but given that this previously seemed to be the driving force behind the disregard of the agreed consensus that led to the ban- and given that there's no sign this attitude has changed- I'm not hopeful.
• The fundamental problem is that- like swpb- I see absolutely no indication that Roman has changed in his attitude towards dab pages- that they should be fact-filled mini-articles (contrary to their agreed purpose). The arguable flouting of that ban mentioned above just reinforces this suspicion more strongly.
• If the ban is lifted, I strongly suspect we'll see attempts to stay within the rules- but not the spirit of the rules- while pushing towards what Roman possibly still thinks in his heart a dab page should look like (i.e. not WP:MOSDAB!) I'd expect adherence to MOSDAB to loosen as time goes on, he's less "on parole" and his dab edits being are scrutinised less tightly. This will lead to further tedious discussion, excessively verbose rationalisations and we'll be back here again. Ubcule (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support It has been long enough. And since the TBAN was not set to infinity, it was only enacted so as to help him to disengage for a while from that area and have reflection on the kind of edit he did in the past that led to the ban. We should now give him another chance. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - "I am 69 years old" is enough for me to support this topic ban appeal, (Although age shouldn't be a factor I see it as "They're old enough and wise enough"), As noted above the TBAN wasn't set to indef and as they've obviously not edited disams since I think's fair they're given another chance, Everyone deserves a second chance so easy support. –Davey2010 22:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Davey2010 above. Let's temper justice with mercy. Miniapolis 23:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support I'm sure somebody could find something to complain about in this user's move log (and most of their contributions in the past month are move-related), but I don't see any reason to keep a prohibition on editing DABs. Separately, the "contribution" link in Roman Spinner's signature appears to be broken. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It sounds like he's willing to follow consensus, even if maybe he doesn't agree with it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral. (piping in only because I was pinged above) - As I mentioned at some point, I don't DAB as much as I used to. The "Qualified Support" comment above probably comes closest to my opinion. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

That whole thing about edit summaries

So as some of us have discovered (unfortunately) WMF have raised the cap on edit summaries from 250 to 1000 characters. The reason doesn't matter much, I suppose (Something something something non-English wikis something something bollocks), but the issue is we end up with copy/paste edit summaries like Special:Diff/828335644. There's already a VPR thread here regarding the issue, but until that is resolved, I am wondering about what we should do about these incredibly unnecessarily long edit summaries.

Now for the record, I am perfectly fine with edit summaries like this, as it's a bit long but it also explains the edit. I'm thinking threads like the first example or this, wherein the editor is simply copy/pasting their entire message into the edit summary. They just clutter up the edit history and don't give a summary of the edit.

If the answer is "nothing" then that's fine, I'm just looking to start a discussion about the administrative side of things. Is it worth performing a revdel on an edit summary that does absolutely nothing more than quote the edit itself? I've had a half-dozen people on IRC complain to me that they consider it to be "disruptive" (which would fall somewhat under the RD3 umbrella but not really). Do we just suffer through and ask nicely for those people to stop copy/pasting their text into the edit summary? Primefac (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• And to reiterate/TLDR, I'm mostly wondering if this is an "ask people nicely to stop" situation or if we even can/should escalate to revdel should they continue with massively long/unnecessary edit summaries. Primefac (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I should also mention that both of the editors connected to the copy/paste edit summaries linked above know about the issue and have said they'll be making an effort to avoid it in the future. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This is purely disruptive in my book (for disclosure sake I was the one that started the VPP thread to get it removed). The edit summary box is for, well, a summary. It is not the place to copy and paste your entire edit. If I wanted to know your entire edit I would look at the diff. All the extended edit summaries are doing is destroying page histories and watchlists. "+" would be better than an entire copy/paste like that. I'm all for calling these purely disruptive and treating them like all other purely disruptive things. RD3'ing them. --Majora (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• People should stop pasting the contents of their changes into the edit summary field. It irks me out. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• WP:RevDel says "Revision deletion should only be used in accordance with the criteria for redaction." RD3 is defined as "allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, and links to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid purpose, but not mere spam links." Edit summaries that pertain to Misplaced Pages clearly do not qualify for this criteria. It's like deleting a page as CSD A7 because you know it'd never pass AfD. Let's not stretch deletion criteria because our actions cannot be reviewed by unprivileged users. The key is Purely disruptive - not just disruptive. That's implies intent.--v/r - TP 02:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Well the irony did make me chuckle at first glance. Bad habits sure are hard to break, aren't they? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm just going to make small diffs from now on.--v/r - TP 02:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• I don't concur, as to the idea of RevDel.~ Winged Blades 04:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• No comment on the edit summary change, but revdel would be entirely unwarranted and out of process here. ansh666 04:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Regardless of revdel, it does seem like an area worth watching as it may be more enticing to use edit summaries for vandalism. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think revdel should be used for good faith edit summaries, and I'd prefer some of the technical solutions which are being proposed. I've already seen vandals who would love to exploit this, exploit this for the sake of disruption. To me these remain as good as ever for RD3. -- zzuuzz 11:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• This is probably an amazingly stupid question, but is there any reason we cannot get the WMF to let Wiki's set the edit-sum char limit locally as part of their own management? Why *is* the WMF deciding how long we want our edit summaries to be on ENWP? I understand due to different languages and charsets one-size-fits-all may not be appropriate, but if you need to take more than 300 characters in English its not a summary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Misplaced Pages in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Block for review

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

Sandstein (talk · contribs) has blocked MapSGV (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a normal admin action for personal attacks after acting on a spurious report filed by a suspected wikihounding sock puppet of a topic ban evading editor that is quacking loud, but still causing much disruption by taking wrong advantage of slow SPI processes and trying to get rid of the user he wikihounds as soon as its possible.

Reportedly, as per the SPI, reporting editor was disruptively wikihounding MapSGV because MapSGV was working on an article that has been considerably disrupted by the sockmaster of this suspected sock.

Under such evidenced harassment, what really made Sandstein act on a such a deceptive and one-sided report?

I had already described the fallacy of this report on ARE. A good judgement would be if Sandstein had treated the deceptive report as spurious and/or blocked the filer as a WP:DUCK sock. While the block is not ARE related, his comments on ARE are problematic, where he is claiming that those who have low edit count(223) but if they are aware of Misplaced Pages policies then it is alright to falsely accuse them of being a sock, despite the user in question was editing and was notified of all policies since 2014. Bringing up edit count is also doesn't matter per WP:COUNTITIS.

Why Sandstein didn't sanctioned the offending users for their incompetence, personal attacks and article disruption but singled out MapSGV who made fair criticism of incompetence that prevailed around him? The reported diffs were nothing but responses to personal attacks made on him and none of his statements constituted even a single "personal attack" let alone "attempting to harass" users as Sandstein claims. Sandstein went a step ahead with his misjudgment when he said that MapSGV should be topic banned if unblocked, but we really don't sanction competent editors for safeguarding disruptive incompetent editors.

It seems that civil POV pushing is indeed crossing the heights that you would get blocked even if you are criticizing misrepresentation of sources, disruptive POV pushing, having false allegations of socking and other facing other sorts of disruption from others including socks. Are we actually encouraging such deceptive civil POV pushing and that competent editors should be blocked only because they have been falsely accused of incivility, while they are responding to false accusations by incompetent editors and socks?

For all these reasons I find this block to be a bad block and support unblock. I posted this block review since I had commented on the original report and MapSGV himself requested for an ANI review. Lorstaking (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn clearly a horrible block. Lack of evidence of personal attacks, and I see nothing but only logical responses from MapSGV to those who are engaging in WP:IDHT, WP:DE and WP:NPA. The suspected sock (Elektricity) had also wikihounded my contributions and then filed a malicious report ANI against me which was never taken seriously by others. But I wonder now, maybe Sandstein would've indeffed me because I was being targeted by a Wikihounding disruptive editor who is trying to be a Civil POV pusher. Sandstein will you overturn the block already? Raymond3023 (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• <ec>I've just come from MapSGV's talk page, where I've asked Sandstein to reconsider the duration of the block. Indef seems too long, even if the block reasons were valid. However, I feel MapSGV was more likely the harrassee than the harrasser, and that the matter needs fuller discussion.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

But he was being wikihounding and the harasser was just engaging in disruptive editing and is likely to be blocked for socking for topic ban evasion. How could Sandstein trust on his deceptive report without looking at reply of everyone else? GoldenRing also assumed that SPI needs to be resolved first. Lorstaking (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural decline unblockThis should be handled by discussion with Sandstein, and we should close this thread until he has the opportunity to discuss it with the blocked user. There is absolutely no reason for this to be brought to AN by a user other than the one who has been blocked when a standard unblock appeal is pending and Sandstein hasn't even had the opportunity to respond. Turning this into a tempest when it can be handled through the normal channels is not good for Misplaced Pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: WP:AN was suggested by NeilN, if no agreement has been reached on MapSGv's talk page then we can just reopen this thread. Do you agree? Lorstaking (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lorstaking: to me it looks like NeilN made a procedural note. He did not suggest you bring it here. Also, I'd prefer this go through the regular unblock template process. There is nothing extraordinary about this to make it require a review at AN, and I think it is awfully unfair to Sandstein for someone who isn't even blocked to be questioning his actions without so much as talking to him. Taking a block review to AN while a unblock template is still pending is highly irregular, and we normally don't review simple admin blocks here. There is no reason to suspect that the normal unblock process will not work in this case, and I'd prefer it be handled that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Request to update an incorrect image file

Hi. This file is an incorrect, unofficial logo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File_talk:V8_JavaScript_engine_logo_2.svg A copy of the correct, official one is here: https://github.com/alrra/browser-logos/blob/master/src/v8/v8.svg

Unfortunately it seems the file can only be updated by administrators. Can an admin please take care of this?

Thanks!

Mathias, V8 (Google)

Mathiasbynens (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, @Mathisbynens:. You need to try to upload it on commons:File:V8 JavaScript engine logo 2.svg rather than here - the file is on a sister project called Wikimedia Commons and when it is there it should be changed there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mathiasbynens: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

And the Edit-War of the Month Award goes to ...

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

. They've both breached 20RR (sic), and 4TheWynne, who knows better, has neither reported the user nor engaged in article-talk discussion (nor even remotely explained his reversions). Could someone put an end to this nonsense? Softlavender (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: John Jason Barrett has been blocked by Ferret as NOTHERE. So we can all relax and enjoy the Oscars (in a few days), for some more interesting Awards. Softlavender (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, actually, I did – this is an obvious sock, and I've tried to explain this anywhere that I can. Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Vixion – it just took ages for someone to actually see it. As for the humour, I'm really not in the mood. 4TheWynne 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of blocked users are exemptions from 3RR, and the other user is blocked (although not for SP), so I'd say wait for the SPI to conclude and then come back to this. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I sent the AIV report to SPI. I'm not familiar with the user and it gave us nothing to go off of. SPI is better suited for reports as it will likely have admins who are familiar with the user watching the page. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Our most prolific article creator is (or was) a copyright violator...

We'll need to discuss how to handle this best. It turns out that User:Dr. Blofeld, who is with 96,000 articles created our most prolific article creator, has in a number of cases (so far early in his career, more research is needed) created blatant copyright violations. We can start a CCI, but these take years and the scale of what needs to be checked is huge in this case. User talk:Dr. Blofeld#Copyright problem: Olavi Paavolainen shows the initial concern, raised by User:Orland, and further research confirming clear copyvios from multiple sources in multiple articles. His many, many geography stubs are probably allright, but I fear that e.g. his many film articles have used copyrighted plot summaries. Fram (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if there's anything problematic about his more recent creations. Partly because he's been involved in so many disputes, he's been under something of a microscope for years, and I'd think it unlikely that someone wouldn't have spotted a problem if there had been any issues recently. (The 96,000 figure is a little misleading, as the geography stubs are mostly just "Foo is a village in Bar" database scrapes; doing a very quick dip-sample, a lot of the film articles also seem to be microstubs like this.) I'd suggest giving it a couple of days for him to answer—even if he's retired, I'm sure someone can get hold of him and ask him—as despite my many disagreements with him over the years, I've no doubt he's editing in good faith, and he may well put his hands up and say "yes, I used to do cut-and-pastes but I stopped doing it once I understood it was a problem". If it's only his early edits that are problematic, it will be a lot easier to handle; likewise, any investigation will be far easier if he's onside and can explain where he feels the problems are, as opposed to feeling persecuted and refusing to cooperate. I certainly don't intend to nuke his contributions, since wiping the history of something like Paris or Thimphu would be hellish to repair. ‑ Iridescent 21:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Kinda off-topic non-admin comment I'll never understand why "Foo is a village in Bar" sub-stubs are allowed to survive more than a few hours. In early 2013, I created a microstub on the guy who commissioned Japan's best-known poetry anthology and the page was PRODded (and promptly deleted) weeks later by a sock of a user who was site-banned for harassing me; when I emailed an admin who helped me prevent another related incident, he essentially said "Yeah, but that one was so short that I would have deleted it myself if I came across it with a PROD tag and didn't know either you or him". Since then I've been frankly terrified of mainspacing one-sentence articles (almost all my articles stay in my user space until they're more than 100 words long), and I will never know why this never seemed to happen to anyone but me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. If memory serves someone (Arbcom?) at some point in the past (possibly before I came on board) ruled that any populated place on the earth was a legitimate subject for an article, even if a sub-stub, and whammo! Misplaced Pages became a gazetteer. Of course, one can also ask if we really need articles on every Pokemon character, but Gnu forbid we start paddling up that stream. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Not since at least 2007 have we had an article on every Pokemon... The history of the related navbox should be illustrative. --Izno (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Iridescent and would be somewhat surprised if this is a long term issue, though we do need to look. Any obvious copyvios need to be dealt with but I also believe in a statute of limitations. Unless there is evidence of recent abuse I would oppose any sanctions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It isn't a sanctions issue so much as a cleanup issue. I agree with Iri that it is much better to have him cooperating (and I'll take his word on it that it is unlikely that Blofield had recent copyvios), but the cheer scale of the cleanup, even if limited to a few years, would be pretty large (and difficult to cleanup because figuring out who copied whom at this point will be a PITA with all the mirrors and copying from us), even if it wasn't 96,000. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep, you're probably the one who's worked most closely with him; are you aware of any recent issues, and can you see if you can get hold of him to see if he remembers when he stopped cut-and-pasting? If this is only a few of his very early edits we're talking about, it makes things much easier; I've no desire at all to wade through even 10,000 articles looking for potential copyright violations, especially given that many of the sources won't even be in English to start with. ‑ Iridescent 22:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

While this is concerning, he's been editing for nearly 12 years and the examples cited so far are over a decade old - not that it's a excuse, but many will have been edited somewhat since then, some significantly, so they are no longer problematic. Are there any recent examples of copyvio articles? Aiken D 22:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but many will have been edited somewhat since then isn't how it works. A copyvio is a copyvio even if none of the original text remains; if anything, that makes it more difficult, as it means we have to go through the history revision-by-revision revdeleting those that are problematic. Provided the violating text is present in the history, then as far as the law is concerned we're hosting it. ‑ Iridescent 22:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Good luck to whoever takes that on that responsibility, sounds like a mammoth task. Aiken D 22:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent and Fram: I've done a spot check through May 2016, which is where I first start running into the potential for close paraphrase (and ignore the percentages in the earwig, I only use it to identify potentially problematic text and compare it against the source manually).In Cynthia Bouron he wrote She filed a paternity suit against Cary Grant, claiming that he was the father of her daughter. The LA Times wrote In 1970, Milosevic's ex-wife, Cynthia Bouron, alias Samantha Lou Bouron, brought a paternity suit against Cary Grant, saying that he was the father of her daughter Stephanie Andrea. Whether or not that is close enough to be a violation of our policies is the question (I am leaning yes, but I'm also pretty strict on these things). I don't see much else during that time period, so it could be a one off, but I am also just randomly spot checking. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like plagiarism, just a couple of words changed. Aiken D 22:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if there are significant problems in recent articles. I've dealt with Dr. Blofeld a fair amount and am also active in cleaning up copyright problems (the two are unrelated!). I feel like I noticed one old article ages ago that had some close paraphrasing issues, but I never noticed any pattern of copying in anything recent (or anything old, for that matter). And I don't think that Cary Grant sentence is remotely concerning. There are not that many ways a simple factual sentence like that could be written. Maybe if it was a whole paragraph like that, but a single sentence?.... I have zero heartburn over the matter. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it is a bit more than just factual with little ways to paraphrase in that sentence, so I would consider it in need of fixing, but part of the reason I posted that was that in my estimation there really hasn't been that much (if any) recent issues. If that was a one off, it suggests that our focus should be on the earlier stuff, as I haven't found anymore through my 2015 spot check. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

To the extent there is a problem involving decade-old contributions to articles with hundreds of revisions since, it may frankly not be fixable. I'm not sure what the implications of that may be—though they are probably less than some people might fear, if we've never had a complaint in all these years from an actual copyright-holder—but I thought I'd flavor the discussion with a tinge of stark realism. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but the trouble is that now we know there's a potential problem, all the duty-of-care and precautionary-principle stuff kicks in. (I agree entirely with Calliopejen1 about the Cary Grant sentence, FWIW. It's not plagiarism if it's a simple straightforward statement of fact and there's no other way to word it, any more than it's plagiarism that most biographies start with "Name was born in Place in Year".) ‑ Iridescent 23:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

In principle you are correct, but in the realm of practicality, a review of all those articles and revisions simply won't happen. If we try to undertake one, the common experience is that we'll wind up with a big project in which people lose interest after a week. So logically, we need to proceed on the basis of some spot-checking of the most likely problems and work from there. Reaction to any copyvios that are found also needs to be proportionate; I don't feel the need to revdelete 1000 revisions of a page that used to have two infringing sentences in it, for example. The community simply is not going to drop everything else it is doing to address the problem described here, assuming it is a problem, and as a practical matter we can't expect it to try, no matter how fully we try to respect rightsholders' legal and ethical rights. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, per above, if there is to be anything done here, it should focus on the ones most likely to be of issue, which does not appear to be recent. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, I entirely agree—per my comments above it would be wholly impractical to carry out a selective revision deletion on Paris (to which Blofeld has over 500 edits) even if it were found he'd copied the whole thing verbatim. More realistically, we'll end up doing a Sander v Ginkel and bulk-deleting those articles created before a certain time, to which there have been no substantive edits by anyone else, after a grace period in which anyone interested in cross-checking them against sources can do so. ("Created by Dr. Blofeld" AND "no sources cited at the time of creation" AND "at least 30% of the original text remains" AND "nobody volunteers to repair it after it's been tagged as potentially problematic for a month" would seem to be an obvious metric to catch most of them if this does turn out to be a problem rather than a one-off.) ‑ Iridescent 23:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with much of the above. There are two conflicting issues here. One is the ideal, i.e. what we should be doing to deal with what may, or may not be a significant problem. The other is the practical reality. Which is to say what are we realistically able to do? My guess is that we are going to just have to dive in and see how deep the water is and go from there. Copyvio is not my forte but I am willing to help if anyone wants to point me in a given direction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Can I reiterate that it would make sense to wait until Dr. B has had a chance to respond, before any detailed discussion of mechanisms? It's eminently likely that he'll say something along the lines of "There was a brief period when I didn't understand sourcing and plagiarism requirements" and be able to give us at least rough dates, and it will make things much easier if we know either that this is a case of a just a couple of articles, or a systemic problem. ‑ Iridescent 23:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately not possible, they've announced themself as retired. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

As to that, please see Iridescent's first contribution near the top of the thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Is that what? Four in the past month? If someone else is keeping count, please notify so I won't have to try to keep count. It's tedious. GMG 00:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

If there's no practical consequence for article content, and the concern is legal liability for WMF, why not let WMF handle it (or not) as they see fit? Then we can all go back to doing things that matter to our readers. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• I can help, if someone makes a way to systematically help. GMG 00:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Let me know how I can help. Eddie891 _Work 01:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• I contacted Dr. Blofeld via e-mail, and told them about the situation. Eddie891 _Work 01:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Sure, I'll reach out to Dr. Blofeld but for the record, I find it hard to believe that he was a systematic copyright violater. This is an editor with more DYKs, GAs, and FAs under his belt than most of us, meaning his work has been reviewed by various people over a long period of time. Also, just FYI, there's a retired sign on his userpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Digging through 10 year old revisions for potential copyvio is a lot more work and less productive than going to Category:Stale_userspace_drafts where every third page or so is likely copyvio. Legacypac (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Disgusted that Fram has raised this in this manner. Like most people in the old days it took some time before I even knew about the copyright guidelines or how to source or research. Some of my very earliest articles may contain vios, we're talking 2006, 12 years ago. I remember that article and thinking it was legit, Finnish Google translate was atrocious at the time as well. Given that over the years I've been tough on copyright myself and have warned many people against copying text the idea that I'm a Sanders v Ginkel type and suddenly we need to delete all 96,000 articles out of panic is ridiculous. I prefer to use multiple sources and write my own text anyway. I know Fram has some deep rooted insecurities, particularly with authority, but be my guest Fram and go through all 96,000 articles as you obviously have nothing better to do.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, if it’s just potentially your early articles with some problems, it’s not as big of an issue as first thought. Aiken D 10:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Can someone inform Dr. Blofeld about our NPA policy? "Finnish Google translate" has nothing to do with taking a 10K text in English and copying it wholesale into enwiki, nor with copying text from the BBC or from a 1992 book. "Some of my very earliest articles may contain vios", no, many of your early articles contain copyvios. When you learned afterwards that this wasn't allowed, you should have cleaned them up, not simply ignored the problem. Fram (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

In December 2009, he created Filipe La Féria. Too bad that it's an unattributed translation of the Portuguese article at the time. So this extends the problematic articles at least from 2006 to 2009 already... Fram (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Honestly unless we have evidence that this problem continued for a substantial fraction of Blofeld's editing career then deleting 96,000 articles would be a massive overreaction. Aside from the unattributed translation all the examples pointed to so far are within the first year of Blofeld's editing career. It isn't terribly surprising that a new editor screwed up and it doesn't mean he did the same thing for years afterwards. Sure, we should do some spotchecks on more recent contributions, but unless they turn up evidence of a significant problem people need to stop panicking. (And no, failing to attribute a translation in 2009 is not a significant problem.) Hut 8.5 11:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• I dug around a bit, and I think (based on this) that the author of the material copied from here for the original version of Olavi Paavolainen, that the author is a Petri Liukkonen. It seems that the material he wrote may have been released under a CC license, see Template:Books and Writers. Maybe others with more time can follow up that aspect of this - there has been clear copying, but it is possible that some of it was either legitimate or not attributed properly. See also User:GreenC/kirjasto.sci.fi and I will ping User:GreenC and leave a note on their talk page to see what light they can shed on this. Carcharoth (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • According to this page: "The Books and Writers website is Copyright Petri Liukkonen under the Creative Commons Finnish license BY-ND-NC (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/fi/deed.en)". Which is a non-commercial license and additionally doesn't allow derivatives, so Misplaced Pages can't use it. Carcharoth (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Gathering hard information

Dr. Blofeld, please can you help us built a list of which articles you're aware of that are likely to need work to clean-up. —Sladen (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC) (ie. without judgement, just for getting hard information that we can collectively begin to work with).

Fram will no doubt identity every problematic article ever made and I dread to think what I did in the early days. Let Fram get his daily shot and feel authoritative, today's drug is on me Fram, feeling good? There will be lots of unattributed translations from other wikis as for a long time I assumed we were one project. Let Fram get high for a few weeks and find them all himself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, just the facts please. You will likely have some memory of which material was used in many cases; eg. particular books and so forth. Together, we can collectively solve this much more quickly. —Sladen (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Without having the technical skills myself, shouldn't it be possible to create a bot that runs each of those edits against the copyvio detector and create a list of possible problematic articles to then manually go through? Regards SoWhy 11:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

We can collectively undertake a Guttenberg plagiarism scandal-style bruteforce approach, but it is likely to be far more effective and easier to just ask Dr. Blofeld; which is what is being done here… —Sladen (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC) (With running the bot, humans still have to process + sift the results, many of which show up as false positives against Asian tourism sites).

Can you stop the PAs - this isn't Fram vs Blofeld. As Sladen says, just give whatever you remember/whatever information you have on problematic articles that are there Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hang on, you're both volunteers here, why are you interrogating me as if you're some high court judge and speaking to me as if I'm this criminal? If you want a constructive conversation delete the ANI thread and my talk page notice and I'll speak to you privately in a civilized fashion where I'm shown an ounce of respect. It was 2006-2007 a long time ago now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, copying material from another enwiki article is just as much a breach of copyright as copying from another language WIkipedia. Doug Weller talk 13:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, it looks like treating this all as an AN issue is getting precisely nowhere. There is WP:CP#Very old issues for this kind of thing. Copyright is indeed a serious issue here, but that hardly is an argument for declaring open season based on matters from a decade and more ago. It is the reason why there is process, and there are people who specialise in it. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

That page clearly isn't the right place to post this either, it deals with single pages (or sometimes two or three) where the reports have stayed open for a very long time (reports from 2 1/2 years ago). POsting this problem there is the same as burying it out of sight. The copyright violations may be "from a decade or more ago" (although the issues persisted at least until late 2009, so 8 years ago, and more scrutiny is needed to determine when these issues ended), but some of the copyright violations are still present in current pages (and all are available from the page histories), so this needs some action. Deciding which actions to take is what this AN is about. We don't have a good process to deal with many copyright violations buried between countless edits and page creations: deleting everything would be overkill, but not acting on this is basically sending out the message that we don't care about copyright violations, even when we know about them. Fram (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

So what is clear to you is not necessarily clear to me. Try User talk:Moonriddengirl. She cares. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ban appeal by Twitbookspacetube

An appeal request copied from User talk:Twitbookspacetube's talk page:

First and foremost, to the entire community. I was hot-headed and blatantly irresponsible in creating this account in the first place, blatantly ignoring my restrictions which, at the time, I felt to be unjust. While things could have been handled better, I am willing to take at least 99.9% of the blame here. I hope that you can forgive me and trust that I shall never waste your time on this level again.

Second, To the administrators. I got frustrated by what I saw as action to protect your own. You got frustrated because you know that no such action has ever been taken and couldn't understand why I saw things as I did.

Third, To arbcom. I shouldn't have filed that spurious case against winhunter. While my first case was largely successful in it's intent, the second was not even remotely the same situation and not even worth your time. As an added bonus, I was labelled a troll by Opabinia regalis in this edit which I fully accept because, at that time, I had become the very type of person I despise. I promise that it won't happen again.

I feel that I have sincerely learned my lesson. I hope that you can forgive me and see fit to remove the community ban I have been placed under. Twitbookspacetube 02:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I realise that I am under a community ban so I would like someone stalking this talk page to copy and paste these to the admin noticeboard for community discussion.

Again, sorry! Twitbookspacetube 02:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This user was banned in August 2017. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• There's a crucial detail missing from the appeal. How are you going to be a benefit to the encyclopaedia as an editor if the ban is lifted? Mr rnddude (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I will primarily edit minor topics where little conflict exists - checking facts, finding sources, that sort of thing. I have made some sparodic contributions on Simple English Misplaced Pages, you can use those as an example of the kind of productivity I intend to maintain here. Twitbookspacetube 06:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC) copied from usertalk by power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose You've lied repeatedly and have done nothing to show you can be trusted. A handful of edits elsewhere demonstrates nothing. Further, you have failed to speak to the many reasons you were banned initially, including this lovely message. Nihlus 07:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

  Additionally, I oppose any lifting of his restrictions. If he were to be unblocked, there need to be more restrictions. Nihlus 10:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Conditional Support after discussing on IRC, I feel like he's genuinely trying to contribute, but doesn't have the slightest idea how to set up restrictions that will allow him to do so without being disruptive. I propose:
  • A ban from all pages in the Misplaced Pages namespace, with the exceptions of reports at WP:AIV and discussions/appeals of his own restrictions.
  • A topic ban from all American politics articles.
  • One account limitation.
  • These three restrictions are indefinite, and appealable after 6 months.
  • All other previous restrictions are lifted.

This may let him engage in productive anti-vandalism activities without causing drama. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments last time. Barts1a isn't some good-faith editor who just needs the chance to prove himself, he's a long-term troll whose various accounts wasted huge amounts of other peoples' time owing to his hobby of loitering on talkpages trying to provoke fights, and then lashing out when challenged. If we do unblock him, I'd strongly oppose lifting any of the restrictions, which were there for the express purpose of preventing him from dragging other people into timesink debates and from abusing the undo function to rack up his edit count blindly reverting edits at high speed regardless of their validity. At minimum I'd expect a total ban from AN and ANI and from all pages relating to dispute resolution, strictly-applied 1RR everywhere else, and a no-exceptions restriction to a single account; I'd be inclined to retain is topic banned from all contentious articles and their talk pages at minumum from his existing restrictions as well (the restriction on Huggle is moot, as that requires rollback and no admin is ever going to grant that). User:Worm That Turned, you were his mentor way-back-when, do you have any thoughts on this? ‑ Iridescent 10:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional Support – (1) Sporadic editing of simple wiki is an understatement. 10 edits in just over 6 months is under 2 edits per month. This doesn't show me any sort of commitment to improving the encyclopaedia. The risk vs potential reward is heavily skewed towards risk with no reward. (2) The upshot, however, is that TBST has written an appreciable appeal, and responded to my query in quick time. Extending a fair amount of good faith and assuming sincerity on their part, there isn't a reason for me to assume that they will be looking for trouble. Note: I've interacted with TBST, but not any of their other accounts. (3) Power~enwiki's suggested restrictions are severe, but reasonable. Possibly with the exception of the AP2 TBAN as I'm not sure what prompted it, but I'll support it anyway as I will primarily edit minor topics where little conflict exists is seemingly mutually exclusive with American politics articles. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Question What were his previous restrictions? !dave 13:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Is not allowed to use Huggle, is subject to a 1RR restriction, i.e not allowed to revert more than once per day in a dispute, is topic banned from all noticeboards, including ArbCom case requests and cases, is topic banned from all contentious articles and their talk pages. They're listed at WP:RESTRICT under the main account's name, Barts1a. ‑ Iridescent 13:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - The combination of socking and a threat against admins per Nihlus above is a bit much for me. Add on that the unban request is only a half year from the ban, the bare minimum, and I see a another colossal editor time-sink if this problem editor is unbanned. Their request should be rejected with with prejudice- in my view it must be years, not months, before this banned editor should be even discussed in the context of an unban. Jusdafax (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Due to the fact that he is already under so many restrictions, and, like Nihlus, I would not support a lifting of the current restrictions in place. You have only made 22 edits in simplewiki, and not a single one in more than fifteen days. You should make more than just token edits: show us you can properly contribute somewhere else in the confederation. !dave 14:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support User:Power~enwiki. This project has a history of second chances and we have processes to deal with problems. We issue blocks to prevent damage, not to punish. In the spirit of our ability to forgive, I support unblock with Power~enwiki's conditions.--v/r - TP 14:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocking policy for IPv6 tunnels

Good morning,

I've launched Firefox on a new laptop, and have noticed a new block on Hurricane Electric. This block is 2001:470:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 and doesn't touch logged in users (anon only). The block has been put in January by Coffee. Their talk page explains they aren't currently available for Misplaced Pages.

Hurricane Electric is an ISP providing IPv6 connectivity through tunnels both for servers and domestic use. This is the fairly standard and recommended way (and perhaps the only one, now Sixxs is closed) to get IPv6 connectivity if the ISP doesn't provide it.

This /32 bits block is rather wide, as it affects 2^96 IP addresses, ie 79 228 162 514 264 337 593 543 950 336 IP addresses. This is a fairly big number, 79 octillion addresses, the IPv6 space is huge, as is this block. To stress the huge size of this block, this block blocks more IP addresses than the whole total number addresses available in the IPv4 space (there are only 2^32 IPv4 addresses, ie 4 294 967 296).

To get a new IP address, users must configure a tunnel, a fairly complicated process (rOPS roles/core/network/files/ysul_ipv6.sh.jinja for an example of script to setup such a tunnel) and not something easily throwaway. Tunnels are NAMED, with a DNS resolve giving the login of the account (for example in the example below, the client-side tunnel address is 2001:470:1f12:9e1::2, and resolves to nasqueron-1-pt.tunnel.tserv10.par1.ipv6.he.net, giving the username and the tunnel server city, here Paris. On my domestic connection, my tunnel resolves to dereckson-1...).

The tunnels given by default as /64 spaces. It's also possible to require a /48 space, but I'm not confident this is used for abuse. I've also found they've been rather responsive by mail for DNS-related issues, so I wonder if they'd be reactive on their abuse contact point (abusehe.net).

This is a rather important issue, as Wikimedia is committed to support IPv6 deployment, we participated to the World IPv6 Day and World IPv6 Launch Day for example.

So, I wonder if a discussion about an IPv6 block policy would be valuable, as /32 blocks, the standard for IPv4 doesn't seem to be convenient for IPv6.

--Dereckson (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Electric is a colocation provider. These are routinely blocked the same way as proxies; see {{Colocationwebhost}}. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Their IPv6 blocks aren't used only in a colocation context (a real minority of their use).

They also provide IPv6 connectivity for individuals withouth IPv6 offered by their ISP, so they are widely used in an individual context. --Dereckson (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think colocation provider is the most useful term in many circumstances including this one, though I will concede we've blocked a number of other HE ranges. I remember dealing with Sixxs before. These IPv6 tunnels are peculiar things in terms of policy and I think we need to treat them on a case by case basis. Without wanting to diminish the collateral, when there's a total of 340 undecillion IPv6 addresses, and most are assigned at least 18 quintillion of them for their personal use, I find talk about large numbers of IPv6 addresses to be somewhat unconvincing. There are really several relevant questions including: principally what proportion of vandalism we are getting from the range; whether anyone uses these ranges in order to evade other blocks; and whether there are plausible alternatives for good faith users. On the latter point I note that while it may seem obvious to just avoid the tunnel, it's not always going to be practical.

Having reviewed the contributions from this range, including with the checkuser tool and using checkuser logs, I think reports of previous checks on the range are capable of being overstated. The vandalism is currently not in great proportions, and there's a lot of good faith editing. I'd suggest that the /32 block is lifted with a recommendation to make blocks of /48 or narrower (and preferably /64). I'm happy to go ahead and do this, leaving a respectable period for any objections to be raised. There was recently another thread about this /32 range, and I note that Coffee was not over-insistent on retaining the block. I don't think a wider discussion of the IPv6 blocking policy is really needed. /32 blocks aren't made that often, and I think most people know that's a pretty big range. And as I say, IPv6 tunnels are peculiar things. -- zzuuzz 17:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Why Am I receiving a FINAL WARNING?

I have edited the article Veerapandiya_Kattabomman providing a reliable source adding information which was deleted by another user, and the other user has reported me to admin spacemanspiff, who gave me a final warning on my talk page.

While I refrained from edit warring and the other user continued to do multiple edits, I had warned him on his talk page, he then went on to report me to adminstrator spacemanspiff, who gave me a FINAL WARNING threatening to block me from editing, giving me the reason that I had done something wrong in the past. All this while I did not do more than 2 edit revertings, while the other user made 4 edits altogether deleting sourced content which I added. The only reason the admin gave final warning on my talk page was that I had done something in the past, which I am absolutely unaware, but assuming he is right I did something wrong even then it makes absolutely no sense to me, because If I had done something wrong and fixed my attitude now not doing same as before even then am I never allowed to edit on wikipedia again, even when I stick to wikipedia's guidelines; will I receive final warnings threatening me of getting blocked from editing? Ripapart (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The Admin seems very biased to me, I may be wrong but thats my POV. Ripapart (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you have posted this in the wrong place but, for example, there was this warning some time ago. I think the concern now is more one of general competence. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Spacemanspiff's warning is super vague. It'd be very helpful if he'd point out specific diffs to the user. How can the user improve behavior if Spaceman doesn't provide an example of it? Additionally, Sitush, you've fixed it now but initially your reverts on the linked article could've been better.--v/r - TP 14:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I was pinged to the editor's talk page though this seems the place for the discussion now. In any event I took a quick look at their editing and talk page history and two things struck me. First there may be some CIR questions here. And secondly it is possible that this might have been handled a little better. I am not referring specifically to the final warning so much as the broader interactions between this editor and the community. This is a newish editor with only a little over 150 edits. And while clearly there were some efforts to help them out, and I am seeing some evidence of competency issues, posting warning templates on their talk page might have been a bit BITEY. A little mentoring might be more constructive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

TParis, you're wrong. The latest version of my edit is bugger-all different from the first version - the movie was already mentioned and all I did was merge two sentences + remove the inappropriate statements that Ripapart kept adding, as I also noted on the article talk page. Yes, the cinema book remains for the alternate name but that is going to go, too, because it is poor and incorrect.

I think me, Spiff, Bishonen, NeilN etc are all becoming jaded by the constant warfare and incompetence. We need more interested admins, not snipes from ones who never get involved (by which I do not mean WP:INVOLVED). - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: I take it you mean particularly in Ind-Pak-Afgh topics? ...SerialNumber54129 14:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I do. Sorry for the confusion. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you look at the warnings/advice/invitations to discuss that Ripapart has removed from their page, TParis? For instance mine, which concerned some egregious userpage posts they made today — i.e. not "in the past" or "a year ago", as they are currently complaining on their page. It wasn't a template, but an attempt at mentoring, Ad Orientem. Ronz's post about sourcing here from January 2018 was friendly and helpful, but all is simply removed. I wouldn't say Space's warning was vague; it was a specific reference to past warnings, that are no longer on the page. The user is allowed to remove warnings etc, yes, but simply ignoring them comes at a cost, and makes it look like they're unreceptive to advice and unwilling to learn. For recent disruption at articles — again, not in the past, Ripapart — see and . It looks to me like the user is editing in good faith (although aggressively), but unskilfully. See my links to article histories — apparently they have trouble taking on the difference between history and a movie narrative. Bishonen | talk 15:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC).

@Sitush: Anyway, Ripapart made these edits introducing the topic of the film but also introducing a new citation. You did a blanket revert of all of their edits including the constructive ones. They reverted you restoring the exact same material. You again reverted without discretion. They restored the material again. Only then did you get specific with your reverts. Had you done that from the start on this article, the situation would've been resolved quickly. Your approach didn't improve the problem.

@Bishonen: Sitush made some bad reverts and started templating another user. Am I surprised to see that they thought that was the culture here and returned the favor? No.--v/r - TP 15:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you read what I said above? Nothing has really changed except the addition of a source for an (incorrect) name. We have a major problem with ethnic pov-pushing in articles relating to south Indian states, notably those relating to the Tamil- and Telugu-speaking areas. A blanket revert of such stuff is fine; my last changes really did nothing different, except move the film from one section to another. I also opened an article talk page thread when it became obvious they were going to keep reinstating. - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: You are wrong there is missing information stop bluffing that nothing has really changed. You are accusing me of POV-pushing here, why would you delete that content when it is backed with a reliable citation?? I think you are indulging in pov-pushing but accusing me of it, if it is in the source why would you not allow it on the article? Surely looks like pov-pushing on your part to me. All information I have added is valid information with news article sources, still missing on the article. Here is the diffRipapart (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

(multiple conflicts) I think you have misread what I said above. Yes, information that you added is no longer in the article but the difference between my first revert and my last changes are effectively zero, other than to leave in a source which needs to go because it appears to be wrong (the thing about the alternate name). The information that is no longer there should not be there, for the reasons I have already explained to you on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk)

@Ripapart: I think you are lucky that you got a final warning unlike those these days who get indeffed and topic banned without a warning. Lorstaking (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lorstaking: Your misrepresentations are not helpful here. --NeilN 15:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You can explain me what I am misrepresenting and which incident I am particularly misrepresenting and also make sure that the incident involved a "final warning" from an uninvolved admin such as in this incident. Lorstaking (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious you're referring to MapSGV who was blocked and subsequently topic banned after evidence was presented at AE. Not without a warning as they were notified of discretionary sanctions. --NeilN 16:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not a warning, it is just a notification that the area is covered by discretionary sanctions and it "is purely informational and neither implies nor expresses a finding of fault", read about alerts, there is no mention of a warning. However, a warning is made only after finding of a fault. This is why I said that the filer of this report is lucky that he got a final warning that if he engaged in disruption he would get blocked, not only once but twice, one can debate if it was clear enough or not but I can still read it to be well within WP:BEFOREBLOCK. Lorstaking (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You are warned that "This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks." You can call it notified/informed/told/advised/cautioned - the intent is the same. --NeilN 17:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if we agree that there are many meanings of it, still many reports after giving D/S alert ends up with a reminder and/or warning. My initial comment still remains unchanged that filer is lucky that he got a "final warning" from an uninvolved admin compared to those who didn't had such a warning before block/ban, in the sense that if they repeated the behavior they would get blocked. I was particularly talking about the way filer was warned. Lorstaking (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog