Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 09:04, 28 December 2018 (→Lojbanist: close as sitebanned). 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.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 19 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 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 88 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 67 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)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 58 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Al-Manar

(Initiated 49 days ago on 15 November 2024) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 49 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 44 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 42 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)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Matt Gaetz#RFC: Accusations of child sex trafficking and statutory rape in the lead

(Initiated 36 days ago on 28 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC tag and the last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we please get a independent close. TarnishedPath 10:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#RFC: Referring to Masha Amini as Kurdish-Iranian in the lead

(Initiated 35 days ago on 29 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Zionism#RFC about a recently added claim about Zionism

(Initiated 34 days ago on 30 November 2024) The bot has removed the RFC notice. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

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

(Initiated 37 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 32 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 15 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters

(Initiated 14 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 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 101 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 79 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 77 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 67 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 59 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 58 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 37 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)

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Count Iblis NOTHERE case

Prompted by comments and responses in the Wikid77 thread I did some looking around and have come to the conclusion User:Count Iblis (Contributions) is WP:NOTHERE.

• At the top of their talkpage we learn "Count Iblis rejects most of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. He just edits in any way he sees fit to improve Misplaced Pages. Whether such edits violate Misplaced Pages's policies is neither here nor there." and "Count Iblis does not recognize the validity of ArbCom rulings. He calls on all restricted editors to violate their restrictions and on all Admins to unblock editors who are blocked on Arbitration Enforcement grounds."
• They basically stopped contributing to mainspace 6 years ago. In 2018 they managed just 5 mainspace edits against 329 total edits. The previous 5 years are not much better. A focus on the Refdesk , Jumbo Wales Jimbo Whales talkpage and AN(i) with no effort to improve mainspace is NOTHERE.
• He said: " I don't care at all about our policies here, most of my contributions to Misplaced Pages are in violation of our core policies, I have often given fake citation to please the OR warriors here. "
• Comments at AN around racism are reprehensible with "we have to acknowledge that he isn't a racist himself." (except many editors have found wikid77's comments to be racist) and " former racists" have turned on other targets... link and " the real Adolph Hitlers are always respected and tolerated when they wield power" . Most concerning he directly linked a Hitler speech Youtube hosts but restricts in a way I've never seen before (seems to be commentary on our NOTHERE policy).
• General stupidity about Misplaced Pages operation like and editors

Propose an INDEF of Count Iblis for WP:NOTHERE Legacypac (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment I think this may be an inappropriate forum Legacypac, ANI I think would be better. The Hitler video post (WTF?) I believe could be interpreted as an 'incident'. Copyvio and other issues, like sanity. Copy and paste it there methinks. Simon Adler (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (strike my oppose; this is looking worse and worse power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)) I haven't been thrilled by some of their edits, but supporting WP:IAR and not being particularly active are definitely not sanctionable. The "he's supporting an editor I think is racist, so he's also racist" argument is also very bad. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

However, Legacypac has buried the most sanctionable concern. If there's evidence that his claim I have often given fake citation is actually true, a block would be called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Simon Adler (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Generally discussions about longterm behavior come to AN. I take him at his word he has used fake cites. I'm not saying he is racist because he supports one but because he posts racist stuff himself. If he was making useful contributions to mainspace there would be a bigger case that he has a purpose here but he does not seem interested in building the encyclopedia. Legacypac (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at some of their "recent" mainspace contributions. The worst referencing I've found is , which links to a TV show I can't access that says it's "recent research". Edits like are only slightly problematic; it's unreferenced but is generally straightforward math. The claim that this is an "ancient Indian algorithm" does need to be referenced; the "ancient Indian" part has since been removed. I'm not sure why 1 − 1 + 2 − 6 + 24 − 120 + ... is an article at all, but oh well. The Vitamin D edits do seem to be him pushing a point of view that isn't necessarily backed by sources; but none of Legacypac's comments seem to suggest anything regarding a medicine topic ban. In this case, topic bans are extremely likely to be counterproductive. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Not seeing any justification for a site or topic ban. The reasoning behind this request seems to be extraordinarily weak.--MONGO (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC) Further elaboration seems to indicate an issue of concern so awaiting explanation by defendent.--MONGO (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I find the Hitler video and it's background context and comment accompanying it to be highly concerning. I can't view the clip as YouTube says it is unavailable in my country. But if it is footage of a Hitler speech giving an Anti-Semitic rant, with the accompanying comment of Hitler saying that Jews are NOTHERE - which appeared to be the gist of it - then I would be highly pissed off, and no doubt the community would. If it is more nuanced, such as a parody video, then it still deserves a massive trouting. It would seem to show the editor has poor social judgement at the very least. Simon Adler (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Simon Adler - it is the first case exactly as you laid out, historical footage of Hitler with English subtitles where he says Jews are not here. Legacypac (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

yep just saw the video, I concur with LP and I am highly pissed off. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That's siteban shit. It makes 77's issues look positively mild. Fuck that. Simon Adler (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I've redacted that comment by Iblis. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't think of ANY valid reason to post a Hitler video in an AN discussion. That post is what got me looking into this user. Legacypac (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support - I've watched Count Iblis' activities on Misplaced Pages for a long time, and it seems to me that he has never been here to improve the encyclopedia, that his only purpose is contrarian argumentation. I'm not even sure he believes all the b.s. he's spouted over the years, or if he just enjoys stirring the pot for its own sake. From his involvement in the User:Brews ohare situation back in 2008 or 2009 through to his statements in the Wikid77 discussion above, including the video he linked to, Count Iblis has simply never had the betterment of the encyclopedia in mind -- or the well-being of the community, for that matter -- just whatever perverse gratification he gets from what he does. It's really well past time that the community dealt with him in the only appropriate way, which is the show him the door with a NOTHERE indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per nom and Beyond my Ken. WOPR (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• COMMENT - I would ask any Administrators watching to check out this diff. It is linking a Hitler speech (I cannot view it due to YouTube copyright regs in the UK) with virulent Anti-Semitic content to some purile WP:NOTHERE justification. The editor seems to be making an implicit connection with Jewish Misplaced Pages editors. I have never seen a Nazi era video linked to a board discussion. I would ask you to examine, and take any necessary action as you see fit. Simon Adler (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - It seems pretty clear the video was meant to show demonization of the outgroup in the extreme, as in what the commenters were doing and what Hitler did relied on the same base psychology. Supportable. Speaking of psychology I'd encourage those eager to join the latest 'Nazi' burning to research the history of witch burnings and reflect. D.Creish (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose for now. I think the outrageous comments in/around the Wikid77 thread has a lot of people running a bit hot. There seems a world of difference between the kind of arguments that wikid77 was making and what iblis is saying. Linking to a Hitler video was a bad move, but it was obvious (to me anyway) that it was not actually an expression of support of Hitler (in the way that wikid77 actually persisted in his racist lines of argumentation) but a hyperbole/joke relating the subject to WP:NOTHERE. Bad taste, bad form, problematic... but falls far from making the case for WP:NOTHERE. I should say that I think my only interaction with Iblis was this thread a few years back, where I was arguing for him to be tbanned from the refdesks. At the time I found/find his general wikiorientation to be trying (with wikipolicy and community norms seemingly just beneath him). However, I would want to see a lot more evidence than this for a NOTHERE indef. — Rhododendrites \\ 05:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I want to see a smoking gun, preferably five or six diffs of it. Perhaps editors cannot deliver this because he hasn't many mainspace edits, therefore the point about tricking WP:OR warriors is quite moot. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose What I see here is intimidation of and retaliation against Count Iblis for his testimony opposing aggressive action against Wikid77 in the above thread (permalink). I was threatened too. How can Misplaced Pages decisions be based on consensus when witnesses are threatened with blocks and bans for expressing an opinion not shared by the majority?

This kind of coercion is no doubt why Count Iblis made a comparison to Hitler, as explained by D.Creish here. People compare others they disagree with to Hilter so often, that one of the Wikimedia Foundation's prominent attorneys, Mike Godwin, created Godwin's law:

If an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends.

Now, instead of declaring his comparison to Hitler as Reductio ad Hitlerum, ending the discussion, or ignoring it, you want him banned too? Please. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That is absolutely NOT why I filed this report. I saw a Hitler video posted and found an editor that is Not Here to play by the rules of Misplaced Pages. Legacypac 07:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Does anyone have diffs to support the fake citations claim? That would be a pressing problem. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

From the filer who wrote:

• He said: " I don't care at all about our policies here, most of my contributions to Misplaced Pages are in violation of our core policies, I have often given fake citation to please the OR warriors here. "

I do agree this is a problem if he has done it, and should be confronted about that. Interrogated about when he did it, fix them, promise not to do it, again, etc. Let's keep in mind that was posted a year ago. Why didn't anyone say something about it then? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

He posted it in a non-high profile area, and we don't know if anyone said anything. Given the low number of mainspace edits, he may be talking about the ref desk. Maybe he can explain if he is lying or telling the truth. Either way it is a problem. Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is problem either way that he needs to address. If he refuses to acknowledge it is a problem, refuses to strike that post with an apology and/or refuses to correct any fake citation he made, etc., then I would support some kind of action against him until these issues are addressed. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - This editor behaves in a way that worsens division and polarization in the community. This case should not be closed out as No Consensus, which will simply come back in the future. Either the community should impose a Site Ban, or the community should punt this case to ArbCom and hope that ArbCom is willing to run with the football by conducting a quasi-judicial inquiry. Either ban this editor or let the ArbCom consider whether to ban this editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - While the video linked is in extremely poor taste, it strikes me as more of a case of Godwin's law in action, rather than an actual racist tirade. Well, it has been a good 17 years, but Godwin finally got us. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 09:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban or indef block I agree with those users who interpret the Hitler YouTube link as a case of Godwin's Law rather than a direct racist comparison of other editors to Jews, etc. However, I disagree with (some of?) said editors regarding whether comparing other editors to Nazis in any capacity is acceptable. It's what (ultimately) got Codex Sinaiticus (talk · contribs) / Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) indeffed, and what definitely should have got Catflap08 (talk · contribs) site-banned (and would have probably done so had it not been for two or three wikilawyers defending him for their own reasons). Not only is this user casually throwing out the accusation "You sound like Hitler!", but he admits on his user page to rejecting all of our policies and posting fake citations? This is the kind of behaviour I'd expect from an already-banned editor posting about Misplaced Pages on Wikipediocracy or WikipediaSucks.com, not here. (I should note that I believe most of the editors who are arguing that it's "Just Godwin" are merely playing devil's advocate and are not themselves at fault, but David Tornheim (talk · contribs), given his behaviour in the Wikid77 discussion and other places, appears to be deliberately ignoring the context, and I fully expect him to ignore Legacypac (talk · contribs)'s clear elaboration that the Hitler video was not the only reason this report was filed, similarly to how he ignored ... well, pretty much every other time I've seen him corrected on something, most recently further up this page with regard to Wikid creating racist redirects that had since been deleted.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose sanction. Yep, I think that video is more a "This is what you're sounding like" comment than racist in itself (ie a Godwin, as others have said). I find it very bad taste, but is there a pattern of comparing others to Hitler or is it (along with his other comments in the Wikid77 thing) a one-off during a heated discussion? I don't see where anybody has shown a pattern, and a one-off does not deserve a ban as a first response. He says he doesn't follow Misplaced Pages policies? Is there any evidence that he actually does not follow polices, or evidence of a faked reference? If not, then it's just a bit of hot air on his talk page, and that does not deserve a ban either. Let's not turn this into a witch hunt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  I'll just add that I'm quite appalled by some of the supports Wikid77 has had, but a response of trying to root out all of his apparent supporters would be a heated over-reaction here and would be getting dangerously close to an attempt to eliminate dissent (and you know who else did that, right? ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  Joe McCarthy? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  That's the guy ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - A few years ago, there was an editor (can't quite remember who it was) who had a swastika on his/her user-page. The community forced him/her to delete it or be site-banned. A tricky topic to be sure - because A) Wikipedians don't have rights, but only privileges & B) Were we being intolerant by not accepting intolerant symbols? GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Related to your b) point, that is covered in the paradox of tolerance. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support Evidence is convincing that he doesn't need to be here anymore. --Jayron32 16:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – I concur with Boing regarding the Hitler video. As for the rest, do we actually have proof that there are any fake citations? For all we know, they could have been trolling with that post (again, not ideal, but not worth a tar-and-feather response either). –FlyingAce 16:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban on the basis of the Hitler video issue, and the admission to fabricating refs. Clearly WP:NOTHERE Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Also their statement on their userpage that they encourage people to violate AE enforcement decisions is troubling. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Boing! and others; I agree that linking to that video does not seem to have been intended as Nazi propaganda. As for the statements on their talk page, an editor is allowed to express dissent so long as they are not actively disrupting things, or actually organizing and encouraging groups of editors to break the rules on purpose (remember WP:IAR is a thing). And to the suggestion they deliberately fabricate references: I see no evidence of it. The comment Legacypac linked to seems to be in the context of providing a reference for a mathematical proof developed from referenced information which Iblis felt did not thus require its own reference: the method of developing such a proof would be verification in and of itself to someone versed in the topic (WP:BLUE but taken to an extreme). That might fall broadly into a discussion on original research (considering Iblis mentioned appeasing the "OR warriors") but does not seem to be a broad endorsement of fabricating references to support false information, more like fabricating references to shut people up. That's not great, but the worst I can say about the comment is it reads like an expert in a subject trying and thoroughly failing to explain the situation to a general audience. In summary I don't see anything that warrants a siteban. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 18:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector, I'm not supporting this as I think it's disproportionate but how is Count Iblis does not recognize the validity of ArbCom rulings. He calls on all restricted editors to violate their restrictions and on all Admins to unblock editors who are blocked on Arbitration Enforcement grounds. not "actually organizing and encouraging groups of editors to break the rules on purpose"? ‑ Iridescent 18:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Because they're not actually doing it. Or at least there's no evidence of such an organized movement, just the usual haphazard assortment of trolls. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, much as it pains me as I do think Count Iblis is a textbook WP:NOTHERE case. This differs from the Wikid77 case in that 77 continued with inappropriate conduct after being told it was inappropriate. In the absence of evidence that Count Iblis has done something inappropriate after being asked not to, it's too much of a jump to go straight to banning—given how long he's been doing this kind of crap without being called out on it, it's plausible to assume he genuinely thought the rest of Misplaced Pages considered him some kind of court jester and was deliberately allowing him to do things that would normally be considered disruptive. ‑ Iridescent 18:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• This. Count Iblis is basically a NOTHERE, largely unfunny version of EEng. I dare say that most of us don't pay the Count much attention, and he probably realizes that. Perhaps that is why his explicit endorsement of anti-Arbcom anarachy has not previously caused much angst. I think he's harmless enough that we could probably ignore him, but he's also technically disruptive enough that we would be justified in trying to rein him in. It's probably not going to have a huge impact on the pedia either way, which makes me wonder if I wasted my time writing and revising this comment. Oh well. Lepricavark (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  It's quite stressful being a community byword, let me tell you. EEng 09:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, that wasn't meant to be an insult. I think you play the role of Wiki-jester quite well, and I believe you are good for the sanity of the community. Lepricavark (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would never dream it was an insult. It's just part of the cross I bear that the community doesn't appreciate the sacrifices -- the personal trainers, the facelifts, the lonely hours of practice and meditation, the mobbing by paparazzi. EEng 15:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• 'Oppose - What next ? ... Are we going to ban myself, BMK, MarnetteD and many others for having the "Ignore all rules" banner on our talkpages ? ...., To a certain extent the Hitler comment is problematic but as far as I can see it was one comment ... they're not referring to everyone as Hitler on a daily basis ...., I'm not seeing anything that remotely warrants banning, blocking, sanctions, topic bans or anything else that I've not thought of. –Davey2010 19:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think you're misinterpreting the purpose of WP:IAR, which says

  If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it.

  In other words, it's not intended to be blanket permission to ignore every policy, guideline or rule on every occasion, but, instead, to make an evaluation of whether a rule is standing in the way of an improvement, in which case one is empowered to ignore it. That isn't an invitation to anarchy, it's a way to ensure that rules don't impede progress. On the other hand, what Count Iblis is saying -- and, worse, encouraging in others -- is anarchy. His statements

  Count Iblis rejects most of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. He just edits in any way he sees fit to improve Misplaced Pages. Whether such edits violate Misplaced Pages's policies is neither here nor there

  and

  Count Iblis does not recognize the validity of ArbCom rulings. He calls on all restricted editors to violate their restrictions and on all Admins to unblock editors who are blocked on Arbitration Enforcement grounds

  would, quite literally, if adopted by all editors, lead to complete anarchy on Misplaced Pages.Quite possibly, Count Iblis considers that possibility, of anarchy on Misplaced Pages, to be a good thing. I -- and I believe that vast majority of Misplaced Pages editors -- do not. We recognize that freedoms and responsibilities must be balanced, and that structure is necessary to ensure the continued existence of Misplaced Pages. We already spend much too much time litigating disputes between editors, and Count Iblis' version of an anarchic Misplaced Pages would increase that overhead tremendously. We'd be spending so much time ironing out disputes that no one would have any time to actually improve the encyclopedia.No, Count Iblis simply is not suited to be a Wikipedian, and his statements make that abundantly clear. Add to that the fact that he doesn't actually do anything to improve the encyclopedia (whether you agree with its purpose or not, there is no argument to be made that the Ref Desks improve the encyclopedia in any way shape, or form; they are purely an ancillary activity), and you've got a very strong argument for their being NOTHERE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• On the face of it, this doesn't seem like such a big issue. But (and of course there's a but), this isn't the first time Count Iblis has done something like this. This discussion brings up pretty much the exact same issues in 2015, and it led to a voluntary ban from the Refdesk after it was becoming clear they would be banned by consensus anyways, which allowed them to claim no wrongdoing. I have to leave my computer now so I can't finish, but suffice to say that this incident should not be viewed in a vacuum. ansh666 19:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support some sanction short of a siteban From Editing Misplaced Pages:User pages:

Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit

Statements or pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone these behaviors: vandalism, copyright violation, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, and acts of violence.

From Count IbIis's User page:

'Count Iblis rejects most of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. He just edits in any way he sees fit to improve Misplaced Pages. Whether such edits violate Misplaced Pages's policies is neither here nor there'.

and:

'Count Iblis does not recognize the validity of ArbCom rulings. He calls on all restricted editors to violate their restrictions and on all Admins to unblock editors who are blocked on Arbitration Enforcement grounds. Some banned editors have told me that they have been editing here anonymously and they are not being prevented from doing so. So, I guess ArbCom has a secret policy of tolerating banned editors here while publicly denying this to save face'.

From the above I would suggest that CI is WP:NOTHERE, as his/her statements have strong potential to influence others to grossly harm the project. We do not know if this is humour, or his/her true belief.It appears to be a gross misunderstanding of WP:IAR, either by accident or design. That would indicate WP:CIR problems with communicating and functioning in the WP enviroment. Coupled with previous ref desk issues and the continued fascination with Godwin's law, I would say the community does have an issue here. I am not advocating a siteban, yet (although it may be the logical outcome) But I do believe some consensus on sanctions should be arrived at here. Simon Adler (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Count Iblis, I have removed problematic material from your user page as per the guidance which I quoted in my post above. If you are comfortable with that, and do not revert, I would be willing to WP:AGF and change my position. A lot of the posters above may well agree and we can drop this issue. Please can you comment here? Regards, Simon Adler (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Treatment such as excusing, trivializing, or normalizing these issues as tolerable or of little importance (for example, by explaining support of vandalism as being 'humor' or edit warring as being valid for resolving content issues) will generally be seen as having the same effect as condoning the behavior, and may also be removed.

• If everything asserted at Count Iblis' user page is to be taken at facial value, then

This user is visiting from an alternate universe.

proves that we have indeed a clear cut case of wp:not here, this user being an alien from somewhere else. Pldx1 (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe he means from another Wiki-universe, one in which one does not have to follow policies or ArbCom sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

But are we sure he's an undesirable alien? Maybe he's fleeing something much worse? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Aliens can be spotted by their peculiar toilet arrangements... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Question: Has CI been following through on the statements at his userpage? GoodDay (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• A Joke? I see zero evidence that Count Iblis is trying or succeeding at humor. Perhaps the people suggesting that idea are trying to be funny? I never found Nazis funny. Legacypac (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  Never? Never ever? EEng 14:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  This isn't about you. Let's not exaggerate the extent of CI's wrongdoings and let's not get outraged based on such an exaggeration. Lepricavark (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This user Count Iblis should be given a final warning and a topic ban as stated in the bellow sub-section, instead of WP:NOTHERE. Second thing I would like to state is that this user specifically is being mocked about in this section being called aliens and other names, basically this is almost looking like the same things that had lead to the Tarage event where Tarage ended up leaving. We do not want another Tarage event, so I also suggest that talks here should remain civil. Another major important thing that I would like to say is that the user Count Iblis has not responded here yet. In my opinion and I could be wrong, is that this could almost be similar to the Tarage situation where the user is not comfortable or not clearly being understood by their responders when talking with other users. When the user stated that they have placed fake citations, has anyone confirmed that these citations were fake? It could be possible that the citations that they might have jokingly called "fake" might be actual citations, and that it may link to things on websites like CNN or other media outlets that Donald Trump has referred to as ""FAKE" NEWS". By looking at what Users have stated that this user in question has done clearly shows that either the user is not understanding that other Misplaced Pages users are not getting his joke and they are actually here to contribute, or this user might actually be a vandal. The only way that it can be proven that this user is an actual vandal is if someone where to provide proof that he has placed actual fake citations and other things that he has stated that violate the Misplaced Pages policy that he has done after he was confronted for the first time. Anything before he was confronted for the first time by another user about the edits that Count Iblis has done should not count as proof since, the User might have not fully understood the policy in a proper manner and might have violated the policy by accident. I also see that someone pointed out how long the user has been part of Misplaced Pages and has stated that as one reason why a ban is better, I oppose that. The age of a Misplaced Pages user's account never gives an actual representation of how well the user might actually understand the Misplaced Pages policy. A legit Misplaced Pages user might have a one month old account and might actually clearly understand all the rules, where as a account that is 10 years old might be owned by a user that does not even know the Misplaced Pages policy clearly. As I stated before we do not want another Tarage incident. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Boing and Ivanvector above. Particularity it bothers me that we're ignoring the context of the quote: it looks like they were talking about a routine mathematical transformation. But also, IAR is a thing. Free speech is a thing. And I wish people would pay more attention to the use-mention fallacy it helps in discernment... Crazynas 05:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There has been no addition of false citations by this account in the past two years. I checked the six most recent citations added by Count Iblis to articles – this takes us back to December 2016. All are genuine : Noyster (talk), 13:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal - Topic ban

Given that the above seems to be heading for a no-consensus result, let me propose an alternative:

Count Iblis is banned from editing outside of the article space, except for the following reasonable exceptions: 1) To discuss article text on article talk pages 2) to notify people on their user talk pages of discussions pertaining to themselves 3) to respond to discussions on noticeboards where he is explicitly named as a party to the discussion. As points of emphasis, he is completely banned from discussions on the Reference Desks, Village Pumps, Help Desks, Teahouse, and User talk: Jimbo Wales, and banned from discussions on any admin noticeboard except those that involve himself as a named party.

This should address the locus of CI's problems, remove the temptations from him, and return him (should he choose to do so) to editing article text in constructive ways. --Jayron32 13:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. --Jayron32 13:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Do we have any proof, that CI has been editing Misplaced Pages disruptively? GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Not in the article space, which is why this ban is proposed as it is. There is significant belief above that his editing at places like the reference desks and jimbotalk have been significantly disruptive however. This will allow CI to continue to edit articles, but will remove his ability to be disruptive elsewhere. His beneficial contributions to the mission of the encyclopedia would be unaffected by this topic ban. --Jayron32 14:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of alleged "disruptive editing" at the reference desk, Village Pumps, Help Desks, and Teahouse; warning(s) to cease said disruptive behavior; and the continuation of said behavior. I am not going to vote to topic ban him based on unsubstantiated claims by others, and I hope no one else will either. Instead, I am opposing.

As for Jimbo's page: Formerly, this was a free space for anyone to appeal and say almost anything about Misplaced Pages without censorship or sanction, as a public forum. It seems to me Jimbo should be the one deciding who is or is not to be banned from his page--especially with regard to long-term editors. (I do understand that he might not want to be bothered with socks, brand new IP's and other short term editors or vandals, and hence he allows other editors to delete such distracting comments. But Count Ibis is a long-term editor.) --David Tornheim (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support as this will help keep CI out of trouble. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support in principal. Simon Adler (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support I would also add a ban from WP:ITN/C where over the years he has made many truly bizarre or hyberbolic nominations that are nearly always snow-closed (eg. "Russia threatens nuclear attack against Western targets over possible intervention in Syria" "Limiting smoking to one cigarette a day does not keep the undertaker away", "Donald Trump to start workday later to make room for more time watching TV and tweeting"... I can supply more examples if requested.)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Pawnkingthree Although the title about Russia threatening nuclear attack is hyperbolic compared to what was in the article, I don't see the problem with the other two articles. Did you complain to Count Iblis about the problem(s) and ask him to correct it? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

David Tornheim They are frivolous nominations that have no chance of being posted - he has been around long enough to know this. He usually makes no attempt to update the corresponding article. I guess he is trying to be funny (see also "the CIA didn't kill Bob Marley", "Santa Claus does not reward children based on how nice or naughty they have been in the previous year") but he is just wasting everyone's time with nominations like these. I have not spoken to him about it but then I did not file this report - I am simply commenting on it.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

LOL. I appreciate his sense of humor. Reminds me of The Onion, which I love. Maybe it's time to start approving some of these articles and give a new sense of humor to Misplaced Pages's In the News? (FYI, I do not follow In the News). --David Tornheim (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Site ban is the only way. JC7V (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe something in between and site ban and topic ban can work. JC7V (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for 2.5 different reasons. First, I think it's obvious that Iblis won't abide by any topic ban; this is simply a site-ban in disguise. Second, I'm not sure that his non-article contributions are worse than his article contributions. Finally, I would like to hear from @Count Iblis: here, though his lack of participation shouldn't cause this discussion to close with no action. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban in disguise - TBANs should always look at the nature of an editor's work. Which this has - hence why it is leaving Mainspace alone. The problem is, the editor also leaves Mainspace alone - it would completely eradicate their editing space. It's like a conventional TBAN that leaves one topic as an acceptable space that the editor has never touched. I bluntly feel that if we are going to institute this ban we should have the moral courage to actually say we are putting in a site ban. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Everything said was about what CI is not doing. Not editing the mainspace. Not recognising the apparent augustness of ArbCom. Not supporting a ban that others did. Not taking Misplaced Pages sufficiently seriously. I value editors who bring irony and a little whimsy to our project. They can reign in the excesses of our community. And this editor, objectively, is not editing disruptively. I see no edits cited in this proposal, or CI's recent contributions, that singly would warrant action – let alone point to a broader problem. Oppose. AGK ■ 20:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• AGK, we are here to write an encyclopedia; that's our primary purpose. Speaking as someone who quite values the need for humor and finds EEng's comments to be enough-amusing; we are not a social-networking site to house humorous trolls and how does not editing the main-space does help in reigning the excesses of our community (whatever they are) in some form/manner?
• For evidences, this edit over ITNC is much more of trolling or our tastes of humor vary widely. I also note that years back, he was T-Banned from RefDesk (voluntary agreement) for some IDHT behavour. Also see this edit.

∯WBG 11:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

enough amusing – Careful with that effusive praise. EEng 16:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Aside from "he doesn't edit the mainspace", and setting aside the matters already resolved by the RefDesk sanction, your evidence for this proposal are two edits from a year ago. I am sure you could dig out a misjudged edit by clicking any other signature on this page. I cannot agree with applying a hefty sanction basically because the user is a crank whose edits are not to your taste. You are entirely out of line to call the user a troll without far stronger, more recent diffs. There is objectively no evidence that this user is disrupting. I oppose sanctioning unconventional editors who are not actively disrupting the project. And I want to see a far more measured, considered approach to sanction proposals than this. You need to provide supporting evidence, narrow down the proposal beyond "I'd rather they not be here", or recognise this proposal for the easy shot that it is. AGK ■ 18:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

To find problematic mainspace edits we have to dig was back because he barely edits mainspace. He is not following the ref desk tban so that resolves nothing. Legacypac (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support with an exception - I do not think that topic banning this user from teahouse or helpdesk is a good idea. If this user ever actually needs help, he needs at least one source to get help from. Basically another reason for a topic ban is so that the user in question better understands the discussion ethics, and the "temp" topic ban would be give good enough time for the CI to do this. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this is unwarranted. I'm not really sure that any sanctions are necessary at this time. Lepricavark (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support Obviously the best measures to restrain a textbook case of NOTHERE candidate and give a chance to exhibit his productivity. ∯WBG 11:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm just not seeing any significant disruption or any need for any sanctions, and I'm still not really understanding what's kicked this off. OK, maybe he's said a few dickish things over the years, but if we excluded everyone who's done that we'd have very few people left - I certainly wouldn't be here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, seems to be a helpful user, and much of this is because he linked to a youtube video? What happened to "not censored". Does Jimmy Wales want him off of his talk page (isn't the only way to keep someone from a talk page of an active user is if the user says "no mas"?)?, and, for good measure, ?. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The Reference Desk T-Ban doesn't seem to have reduced CI's tendency to dispense unsolicited medical advice. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - Support this topic-ban from talk pages if it is accompanied by escalating blocks, of 4 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, etc. In view of the disregard for rules, only blocks will enforce this ban. Otherwise we are just singing in the dark. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per comments above. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 23:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per AGK and others above, and my comments above. The one thing I saw worth addressing I mentioned in the previous section here, which in no way demands a topic ban. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support as second choice if a site-ban isn't happening. This editor has literally admitted to providing fake citations for no reason other than to undermine our policies for shits and giggles. It doesn't matter how old the diff was. David's claim that if it were that serious a matter something would have been done about it back then doesn't hold water since a discussion did take place on Sitush (talk · contribs)'s talk page at the time, with the page's manager saying he should be SBANned and Iridescent (talk · contribs) not directly giving an opinion on whether he should be SBANned but stating that it should be easy enough to find out if CI's claim was true. Given all of this, I can't possibly see how any experienced editor could oppose any sanction because this is "all about what CI didn't do" or something like that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

BTW: Sitush, whose edit count is seven times higher than mine but whose ANI edit count is half mine, should not be blamed for not opening a site-ban discussion last November. ANI, and to a lesser extent AN, is a hostile environment where the more evidence you present of disruption the less likely anyone is going to look at it; I edit ANI proportionally 14 times as often as Sitush, and even I am highly reluctant to open ban discussions on users I have problems with (this year alone I was subjected to five months of harassment from an editor and didn't open a single ANI thread until he had ignored my second or third warning to stop calling me insane and another editor treated me to blatant hounding/trolling pretty much nonstop for almost a year and the ANI thread had to be opened by someone else who had first noticed the problem about a day earlier), so Sitush not apparently doing anything to follow up the above-linked "You should be site-banned" is, if anything, a fault of the community or CI himself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how Sitush stating an opinion on his own talkpage invalidates David's point. Don't bemoan the hostile environment if you're also going to dismiss the opinions of everyone who opposes a sanction. Lepricavark (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per self above. Crazynas 05:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. For the benefit of the people commenting about the Gaussian_quadrature article, the proof that the weights are positive can be largely shortened. When ${\displaystyle x}$ jumps from ${\displaystyle x_{i}}$ to ${\displaystyle x_{i+1}}$ then both ${\displaystyle P'_{n}(x)}$ and ${\displaystyle P_{n-1}(x)}$ are sign-changed, by an obvious property of polynomials whose roots are real, distinct and separated by the ${\displaystyle x_{i}}$. Finding a reference is left as an exercise to the reader. Pldx1 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pldx1: I was working on an answer to your question--I have taken a Numerical Analysis class decades ago!--but got distracted improving minor things in the article. Maybe you can help me on this question: Talk:Gaussian_quadrature#Typesetting. Or are you just interested in the math?  :) And more feedback on improving the confusing and redundant WP:LEDE: Talk:Gaussian_quadrature#LEDE_--_confusing --David Tornheim (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose for much the same reasons as above. Just not quite convinced. That said, Iblis should really take this to heart and get with the articlespace, since the next issue to come up in any other namespace could very easily lead to sanctions/block based on this thread. — Rhododendrites \\ 02:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Lack of closure/input in SPI

Hi all, This may have been asked before, for which I apologise however it seems concerning that some SPIs have been left open since October(!) with no edits since, leaving the report go stale. I have asked for one I inputted in to be closed by an admin/clerk but so far nothing, but I admit it is a bit of a "new" thread at being roughly 2 weeks old, my last edit was a week ago asking for closure. Can I ask if there is any reason for this, or is it a sign on more clerks needed in this field? Thanks all. Nightfury 09:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/D47817. The problem is that your evidence consists entirely of "Fails duck test", which is not very persuasive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, that can be justified in the previous reports in the archives. Still doesn't explain the mass of old reports on the main page though... Nightfury 13:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Speaking generally and not necessarily to this specific case, I think it is Bbb23 who has said they wish WP:DUCK would be deleted since just citing it in an SPI with no evidence is both common and unhelpful. I usually skip all of the ones without diffs for me to look at (or at least some sort of explanation so I know what to look for when I’m poking around in contribs). I always look closer through the contribs than just the diffs presented, but we need evidence, and there’s such a backlog already that most active admins in the area aren’t going to go through a zero evidence report when even many of the ones with evidence presented take significant investments of time. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Tony: Knowing nothing about the mechanics of the SPI process, what is a typical investment of time? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I second BMK's question, simply out of curiosity, having submitted a few different SPIs and always having found them resolved very quickly (within 2-3 days). Grandpallama (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Jumping in before the CUs answer, we shouldn't lose sight of the investment of time by the report filers either. I've filed several and it takes at least 20 minutes for an easy slam-dunk report. Compiling diffs and following up on more complex ones can take hours. Just letting them die off isn't a good process. Bri.public (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've been there on the other end as well, Bri. A compiling a slam dunk report for even the most obvious ones can take 20-30 minutes if done well. If not going through an SPI, I can spend just as long looking at two accounts behaviorally before even getting to the point of doing a CU. Behaviorally, you need to be convinced that the accounts are likely enough to be the same person to merit a block. That requires comparing article interactions, edit summaries, use of language, use of talk pages, templates they like, etc. Having someone point out at an SPI what we should be looking for really cuts down on the time and is very helpful. It's possible for a complicated report to take over an hour to assess. Less complicated ones that are obvious can be done in 5-10 minutes. It depends, but because there are so many filed and we're all volunteers, it's going to be natural for us to focus on the ones where evidence is already presented. I know Ivanvector has also been concerned about the SPI backlog, and has been a clerk before, so he can probably give you a good perspective as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I've just closed the report, you can see my explanation there. The reason that I skip cases like this rather than closing them is that I presume another clerk is familiar with the case and will see it eventually, and that they'll know what is meant by invoking the duck test and will know what to look for. There are a handful of cases that I know very well and if someone adds a report then I know what to look for and can form a conclusion very quickly, but this is not one. I don't mean to say that the request is bad: sometimes when someone files a case they think is obvious it will pass the attention of a clerk who is also familiar, and it is actioned quickly, but it's also possible that what the filer thinks is obvious is actually not evident to whoever is first to see a case, or to anyone who is active. I suppose it might be a good idea for clerks to not skip these and either close or request more information more quickly, so that they move along. I'll consider doing that from now on instead of just passing on them.

To BMK's question: I can spend hours investigating a complex report, but first I need to see something that I think merits investigation. Maybe think of it as "reasonable prospect of conviction" although I personally hate that expression, but I'm not going to put in the time if I don't think I'm going to find anything. I don't think I can really give you a reasonable estimate of "how long it takes": some take minutes, others several hours, and I very often leave cases and come back to them sometimes days later. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 23:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

My thanks to both TonyBallioni and Ivanvector for the information. Is there anything the community can do -- other than making sure that SPI reports are as thorough as possible to begin with -- to help speed things up for clerks & CUs? Are there any mechanical or policy changes which would help? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Automatically rejecting any SPIs presented without diffs would help. Fish+Karate 10:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Question for Fish and karate (or anyone else with a view) - are diffs strictly required for an SPI, if the suspected socks are only editing a single article, all the edits are recent, and there are few other contributors? I've opened a couple recently (WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Flashg321 and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Amandeephacker) which fit this description - each of them have a couple of accounts adding identical spam links, with few editors other than them and myself reverting them. I'd assumed that it was best just to link to the article history, since it's pretty obvious; would it be necessary to actually list all the diffs where they have inserted the same stuff? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 13:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

A fair point, change "diffs" to "context", you're right in that sometimes the article / user edit history is sufficient. Fish+Karate 14:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rejecting SPIs without diffs automatically, tempting as it is, would be a celebration of procedure over substance. For one thing, there are many inexperienced editors who file meritorious SPIs but simply don't know how to present them in the best way. There are also experienced editors who are unfamiliar with SPI who screw things up (I've seen admins do it). We have standard ways of asking for diffs when we want to, and if we don't get them, we often close the report with no action. Unfortunately, every case is different, and it depends on which member of the team (or an admin who patrols SPI) looks at the report. For example, someone may present no diffs, but because I am familiar with the master, I can see right away that the accounts listed are probably socks. As for Girth Summit's question, my belief is that the more obvious something is, the easier it is to present diffs. Presenting two diffs for someone who knows how to do it should be easy. Presenting contribution histories isn't particularly helpful; it's easy for us to click on the histories of the accounts involved. Finally, one thing some editors assume is that the person who evaluates a report where there is a history (an archive) of socking is familiar with that master. Filers should assume that the team member is not familiar with what happened previously.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear Bbb23, it wasn't the users' contribution histories that I'd linked to, it was the articles' histories. The cases only involved additions to one article each, and the worrying edits were all near the top of the histories; it wouldn't be a problem to link all the diffs if that's what reviewers would prefer, I just thought that in a case like that, a single link to the edit history would be simpler to follow up than half a dozen separate diffs all pointing to the same article's history. Let me know if you'd prefer diffs, I'll be happy to go back and amend the SPIs. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The presentation of evidence in those two cases isn't too bad. Diffs might make the disposition of the cases go faster. It doesn't require a half dozen diffs. If it's only two accounts, two diffs is usually enough if they're compelling.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• The time consumption of SPI case creation is brutal - the first one I did (of only two) was without a doubt the most difficult thing I've tried to do on Misplaced Pages. I can't imagine the complexity on the other side. Perhaps next year we should ask for some effort to be put into aiding the process for all parties involved (except the socks). Nosebagbear (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Nosebagbear, twinkle has a module for it. It can cause issues if you have a broken template (or someone opens a second report on the same thing), but it is much easier in my experience than manually filling out the form. YMMV though. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• As long as we have the ear of a couple of CUs, I have a serious question. Almost all experienced editors have, I think, run across "new" editors that simply don't "smell" right. They arrive out of nowhere with in-depth knowledge of Wiki policies and practices, they create near-perfect articles with ease, they use all the right buzzwords in their edit summaries, and seem to have pre-established relationships -- good and bad -- with other editors. When asked, they invariably say that they edited for a long time as an IP. Pressing the issue can get one nicked for violating WP:Casting aspersions, but frequently these "new" editors don't leave an evidence trail -- i.e. they're either legitimately new, or they are very carefully avoiding covering the same ground they covered in their old identities.There's no evidence to report in an SPI report, and CU is not to be used for fishing expeditions, but the smell just doesn't go away. What do CUs suggest be done in those case? Just let it go? Keep a very close watch on on them, waiting for the "new" editor to make a mistake? What is best? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Here's what I recommend:
    1. set everything to paginate at 250 entries so you can see the big picture
    2. enable the "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" gadget in Preferences→Gadgets→Appearance
    3. use XTools to see what the new editor's favorite articles are
    4. run those articles through the editor/article intersection tool to see who else likes those articles – or skim through those articles' history to specifically find editors who have been blocked for sock puppetry
    5. run batches of those editors through the editor interaction analyser
    6. save the most promising diffs generated by the EIA
    7. you now have enough evidence to get the entire sock farm blocked
  • For example:
    • Basilosauridae complains about RapGod2X at ANI
    • I look at RapGod2X's talk page to see what people have been complaining about, and I see he starts off suspiciously by denying that he's a sock puppet.
    • I see that RapGod2X has edited Jeff Probst recently. Don't need XTools to tell that this is an article he likes because it's one of his first few edits. He must have joined Misplaced Pages to edit this article.
    • JayMLGx2002 and Jasonlives71 have both edited this article recently, and their names are both crossed out (thanks to the gadget). Turns out they're confirmed socks of Fieryflames.
    • Load 'em up in the Editor Interaction Analyser: link.
    • JayMLGx2002, Jasonlives71, and RapGod2X have all made the same exact edit to Jeff Probst: 1, 2, 3.
    • Report at WP:SPI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• NRP: Strangely enough, I had just gone through almost exactly that sequence of events -- the only thing I didn't do was use the article intersection tool, which I had forgotten about; I did manual searches instead -- with an editor I was suspicious of, only to turn up no evidence whatsoever. I thought I might have made a breakthrough when I found an overlap with a longtime puppet master, but when I ran that master's other socks nothing came up, so I dropped it as a dead end. I'll try the article intersection tool tomorrow and see what happens. Of course, it may be that the editor is a true newbie, but it's really hard to believe given their contribution history.Thanks for the answer! Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

When I'm handling SPI cases, I pretty much ignore any case that says "WP:DUCK" and not much else. I often only have small amounts of time to handle cases, and given that there is always a backlog, I can handle more cases in my limited time by looking at ones with diffs rather than going digging for the diffs myself. It's nothing personal, it's just a reality of how I allocate my time. If you want your case to be handled more quickly, putting three or four diffs in (yes, that few, often that's all that's really required) will almost certainly get it handled faster than if you put too little (or, too much!) information in it. --Deskana (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by FkpCascais

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

FkpCascais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

template (mostly) fixed power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Here is the diff

The closure giving me a topic ban was this one:

FkpCascais is topic-banned from the Balkans

Discretionary sanction imposed:

Taking into account this thread and FkpCascais's prior editing and blocks, I conclude that FkpCascais is editing primarily to promote a particular nationalist point of view on Misplaced Pages, in violation of WP:NPOV's conduct aspect ("Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another."); in addition to several related conduct problems. Such a pattern of editing is not compatible with the mission of Misplaced Pages. FkpCascais was previously notified about the possibility of discretionary sanctions. In response to their conduct, and in application of WP:AC/DS, FkpCascais is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from everything related to the Balkans. I'm ready to consider lifting this ban after six months of productive, problem-free editing in other topic areas. This matches the recommendation by Fut.Perf. above. Sandstein 13:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by FkpCascais

Allow me ladies and gentleman please to summarise the events that lead to this. From some time ago, a group of Albanian editors had been rewriting all important articles related to Albania. As seen at Talk:Albania many editors are expressing concerns about the way the articles are being changed, and in all my honesty I opened a thread Talk:Albania#The_article_is_becoming_a_turistic_brochure because numerous problems come up as editors highlight the most positive aspects and remove or diguise the negative ones. Just as an exemple, artice Albania was full of Misplaced Pages:PEACOCK and exemples can be saying Tirana airport is ammong the biggest in Balkans (when it is not even top 10) or highlighting Albanian top position ammong countries with economic growth but ignoring totally to mention that for decades Albania was known as the poorest country in Europe (Google seach provides tons of results refering to it). Now, I favour that this should all be well sourced and included in context, but this articles have the problem of selective sourcing and cherry-picked content. When one tries to edit any of those articles he is immediatelly reverted by the group of editors and sent to discussion page, where, weather you present good sources and arguments, they will still menage to make you impossible to make the changes in the article simply because you are always outnumbered.

So what happened with me? I noteced that grouop reedited the article about Skanderbeg and they removed and made minimal any mention of Serbia in it. OK, one thing is the anymosity Serbs and Albanians have today, but back and 13th and 14th centuries much of inner Albania was incorporated into Serbia and their nobility part of Serbian one. Skanderbeg himself was Christian Orthodox, his granfather faught along Serbian emperor Stefan Dushan and it was Dushan that gave him the lands to rule. Skanderbeg mother is Slavic, and Skanderbeg brothers and sisters all have Serbian names. Thwe ammount of historiography speaking about Skanderbegs Serbian origin (or mixed) is vast. However, these editors that took possession of Albanian articles made a cleaver move to use one source claiming Skanderbeg possible Bulgarian origin (a totally fringe theory) and thus make a construction in which they oresent Skanderbeg as Albanian with some "crazy fringe theorists considering him Serbian or Bulgarian origin). All I wanted was that the unsourced sentence claiming both is divided, and that each claim has their source of their own. This was obviously immediatelly opposed because they perceve what they archive by putting Serbian origin with fringe theories together, so didn´t wanteds to cede. I started gathering sources speaking about Skanderbeg Serbian origin at the talk-page and I didnt touvched the article.It was them that touched it and i just revertede saying issue was not over. Important fact, all we are apeaking here is about a chapter of his early life, nothing to do with really important parts such as lede or so. But even there, they OWN that much the article that prevent any expansion of anything they dislike.

Since we were going no where and I had already 9 sources and was in process of bringing more, I asked for help at ANI. All I wanted is someone neutral just to see what sources are valid and what we have and what appropriate text we could add. This was not in other editors interest so they started olaying dirty (yes, lets speak straight). They went to my sandboxes and found a text I copy-pasted from a colleague of mine and they removed parts of it purpously missinterpreting it to describe me as racist and anti-Islamist. The text only spoke about the sad fact that Muslim populations were driven away from Balkans while ottoman army retrreated. I dont support the text, I just have it there. Important would have been if I had added some controversial content to our articles, but what someone has in its sandboxes' Come on... My grandpa has Main Kampf in his library and he is stunch socalist! Reading books or texts doesnt mean you support them.

So what happened, User:Deb was actrually driving the issue quite well, when suddently FPS (which had oroblems with me since decades) comes making crazy conclusions and then Sandstein based on his conclusions bans me for 6 months.~

I, wanting peace and no more this sort of historic debates, just asked please to allow me to edit football, but even that wasnt allowed to me. Concluding, even during ANI I apologised because I know I could have dealt better the isse, I also promised to stay away from political and historical matters, and I begged BEGGED Sandstein to allow me to edit football from Balkans because that is my specialty and never had problems with that. You can see my excellent contributions with all nationalities at my barnstars and talk-page, so how can i be racist? I had been contributing in various areas such as aviation, industry, etc, for dso long and had no problerms, just rewards, and suddently this two admins wants to make me look like some racist loonatic. I am deeply offended, soecially because I asked and explained to Sandstein I loved Misplaced Pages and needed it now speacially to edit football because of the transfers window.

I saw so much major disruption being just warned or even forgiven, but I am kicked off Misplaced Pages for half year because... because od«f what exactly? FkpCascais (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

All in all, after houndreds of articles, years dedicating to Misplaced Pages, after accepting Deb to help us solve the dispute, after apologising other users if I was nervous, after promising to edeit my area, football, for next months, I dint deserve any assumption of good faith because of... one revert? FkpCascais (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

"Oh but he is nationalist".. I am natrionalist by having friends from entire region, making articles about their football, receving barnstars from "others<2, me nationalist? FkpCascais (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC) ~ It is totally unfair that I get such a hard sanction for fightinhg POV. I admit I could have been more calm, and I will, and I am please asking this unfair topic ban to be lifted however, I will be aware that eyes will be on me, but I am in oeace because >I really want to show off how a good Wikipedian I can be. FkpCascais (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I asked sorry for that and promised never to refer in such way ever again. I actually thought there was nothing wrong in being honest when this sort of two side nations happened. >But I asked forgivness and sweared >I would not use it ever again. FkpCascais (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

May I ask please to allow me to edit football-related articles. Even a participant Calthinus who was against me at Skanderbeg issue, asked if I could be allowed to continue editing football cause >I am very oroductive editor and <I contribute to Kosovar, Macedonian, Albania, Serbian, etc. I love all these leahues. Please. FkpCascais (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein, I did adress the concrns of my ban. I recognised I was precipitated, that I was nervous and made me make some rush decitions, and I apologised individually to all of the participants. At ANI itself I made a comitment to disangage from that topic and not to get myself involved in any sort of historical controversial matters. Also, please don´t warry about football because I am not a hooligan type of football-passionate, but statistics one. As exemple for you to see I am not of the kind of ones that would be fighting over nationalisties of footballers, you can see I always include Kosovar footballers as from Kosovo (so meaning not being the one of the nationalists insisting Kosovo is Serbia) or you can see I always put Bosnian Serb players as Bosnians playing in Serbia. I actually confront many times Serbian nationalists over this issues. But my speacialty are the foreign players and coaches (specially from the first half of 20 century) that spent part of their careers at Balkans. Many Austrians, Hungarians, Czechoslovaks, I love to make their articles with their complete careers and stories. If you notece I don´t have much interest in Serbian national team for instance. I can reasure you that within football I have great collaboration from editors from neighbouring countries preciselly because they know I edit neutrally and objectivelly. About the ban, I am really sad that it also forbides me to expand articles about transportation, infrastructure, airpots, airlines, etc. I think that generally, even including the historically controversial matters, I have been a good editor and I have always respected WP:Verifiability and WP:RS as pilars. Some situations in my life made me be more nervous lately, and I made this mistakes, bht I really think you could have given me a sort of "last chance" so I could demonstrate you this was an exception in my editing pattern. I would be enormously greatfull if I could get that trust even more by knowing I compromised myself here before you all. If not, I will please ask you if you could allow me to continue the projects in football that I have going on here on Misplaced Pages, that deal with football at the Balkans, so in case of keeping the topic ban, they will be totally abandoned and it would be a shame. I am aware I will have the eyes on me and I am perfectly confident of taking the risk of promissing you that I will make no mistakes from now on and if I do to have a severe sanction. FkpCascais (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC) P.S.: About the controversy that brought me to this situation, I never claimed Skanderbeg was Serb. All I claimed is that a high ammount of literature speaks about his Serbian heritage and how his grandfather recever the property and title from Serbian king Dushan. The second info was totally removed from the article, while the first was diluted along other fringe theories backed by only one, maximum two sources. I know now I should have dealt the issue differently, and because I didn´t I understand I am wrong and I accept fully distancing myself from that article and continue editing the other projects which have no controversies. FkpCascais (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hut 8.5:, I thank you very much for your time. I am sad that I left in you the impression you mentioned in your comment bellow, but. In my defense, I want to say that my belief is that nationalism is prejuditial first and foremost for the nation and people themselves. In Misplaced Pages this is done by POV-editing. The problem that I noteced that we are starting to have here is that a reader may read different articles all from one same geographical area, and will end up reading as much different realities as article it read. Editors of each country (or ethnic group) write the articles related to them in a way that they cherry-pick and add what is convenient and eliminate what is not. Unfortunatelly, Misplaced Pages, when the number of active editors is low, ends up allowing this. What in practice is happening is that articles about obscure countries end up having just a group of editors from that country all editing in sinthony. If an editor from outside comes and tryies to challenge some aspects, he will face a wall on behalve of those editors which will do everything possible to prevent that editor to "ruin their article" and if the editor insists, he will be attacked in numerous ways trying to make him look as vandal, POV-pusher, editor against "consensus" and that sort of things. When such situations occur, instead of a healthy discussion where arguments instead of numbers would be weight, what always comes out is the temptation to eliminate the "intruder". Ultimatelly, admins, often unfamiliarised with the matter, end up going trough the most comfotable solution, which is eliminate the intruder and leave satisfied the greater number of editors. However, that practice instead of helping create encyclopedic articles, actually creates touristic brochures.

I never intended to turn Skanderbeg into "my preferred ethnic group". Skanderbeg has cemented its place in Albanian history. But, since the situation of "touristic brochure" happened, important facts from his life were erased or disguised. Allow me to mention one peculiar generally uncknown fact: Serbian and Albanian relations troughout Middle Ages and afterwords were good. There is no record of any war between the two anywhere prior 1900 (first armed clash was in 1912). Curious right? Given the fact that the idea of some centuries, even milleniums, long anymosity was spread troughout public opinion without actual academic backing. Skanderbeg article was rewritten in a way that many aspects were left out, and that happened because of the nowadays anymosity between the two people and not because of the reality of the time Skanderbeg lived. Skanderbeg lived in an era when Serbia dominated the inland Albania, while Venice certain ports on the coast. Skanderbeg grandfather Pal Kastrioti, served at Serbian military, and Serbian emperor Stefan Dušan in recognition for his service gave him estates and property in Albania. You can see from then on at House of Kastrioti the relations between members of the family and Skanderbeg himself. I never wanted to say Sknderbeg was Serbian, but I want our article to respect Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:Reliable source and Misplaced Pages:UNDUE. It is important to mention that even disregarding local sources, we still have a considerable number of sources mentioning this Serbian origin of Skanderbeg. So what happened? At article Skanderbeg, at time I first noteced it, his Serbian origin was added in the "Early life" section (OK with that), but mentioned in a sentence where the word "possible" is added, and joined along the incomparatively less spread theory of Bulgarian origin is put in same level. I understand political correctivness, but lets speak honest, there is a clear attempt to dilude the Serbian origin theory by adding the word "possibly" before, and eqialising it with a Bulgarian origin theory, which, istead of the Serbian one which is widespread and included in numerous sources, is backed just by one Bulgarian source which bases its claim in the typical Bulgarian nationalistic speach that Macedonians are Bulgrians, thus if Skanderbeg family comes from Prolog region of today Macedonia, he is Bulgarian then. I hope you see the ammount of problems here. The article was written in a POV manner with clear agenda of diminishing Serbian origin claims, and even uses dubious Bulgarian nationalistic narrative to help. Initially , by knowing Sebian origin claim is backed by numerous sources which, by the way, most don´t use the word "possible origin" but claim it straight, and that Bulgarian origin theory was fringe theory, all I asked was to separate the sources for each claim, as, cleverly the sentence was made in a way to make it look that 3 sources back the claim that Skanderbeg may have possibly Serbian origin or Bulgarian noble one. That as far as I know is missusing sources and manipulate claims. I separated the sources to indicate exactly which one claims what as none claims both as missused by previous version, and I started a discussion at talk-page where I started gathering many more sources. I was carefull to use only non-Serbian sources, thus I wanted to avoid sourced that could be biased. I added some to the article, but when one editor reverted it all back, I went to ANI to ask help. I honestly wanted neutral intervenients to help. Admin Deb was showing excellent skills and started seing ways of solving this dispute, when an admin which I had many disputes in the past intervened suggesting the worste about me and another admin followed taking previous admin observations as granted, and I ended up eliminated.

I admit my guilt because I wasnt as polite ans patient as I have should have been, but still I think none of that solves the issue that the article doesnt represent the facts as described by scholar sources, but rather is a text that was made conveniently to defend one POV. I also want to highlight the fact that I never at any point added to the article anything against the rules. My entire sanction is based on supositions that I will be a nationalist, that I will be defending POV. I saw editors editing clear POV-pushing edits against all consensus and not even getting a warning. And I am literally removed for at least half a year just for wanting to have neutral people judging a dispute? I still feel like asking Sandstein to say what was the meanest thing I did to deserve a 6 month ban? Because even prior, at ANI, I apologised to the Albanian editors for having them called "Albanian editord" but I didnt really ment it in a bad way, just that it is a fact that the three defend same POV. And as you can see, they are still here, that Resnjari editor, trying to get me eliminated by al means. I apologise for such a long text, all I hope is someone to understand me. FkpCascais (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hut 8.5: thank you for your response, and I fully understand you. That is why I am asking to be allowed to edit football, because my specialty area are the foreign players and coaches in the Balkans, and that has been an area I have had no problems whatsoever. I just don´t want to be blocked for creating an article of someone just because played or coached a team at some point of his life in Balkans. FkpCascais (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Atention:

Can I please call to the atention of the community that one of the members which has been in dispute with me had just this result at his report: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Alexikoua_reported_by_User:Ktrimi991_(Result:_No_violation). I am not saying by any means that all three of them are the same, neither that their result interferes with my actions, but I will please want the community to take into consideration that these editors have been behaving agressivelly and my reaction was, no doubts, driven by that atitude of theirs. FkpCascais (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

!!!

• I just have to alert that the user using IP accounts 89.164.xxxx which just addmited that has been stalking me for 2 years is indef-banned Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has just had several accounts blocked at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Asdisis and even so, he has continued ignoring the blocks by just changhing the IP and doing his already announced edits such as these: diff (remember @MrX: he had announced that precise edit?). That editor is a major problem for our project and a serious exemple of how socking is impossible to stop when the banned editor just insists in continuing to edit by changing IPs. I will like to call the atention of the community for this problem because an entire group of us senior editors at Nikola Tesla article have been suffering for years now. Speacially me, who am being stalked and provoked with the guy knowing I cannot do nothing. FkpCascais (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC) This is a clear exemple of POV-pushing I have been fighting against. As you can see, he saw I had this sanction and he immediatelly went there to the article and removed sourced content changing completelly the text so it represents the POV he wants. That is the reason why many editors want me removed, because I prevent them from inserting their POV and I am a stone in the shoe to many in Balkans area because of it. FkpCascais (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Yes, you can ban me and remove me, it will be a favour to many since I am one of the very few Serbian editors who besides editing football, loves history, geography, and have plenty of other interests and is active. When I participate in those controversial matters it is usually because I see that there is a problem with neutrality, and I make uncomfortable questions and back my statements with sources. I am not saying I am right, but I plea to the community to understand that I am an undesirable minority, and since our project is based on NPOV, I cannot avoid not saying that I am necessary and usefull for our project. I beg the community for a chance because I am certainly not a vandal and not a nationalist of any kind, I just happend to see situations where I see enough sources to at least question certain situation, so I promise to be constructive and show you all that I am a good Wikipedian that I was already recognised as such in the past. This Asdisis exemple was a perfect exemple when they did all they could to eliminate me and get their POV trough, but it was because of my persistance that the respect for the sources prevailed. As everyone could see, it was just needed a day without mr for them to go and remove sourced content. FkpCascais (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I recommend that the appeal is declined. It does not address the problems with the editing of FkpCascais that led to the ban. Blaming others in an appeal is a bad sign, too. Sandstein 09:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: WP:AC/DS allows appeals to WP:AE or to WP:AN, although the latter option is seldom used. Sandstein 09:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: As I indicated on FkpCascais's talk page, I'm open to lifting the ban after FkpCascais has shown productive editing in other topic areas, initially as regards football (I'm in fact not aware of problems with their editing in this topic area), and then more broadly. I'm reluctant to make an exeption for football immediately because I understand that football is a politicized topic in the Balkans. Sandstein 11:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

This is to note that there is an enforcement request concerning an apparent violation of this topic ban as regards football at WP:AE#FkpCascais. I'll let other admins deal with it, but it does not inspire confidence in me regarding FkpCascais's future editing. Sandstein 21:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Resnjari

The editor being topic banned made further posts that are of concern on their talkpage about the past comments, i.e: "And then the missunderstanding about the text I have in a sandbox. I was not the author of that text, neither do I support it per se." @FkpCascais has not fully grasped the issues regarding their sandbox and is attempting to distance themselves from the matter by placing blame to who knows who and not taking responsibility for those comments. Looking at the edit history of the page all edits made to that sandbox are only by @FkpCascais and not from some distant past but of this year (April-May 2018). So i agree overall that the request for their appeal be declined. Regarding football its up to administrators to decide if leeway is suitable in this situation especially with all that happened.Resnjari (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by involved editor 212.186.133.83

This is somewhat similar to incarceration (regular blocks) vs. involuntary commitment (TBANs). While the latter may appear more humane, it is actually much more invasive and harder to oppose. I think there should be no topic bans, only regular blocks for edit warring, canvassing and other kinds of obnoxious behaviour. Consequently, the TBAN should be lifted, and a regular block applied instead, if necessary. But that aside, blocking FkpCaisCais is shooting the messenger, because there is a grain of truth in his statements. Team-tagging and sealioning discourage any meaningful participation in those topic areas, much like in real life. --212.186.133.83 (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor 89.164...

• I have participated in numerous discussions where FkpCascais was pushing POV like in this one that got him banned (I even opened one report a few days before he got banned), but nowhere an IP has appeared like in this one, so I don't think its him socking. I'm not surprised that he got banned since he was POV pushing for years. I even remember an ANI report where he was advised against such behavior some time ago. In my opinion, he should be indef blocked from editing Balkan articles, but allowed to edit football related articles. I also want to add a few words on IPs. I've been editing as an IP for years, and often I was accused of being a sock. Not all IPs are socks. 89.164.130.17 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Moved by me from admin-only area below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. I made my section. I've been tracking what FkpCaisCais has been doing for at least 2 years and trying to correct his nationalistic editing whereever I had the chance. I had to open at least 3 RfCs (I can provide links if needed) against him. Although he tried to block me as a socks in each one of them I managed to get the attention of other users so he didn't manage to push his opinion. I even caught him directly lying to other editors to make them support (I can provide a link). His behavior got him reported some time ago, when he didn't want to accept the consensus established by a RfC. At that time he was warned against such behavior, but no sanctions were made because he has "appologized". I suspected back then that he has appologized just to avoid sanctions, and later that got confirmed because he had just continued with the same behavior. That report got forgotten because he didn't bump into any of the users that were aware of that report, except me. My latest struggle with his behavior was this . If you read carefully, you will see how he is directly lying about what the source says by saying that the source contains the word "should". How to deal with that kind of behavior? I don't think he should be ever allowed to edit political-historical related Balkan articles. I realize that the ban will expire, but I predict that we will again see the same report as he will continue with this kind of behavior, just like the last ANI report. At least he will now have this hanging over his head. After reading what Calthinus said I can agree and add that allowing him edit football related articles will just be a backdoor through which he can stay a part of wikipedia until this blows over after which he can continue POV pushing on Balkan articles. Even in this appeal he is still acting NOTHERE. Later he will try to appologize if it gets into more trouble. If the appology doesn't work he will again try to use personal attacks. 89.164.223.107 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

BDW, how kind of an excuse is to say that he didn't write a racist text but have only posted it to Misplaced Pages? Racism should not be tolerated on Misplaced Pages. What kind of statement is "If you got to a point when you have to use Srebrenica, it means you got really at the end of the road and you got nothing against me"? FkpCascais, you were banned and everyone has endorsed the ban. Saying that " has nothing against you" is NOTHERE. You were banned by admins not the user you are attacking even in your appeal. You should be appealing, and not continuing with the same disruptive behavior. This can get you even in more trouble. And what should "you have to use Srebrenica" mean? Be careful of that kind of statements, because someone might interpret this in the light of your racist post that got you into all this trouble. 89.164.223.107 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

In response to FkpCascais attacks against me. I can only add RfCs I had opened/participated against him, which clearly show that he was the one pushing POV. I'm the least important there as an IP, but other users have prevented his POV pushing. Here are 3 RfCs (maybe I can find more discussions). You will notice his behavior in those 3 is a match for the behavior that got him banned: as_"constitutive"_nation_in_Socialist_Republic_of_Croatia, ,. Here is the report where his behavior got him a warning to stay off Balkan related articles: . You can see how hostile his behavior is in this report. The same as it was in the report that got him banned right now. FkpCascais, you can not call in your friends to proxy edit for you, this is against the ban you are under. 89.164.223.107 (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Just some things other users stated about FkpCascais in the report I referenced:

• "Its starting to look like you are WP:NOTHERE because you are ignoring the consensus of everyone else and want to continue in an endless discussion that goes round in circles, Its time to drop the stick" - AlbinoFerret
• "You don't get infinitely many reviews until one agrees with you." - LjL
• "This again FkpCascais? I think it's time for a TBAN for FkpCascais , broadly construed on anything dealing with Croatia. This is about the second or third time I've seen this issue come up, with him. Enough already !" - KoshVorlon
• "Of course he's not discussing in good faith.Don't know when ever he had." -Director
• "Couple of days ago he gave me a half barnstar and apologized for, well, you can see that on my talk page; couple of days before that, he was hating me and saying I was "lying through my teeth", and removing tags; now he seems to be back to that. "- LjL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.223.107 (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Calthinus

I did argue for FkpCascais' terms of ban to be modified so to not touch his football passion, per his request. To be honest at that point I thought that was the right way to move forward from issues-- I see now I am mistaken, as FkpCascais has manipulated my proposal to dishonestly put words into my mouth. I did not say he was a "productive editor" or that I wanted him editing in the topic area at all. His sandbox was thoroughly disturbing and actually sickening, and his attempts to distance himself from it were really not convincing (let's take this seriously -- it is obviously FkpCascais' writing style, with all the same sorts of errors that we see on talk pages constantly, and if someone else did write such a poorly constructed essay, why did such a bad essay get enough coverage for him to read it?). Let me reiterate what he said in his sandbox ]: The then totally absurd creation of Albania was supported by Vatican and Austria and done in order to prevent an Slavic-Orthodox by then pro-Russian country as Serbia to access sea right in Italy back (Russia assisted Serbs agaist Ottomans and by the both Slavic/Orthodox line a brotherhood and potential political and military allience was created). Western world seing the danger of Russian naval bases in the Adriatic is their nighmare... This move not only prevented Serbia from accessing the sea and clearing the area of Muslims, but created a Muslim country Albania...

I am incredibly sorry but I cannot see any prominent writer worthy of citation, or even a blogger, producing this agrammatical and also completely vile trash. I don't even know where to start with why it is wrong so I'll just leave a link to Srebrenica massacre and let everyone figure out why this is so fucked up. It is not your right to "clear" any area of Muslims. Period.

Now regarding Skanderbeg, everyone knows that people in the Balkans love to waste their time claiming each others' national heroes. For Albanians that would be Markos Botsaris, who fought for Greece but Albanians claim him as their own. The page already mentioned that there were some theories that Skanderbeg had some Serbian roots, and that his mom was possibly a Slav. What FkpCascais was trying to do was not defend NPOV but rather give the Serbian theory precedence. Alas it is not actually the only way to view it -- in the 2005 book Skanderbeg, Harry Hodgkinson describes what became the claims underlying FkpCascais' viewpoint as arising from … a basic reading error: The claim that Skanderbeg was Slav was first made by a German who misread a document of 1368 in Serbian. Among the signatories were a Branilo (a Slav Christian name) of Vlora and a Castrioti of Kanina. By overlooking the single letter "i" (meaning and), he produced Branilo Castrioti as Scanderbeg's Serbian great grandfather. But it is difficult to talk rationally with someone who has behaved like he has, especially after it came out that he thinks Albania is a "totally absurd country" and regrets that Serbia didn't get a coast or … the chance to "clear Muslims" from the area. If they aren't his non-grammatical and misspelled words, why'd he post them?--Calthinus (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Will you stop your crying with that sandbox? Did I even used it anywhere? Please stick to actual editing and point out to my editing at articles and talk-pages. For me looks now you are all too affraid to actually go to a mediation about this because you know I have sources and the way you left the article is totally against UNDUE. FkpCascais (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

If you got to a point when you have to use Srebrenica, it means you got really at the end of the road and you got nothing against me... Why wouldn´t you accept a RfC for Skanderbeg to see if I am that so much wrong and you so much right? Would you be brave for that? FkpCascais (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you have the right to post in my section -- you should instead post in yours, but I'll reply here.

More dishonesty -- you never called for an Rfc and anyone can see this on Talk:Skanderbeg. What is shameful is that you expect anyone to believe this, and worse, that you twisted my good faith attempt to lighten your sentence into something I had not intention of supporting, without asking me, not even once. AGF is not a suicide pact. --Calthinus (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Now the thing is, the stuff you posted in that sandbox -- yes, you, I will get to that in a sec -- is exactly what led to Srebrenica, this notion that it is desireable to "clear out" Muslims from Christian realms just as it is desireable for Serbia to have a coast -- including Christians who converted to Islam -- which logically leads to deportations and then, what happens when they don't want to move, well you kill them. I'm not going to sugarcoat this and I'm not going to censor myself. Now, it's also incredibly obvious it was you who posted this. If it wasn't you, then who? . It stretches the imagination to believe you copy pasted it from somewhere on the web, given all the grammar errors, which, I'm sorry, look exactly like the errors you regularly make. And then, even if it was someone else's, why the fuck (excuse me) would you post something that said The then totally absurd creation of Albania was supported by Vatican and Austria and done in order to prevent an Slavic-Orthodox by then pro-Russian country as Serbia to access sea right in Italy back … Western world seing the danger of Russian naval bases in the Adriatic is their nighmare... This move not only prevented Serbia from accessing the sea and clearing the area of Muslims, but created a Muslim country Albania... ---- unless that is also not only what you believe but beliefs you, at that time, wanted to advertise. You were advertising these views for years with this sandbox, right up until they landed you in hot water, and only now you are recanting from them. I am sorry but that is incredibly dishonest and shameful.

I confess, some time ago, I thought it would be okay to, in the spirit of good faith, allow someone with those views to still edit football. The multifaceted dishonesty in his conduct in this case is making me reconsider.--Calthinus (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@FkpCascais, the sandbox comments from this year places in context your recent problematic editing on Skanderbeg (about identity etc relating to Albanian topics). Your editing from years back according to other editors was ok, but this year there has been a lapse, a big one at that. The editing done to such articles bears all the hallmarks of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Resnjari (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by FkpCascais

• I agree that a TBAN was the right action but feel TWO alterations were reasonable: 1) Change the appeal time to 3 months, for non personally hostile TBANs I feel 6 months is more than is needed 2) Exclude football from the TBAN-covered area. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

(Apologies for incorrect placement)

• Please note that an editor has filed an AE complaint against FkpCascais for violating the topic ban that is the subject of this appeal. The report can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by FkpCascais

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Decline appeal anyone who writes "I am also very concern that what you call "editors" is just the 3 of you Albanians who happened team-tag and OWN articles. It is time to end this." has no business editing in an area of ethnic conflict. Also, FkpCascais, you are not kicked off of Misplaced Pages, you're kicked off of arguing about the various ethnic disputes of the Balkans. The rest of the encyclopedia that does not involve the Balkans is open to you. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Also noting that I’m fine with a football modification. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• I might misunderstand the policies, but shouldn't this appeal be at WP:AE rather than here?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Sandstein: I see, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Sandstein: I’d be interested in your thoughts on the suggestion that football-related articles be excluded from the topic-ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• If the troublesome edits leading to the ban were not related to football, I could see excluding football from the ban as a reasonable modification. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• Having seen the thread which imposed the sanction, and some of the talk page of the article which prompted it, it does certainly look like FkpCascais is someone who uses tenacious editing (including edit warring) to claim an important historical figure for his/her preferred ethnic/national group. That is not the kind of person we want editing Balkan articles. As the issues mainly relate to history I'm OK with a modification to exclude football as long as FkpCascais doesn't get involved in any disputes about the ethnic or national origin of footballers. Hut 8.5 10:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• @FkpCascais: sorry, I'm not willing to analyse a response of that length. If you want an actual reply then please condense it. One thing I would advise though is that you aren't likely to be successful in this appeal by criticising other people or by arguing that the sanction is a miscarriage of justice. Your best bet is to convince people that you understand the issues which led to the sanction being imposed and that they won't happen again. Spending some time editing something unconnected to Balkan history would be a good way to show this. Hut 8.5 16:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with FkpCascais being allowed to edit football-related articles, he is a good editor there and the area would be the poorer for excluding him. @Sandstein: National football has been a Balkan issue, local football is not. Black Kite (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am curious as to who IP @212.186.133.83: is ? They commented twice , on the Skanderbeg talkpage making comments pushing POV on identity and so on as @FkpCascais was making their own problematic edits on the main page and talkpage. The IP comments were removed by other editors via wp:deny due to it bearing the hallmarks of a returning sock account. Just thought i would cite this as a heads up to everyone considering that the IP now has made a statement here. Resnjari (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, it must be me socking, feel totally free to open an investigation. Please do so. FkpCascais (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Clearly a sock and given that they knew to comment here, suspicious. Alas the style seems a bit closer to AMES, the banned sockpuppeteer who was on a mission to "prove" that Albanians came from Antalya, Turkey. --Calthinus (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
        • That's actually a static IP, so it would be pretty stupid for FkPCascais to use it where it was bound to be the subject of discussion. As an aside, it's in Austria, as well. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
          • Black Kite The IP is a pretty good match for the profile of banned sockpuppeteer User:Aleksandër_I_Madh_Është_Shqipëtar. And how this "IP editor" (who knows lots of wiki terminology, even sealioning which is kind of an elite user meme) knew about FkpCascais' first thread originally is suspicious... Cheers. --Calthinus (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
            • Comment: @FkpCascais also has suspicions about the IP account being a former sock and voiced them to an administrator . I will note no one said that the IP has assisted @FkpCascais, but that editors partaking in here need to be aware of issues related to IP, as their comments can influence the outcome of this appeal either way and leave a lingering feeling for whoever that a fair process was not observed regardless of what happens. Just sayin'Resnjari (talk) 06:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• Why is AE's stupid formatting leaking onto other pages, and why do we have a special area for administrator comment when the "policy" handed down from Arbcom makes reference only to uninvolved editors at AN? (Also no, don't move this comment to another section, because this section is dumb.) GMG 22:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• I have had dealings with FkpCascais from Balkans articles, but am not involved in this case. Per Hut 8.5, I think a football exemption is ok as long as they don't get involved in any ethnic disputes associated with footballers or teams. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Scratch that. Given FkpCascais has gone ahead and breached the TBAN with edits on a football in Serbia page whilst this has been under discussion, per the link provided by BMK above, I now don't think this exemption should be agreed to. I'd allow another request for exemption for football-related pages in six weeks if they can keep their nose clean during that time, plus an immediate block for the breaches. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• I am familiar with FkpCascais from his constructive contributions on Nikola Tesla and I hope that this topic ban does not include that bio. I have never found him to have a nationalistic stance on that article. At the same time, I'm not easily swayed to second guess editors who are familiar with his other contributions. I do agree that the tban could be relaxed to exclude football articles. I'm sure that FkpCascais will learn from this experience and will have no problem appealing the tban in six months. By the way I'm commenting down here because this is a community appeal, not an AE request. The format is malformed and kindly do not move this comment, BMK or anyone else. - MrX 🖋 13:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was going by the agate text under the header of this section, but it's been pointed out to me that the rules for a DS appeal filed at AN are different from those filed at AE, so I was incorrect in moving an edit out of this section (someone else subsequently moved it elsewhere). I've suggested that there be a separate form for DS appeals filed at AN with the correct instructions for the "Results" section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Paddy Ashdown

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

Could an Admin please semi-protect Paddy Ashdown, who has recently died. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There's a ridiculously high-volume of edits, but I don't see vandalism to justify semi-protection. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually I semi'ed it for two days in response to a request at RFPP.-- MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Auto-selection of revisions to revdel

A discussion is underway about modifying {{copyvio-revdel}} so there's a link to the history with the checkboxes already checked. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I also just started a discussion on the talk page of that template about adding the link. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

For those admins using 2FA

For those admins using two factor authentication, here is an article from Amnesty International that you might want to read:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2018/12/when-best-practice-is-not-good-enough/

In particular, I would draw your attention to the "Fake Security Alerts Work" section.

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Phishing is an issue all around the web. 2FA is designed to prevent brute force attacks and leaks, not technical ignorance or incompetence. Even then, if the phishing site isn't checking the validity of the account every ~30 seconds, 2FA protects against this, too. Anarchyte (talk | work) 10:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent hacks (not at Misplaced Pages) have beaten 30-second 2FA using spear-phishing (where the emails are hand crafted from information known about the recipient in order to make the fraud more convincing). The high-quality fake websites, using https with all the bells and whistles, have fooled many victims in recent months. The moral of the story is to never enter your password or 2FA information unless you started from scratch on a computer known to be free from malware. That is, if you open a new browser window and navigate to the URL where you would normally log in, that is (we hope) ok. But never enter personal information after following links in an email or web page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Repeated protection pf pages and involvement?

I work on a regular basis on WP:RFPP, and I noticed that often I protect pages (in response to requests there) which I already previously protected. I typically do not remember which page I protected for longer than 5 minutes, so that if I get a request to protect a page I already protected a month ago I totally have no memory of it. I obviously check the protection log, and often see my name there (sometimes several years ago). (Obviously if my actions are contested, for example if I declined a protection, the page has been renominated, and I can recognize it, I do not take any action). I believe my previous protections do not make me involved as per WP:INVOLVED, and I protect pages irrespectively of whether I earlier protected them or not. However I am curious to hear opinions of other users on this issue. I believe if I interpret WP:INVOLVED very broadly (which I do not but some users do), once I protected a page I became involved even if I do not remember this anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymblanter (talk • contribs) 10:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Obviously not involved - and even if it was involved, I think it would also fall under the vandalism exception in any case. If someone disputes the protection than obviously it can always be allocated to another admin. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Protect away. Policy is unambiguous that you are allowed to protect as many times as necessary, and doing so doesn't make you involved. "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved" (bold mine). You are fine.--Jayron32 03:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• The only problem I have with protecting a page I'd protected before is aIfeel embarrassed at not protecting for a longer period of time. A neutral admin doing adminy things is not involvement. It's an admin familiar with the page using their judgement. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• Not involved, per Jayron; in fact very likely to come up. Not only do the same people tend to frequent RFPP and thus are likely to encounter the same requests, but also some people (by which I mean me) will deliberately watchlist a page that seems to have vandalism or other problems that may need repeated protection. When I see it needs protection again I go ahead and protect it, without waiting for it to be sent to RFP. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Administrative involvement≠"INVOLVED". Page protection is no different than anything else in this regard.  Swarm  {talk}  02:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Lojbanist

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

Raising this here as Galobtter raised it at WT:AfD today after a POINTy proposal to rename AfD and merge stiff with it, but I think it’s time to consider a TBAN for Lojbanist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and making proposals. For anyone unaware of the background, Lojbanist has a history of disruptive behavior/fringe views as to how templates should work among other things and in the past and currently make POINTy proposals that have no chance of passing to prove a point. In the past this has included:

1. Trying to remove the stop sign from final warning templates after they were templated for using homophobic slurs in edit summaries: (I revdel’d the ES, so cant diff)
2. Trying to get the speedy keep criteria changed after they nominated an article on the main page for deletion: (see: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Richard Painter)
3. Long-running hatred of the RM process involving templates caused by a template he didn’t want renamed getting renamed: , , (background: , Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2018 January
4. Proposing TfD and MfD get merged apparently because he didn’t like one of the participants at TfD:
5. I have No clue how to even describe this one
6. And this proposal to delete Misplaced Pages talk:Sandbox

These are just the ones I’m personally familiar with, and I’m sure more examples can be found. I was originally writing this as a ban on starting discussions in Misplaced Pages talk space and at the village pumps, but looking through the contribs, it may need more than that. I propose that Lojbanist is banned from starting discussions in Misplaced Pages talk space or at the village pumps and I have no objection if anyone wants to come up with something else. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indef/site ban per Marco and revi below and the nonsense on meta that has stemmed from this discussion. He's making en look crazy xwiki and causing disruption here and on multiple projects. His inevitable attempt to return should be on the community's terms, not his, and a block/ban is the only way to accomplish that. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support though it is the season to be jolly, so a full ban from all editing forever would be better, given their biblical incompetence. Nick (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support They were KATMAKROFAN (talk · contribs) previously and it's the old name that readily reminds me of their subpar behavior then. This talkpage archive shows the myriad of warnings and blocks they received then before they were unblocked conditionally. Since it continues now, this topic ban is necessary as a first step. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  After seeing the latest disruptive behavior and their subsequent quitting I believe topic ban is now useless. So I am changing my Support to indefinite block. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's this: Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for discussion#RFC: Move stubtypes (and categories populated by templates currently on TFD) to TFD, and also at least two RfCs at CSD, and also a nomination of the TfM template for deletion. I'm mobile right now and will provide links later. All within a couple weeks, if that. I don't oppose the discussion of ideas per se, so I hate hate hate the idea of a topic ban for starting any discussion in project space. Also, I don't think one can actually do much work here successfully without the ability to do that. BUT I am very concerned that this user is not following the instructions to start a talk page discussion before jumping into an RfC. That's disruptive. I would admonish the user to start a discussion before starting any RfC or before nominating any project related page for discussion, on pain of block. Big block. --Bsherr (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, I almost cited the CfD one because it looks to be a part of their long-running disruption in the project-space area around templates (see their block log or just randomly change their contributions to template/template talk and see the edit warring and yelling at people through edit summaries), and given their past with proposals surrounding templates, I suspect it has some basis in a dispute that they were on the losing side of and are trying to change the procedure to be like they want it. The CSD one is slightly better, but I think if you look at the bigger picture here, that is 4 or 5 project space proposals in a period of 2 days none of which look particularly likely to pass, 2-3 of which were POINTy proposals based on their previous template-space disruption. The bad faith disruption to good faith bad idea ratio here is way too high. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Agreed. So we need to do something about it. But this kind of topic ban has the effect of banning this user from obtaining consensus. So now what, the user boldly edits instead and waits for someone else to revert and start a talk page discussion? Or you ban the user from editing in the project space at all? Tools based bans like this always have negative externalities. It is unworkable. If you think a sanction is warranted now, go with indef. --Bsherr (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, I wouldn’t oppose an indef block per Nick, as they’re a net negative to the project in my view, but I thought we’d try this first, but if someone were to propose it I’d support with more diffs about their inability to work in a collaborative environment. It also isn’t unworkable, in my view. Are they really going to unilaterally remove well-established policies or move them on their own? I see no history of that. This also doesn’t prevent them from taking part in discussions, just starting them. I’m not sure what you mean by tools-based ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
        • I mean tools-based as in "you're not allowed to use X on Misplaced Pages", as opposed to "you're not allowed to edit X subject matter". You see no history of bold edits in this user because they've used RfCs and nominations instead. But if you take those tools away, nothing prevents the user from making bold edits instead. That's why I say tools-based topic bans don't work. An example: Here's one I reported myself for a user leaving anti-WP:AGF user warnings. Over my support for a block, the community instead topic-banned from using UW templates. Now the user does this. Is this really better? And I don't think topic bans like this actually serve Misplaced Pages. If one can't use project talk pages properly, one shouldn't be here. That's why I would prefer a warning or block. --Bsherr (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support an indef-CIR block with SO--Esp. that he is KMF's new edition. See my posts, below.∯WBG 17:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• My proposal (ahem) of a topic ban there was somewhat rhetorical but I do Support. One could narrow it to just "proposals"; i.e if they want to ask a question they can do so, but the line between what is a proposal or not seems too blurry for them to figure it out; one could exclude from the village pumps the technical pump to allow them to ask for help there. Extending it to deletion discussions would have to be considered; their record at AfD noms is not horrific but many are poor/POINTy (especially recently), as I said at WT:AFD and speedily kept, and mostly they are along the lines of "not notable". Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This seems WP:IDONTLIKEIT-y. Topic-banning me from one of the most important areas of Misplaced Pages, just because I did dumb things last year? Get some Christmas spirit. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist) 19:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  reply the problem is the dumbness continues everlastingly. In fact, this very oppose smacks of it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Wow, just... wow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Wow. This response on my talk really shows that they don’t get the situation. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support These proposals are a waste of community time, and as shown by his response to this, Lojbanist either doesn't understand or doesn't care. Natureium (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• support Lojbanist has made a lot of very meaningless proposal especially in XfD venue Hhkohh (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I have decided to retire from the English Misplaced Pages and focus more on enwiktionary and simplewikipedia. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist) 20:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support and suggest that the topic ban should include a prohibition from listing any page for an XfD for some period of time (say 9 months). Just by looking at Lojbanist's recent edit history I see a number of problematic XfD nominations that have resulted in or are headed for the "speedy keep" outcome. Here are a few of those: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Social media addiction, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community bulletin board, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Keqin Li, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Daft Lucario, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Sandbox (2nd nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ravi Oad. The first of these, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Social media addiction, is particularly problematic, as, shortly after listing the article for an AfD himself, Lojbanist attempted to close the AfD (for his own AfD nomination!) as "restore redirect". At the time, apart from the nom, there were just two other !votes in the AfD, both "speedy keep". His closure was reversed, and he then withdrew the nomination and closed it again as "speedy keep". While this was happening the Social media addiction page had been nominated for GA (by an editor who expanded the page from a redirect). Lojbanist quickly reviewed the GA nomination and declined it himself, with a pretty strange rationale that does not actually address any of the WP:GACR criteria. The article was probably not ready for a GA status (and the editor who expanded it from a redirect is currently blocked for a block evasion), but Lojbanist's closure of the GA nomination with the rationale "article (ahem, hijacked redirect) created by SPA who is using Misplaced Pages as a web host" was not appropriate. I think that Lojbanist is a well meaning editor but rather overeager and does not have a good understanding of how some basic WP processes, particularly XfD, are supposed to work, and he is creating too many problems as a result. Therefore a TBAN along the lines proposed by TonyBallioni, plus from making any XfD nominations for a while, seems to be in order. Nsk92 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • At this point I would support a standard indef block. I also think that renaming should be reverted and links to his talk/user page from various WP namespace pages be restored. RTV was not and is not applicable here given the circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support WP:CIR and the "I quit" during this discussion does not impress me. Legacypac (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Really? Personally, I've NEVER seen that happen before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support Indef What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men, you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week -- which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. - there's rage-quitting, and then there's going through all your talk comments to remove links to your user page (presumably with an unauthorized bot). I'd had my concerns with this user, but wasn't ready to support an indef. But if they're this keen to leave, there's no way back without requiring some agreement with the community when they desire to return; hence an indef is necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Not really an unauthorized bot per se; unlink is a function of Twinkle. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment how did an extended user accomplish a user-name change?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Because renames are handled globally, and a new renamer who isn't that active on en.wiki and is not on the mailing list yet handled it (I alerted the mailing list neutrally of this discussion when I saw all the vanishing summaries and the entry in the feed, but it crossed paths.) I am personally of the opinion that he is not eligible for vanishing under these circumstances, since he isn't exactly in good standing, but it was handled before any internal discussion amongst the rename team. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I also support restoring the signature backlinks (per WP:SIGLINK) and think it may be prudent to consider having the vanishing undone per WP:VANISH's requirement of good standing (I see being under discussion of serious sanction as not being in good standing) as well as this provision "Courtesy vanishing is discretionary and may be refused. It is not intended to be temporary. It is not a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions." as the user, in their own words desires to "focus more on enwiktionary and simplewikipedia" making the vanishing not temporary which arguably makes it to avoid scrutiny/sanctions. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm in favor of reverting the rename if possible, WP:VANISH specifically only applies to users in good standing and yet he's using it to get out of an active topic ban discussion. The fact he even stated that he wants to move over to other WMF sites makes it even more problematic. Also, we seriously need to consider limiting the backlink deletion function of Twinkle to administrators, you can do a lot of damage with it in a short time. Nathan2055 02:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and/or indef. Is there a reason User talk:KATMAKROFAN was deleted? Perhaps it should be restored? Ping to admin who deleted the talk: Edgar181. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Johnuniq, this was a reasonable deletion — the point of prohibiting user-talk-page deletions, as I see it, is that we don't want to delete discussions, and no discussions got deleted. Here's the entire deleted history:

(diff) 20:18, 23 December 2018 . . Renamed user TG9qYmFuaXN0 (talk | contribs | block) (98 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD U1). (TW)) Tag: Removed redirect
(diff) 06:47, 30 March 2018 . . Jmvkrecords (talk | contribs | block) (50 bytes) (Jmvkrecords moved page User talk:KATMAKROFAN to User talk:Lojbanist: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "KATMAKROFAN" to "Lojbanist") Tag: New redirect

• So therefore deleting it would be the same as deleting User talk:Lojbanist, which has no history other than getting moved after the account was re-renamed. All discussions are still in the history of the page, which is now located at User talk:Renamed user TG9qYmFuaXN0. Obviously it's now a redlink in the discussion pages that link it, but so is the userpage link; I don't see any reason we absolutely need to retain it. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. I remember seeing dubious proposals from KATMAKROFAN and am puzzled that there were no talk page discussions, but so be it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Johnuniq, see User talk:Renamed user TG9qYmFuaXN0/Archive 1. The user inappropriately requested that the archive be deleted (at the time, it was at User talk:Lojbanist/Archive 1, and the request was granted; I've now undeleted it and moved it to the latest title. Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment--I fail to see why the redirects of KMF were deleted, as this creates a lot of misleading red-links. And, TonyBallioni, (that you have the GR hat and might be a participant in any concerned privileged discussions) why was he renamed? That he plans to work at other wikis (and is still working) and that there is an express prohibition against using renames to avoid scrutiny (of which both of his two renames are textbook examples), are two solid grounds to disqualify any diva-request.∯WBG 05:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• And, I note this gem. ∯WBG 05:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Fantastic demonstration of why they should not be able to start proposals (and they misunderstand the reason for and the scope of the topic ban being proposed too). Anyhow, I support a indef block/ban now per WP:CIR and their quitting of the 'pedia. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• • @FR30799386 and Galobtter:--If we are talking about his off-en-wiki exploits, check his edits over test.wiki and test2.wiki (that got him blocked months back). Also see this brilliant proposal and the same pointy behavior over here (read the 1st oppose). This idea is yet another gem and I locate the same crying about admin-abuse over meta.
  • This can be interesting as to his behavior and leaves a scope for assumption that he is not plainly trolling.∯WBG 09:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• • Winged Blades of Godric, the rename request was pretty non-descript and it was processed by the newest member of the renamers team who is not on the mailing list yet. There was no discussion before it was approved. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support -WP:CIR block per  — fr  08:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I came across Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Social media addiction while reviewing the AfD nominations of the day. I decided to take a closer look at the history when I noticed that something was off. In light of this discussion (and especially Legacypac's remark), I have now realized that every action at the page in question was wrong and disruptive. Less recently, he also started a proposal at Talk:List of chess variants to split all chess variant articles to an external wiki. Same problem as the nominations above: over-the top action.
  It also seems to be time to piece together this discussion into a single TBAN proposal, so I will start:

  Renamed user TG9qYmFuaXN0 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing in the Template, Template talk, or Misplaced Pages talk namespaces; or from initiating or closing any proposal, request for comment, or nomination, including (but not limited to) deletion discussions, in any namespace. Furthermore, with the usual exceptions, Renamed user TG9qYmFuaXN0 must adequately explain, via edit summary, any substantive changes to article content, and may not mark edits as minor; an uninvolved administrator may undo any changes that he/she believes to be in bad faith.

  The proposed ban is indefinite because the user has been banned before (see the block log for details). The part about the "substantive changes" does not reflect historical behavior, but we need a way of vetting good-faith changes such as and discouraging disruptive acts like (which reflects the misuse of the minor edit tag); it reflects User:Bsherr's concerns about the initially proposed ban.
  I understand that this act may be controversial, but you are free to offer any suggested changes to the above. Good night. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• At this point, I'm more inclined to support the total indef block/ban with the standard offer available in six months per the norm (if he ends up going for that, we can consider a partial unban with the topic ban on proposals kept in place at that time), given the behavior shown in response to this discussion. I'm also quite annoyed that multiple global rename requests were accepted and processed, complete with local user page redirects getting deleted to further obfuscate things, despite the fact that this user has had many behavioral issues in the past. Finally, it should also be noted that he's gone ahead and requested a global account lock over on Meta, which I've noted to the stewards is in response to this discussion in case they were unaware. Nathan2055 08:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  We generally do not lock account on their own request (unless some specific situation). — regards, Revi 11:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support (Talk, VP & RM) TBAN - I think the TBAN needs to also cause RM. I DO NOT think an INDEF has been warranted by the behaviour and evidence indicated thus far. While I think the editor has been grumpy in response to this discussion they haven't shown any of the red flags - editors should not be required to prostrate themselves to community justice to warrant the lesser of two hopefully effective actions. I could be wrong. But easier to increase than decrease our actions. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Rename undid per m:Special:Permalink/18737019. — regards, Revi 15:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support ban although a sitewide one per Revi (oldid) above. Seems WP:NOTHERE & WP:CIR. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Would prefer starting with a topic ban unless problems are larger than the noted area. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Shashank5988, he's currently trolling stewards on meta to try to get them to globally lock him since they won't and he ran a script to try to vanish in the middle of this discussion that removed all links to his signature and requested to be globally vanished in violation of WP:VANISH on both meta and en. Add to this his previous issues with interacting with people and penchant for referring to vandals and people he disagrees with by homophobic slurs (admin only edit summaries: ,, ) I don't know what much else he could do to reach NOTHERE status. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Exactly, what TonyBallioni says above. There have been too many recent problems with this user in too many areas. Just in the last week we've had inappropriate XfD closures, an inappropriate GA review closure, and the current shenanigans here and on Meta with violations of WP:VANISH and related issues. An indef/siteban is appropriate under these circumstances, and the user should only be allowed to resume editing on en-wiki on the community's terms, after a thorough discussion, after owning up to prior problems and explaining how he'll do things differently. Nsk92 (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support siteban I've held off commenting since I couldn't be bothered looking at the evidence to see if a siteban or topic ban would be best. But I've seen enough now. Editors sometimes do rash stuff when they feel aggrieved but the time this editor's actions are a whole other kettle of fish. Anyone who would waste people's time in the ways this editor has is simply not someone who should be welcome here. If they want to leave so desperately, then go ahead and leave and don't come back. Even if they've calmed down now, there's no way of knowing how long this will hold. They lack the temperament and basic concern for others that is needed for a collaborative project. Nil Einne (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support siteban Just based on the level of DISRUPTIVE and GAMEey behaviour in the last few days. Inapproriate attempts to vanish that were disruptive, and then the global lock situation which is a clear attempt to evade sanctions. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban by whatever user names they're using Renaming during a discussion such as this is just too bizarre. Plus all the other bizarre acts. Too much theatrically dramatic disruption. note to subject of this discussion-- a CBAN applies to the person regardless of usernmae or nom du voyage.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  This all sounds familiar in terms of absurdity. A psych major conducting breaching experiments.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban because he's become overtly disruptive with all of his dramatic nonsense. Natureium (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Need for action on en.wiki?

• I'd suggest you unclose it and get it properly concluded: he intends to return m:Special:Diff/18740244 and I can think of a reason he would create a sock. There's currently nothing preventing him. — regards, Revi 19:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Lojbanist is currently blocked, which means that any IP he creates which edits will be evading that block. It seems unlikely that any admin will unblock a globally locked account, since it would seem like reasonable grounds for de-sysoping. Of course, if we need to make it official, we should go ahead and doit, but it seems a bit BUROish to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, he’s actually not blocked on en.wiki. He’s locked globally as a compromised account. Technically he’s free to create a new account under global policy, and he hasn’t formally been sanctioned here. I think this is revi’s point: under the strictest reading of policy, he could create a new account. It is also exactly why I thought he posted his own password in order to force a lock: it’s a way to try to evade formal sanctions against the person on en since the account can no longer be logged into. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the correction, I see that you are correct - I'm not sure why I thought he was blocked here. Clearly, given your explication of his actions, and the evidence presented above, action needs to be taken regarding this editor, who now seems less clueless and more deliberately dangerous then he did previously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• The editor had a 31 hour block sometime during this discussion, it was why they definitely weren't in good standing when renamed). But it has expired now. Maybe that was what confused you. Nil Einne (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• That's probably it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Time to wrap this up and block him. Legacypac (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

It's worth noting that theoretically he could contact the WMF trust and safety team and get his account restored, although they'll probably have a stern talking to at minimum for him considering he got his account stolen through accidentally publishing his password during his aforementioned ragequit. I think we should go ahead and close this out with a site ban considering there's pretty clear consensus to do so considering his ongoing behavior. Nathan2055 08:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Prevent deletion of redirect

I know there's a bot that deletes broken redirects under G8 (the old R1), but what is its name, and is it exclusion-compliant? See the final section of Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 22: someone nominated a redirect for deletion, and people are suggesting retargeting, but lately the current target has been deleted, and I want to ensure that it doesn't get bot-deleted before the discussion concludes. I've protected the redirect, hoping that the bot's been instructed to ignore protected pages on the grounds that they might be special cases, but obviously this isn't an ideal route (especially if the bot hasn't been so instructed). So how best to preserve this redirect until the RFD concludes? Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: The bot can delete the page even with the protection but you can use {{nobots}} to prevent so. See the conditions here. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Now unprotected and tagged with nobots. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

AdminBot request for editing protected users archived talk pages

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

I have already been using WOSlinkerBot to fix invalid signatures on users talk pages and archived talk pages. This has been mainly concentrating on pages where the signatures are changing the colours or font face and not closing the tag, so the rest of the page is in a funny font or odd colour. Now, all that is left are pages that have been edit protected, so only admins can edit them. So I'm asking for admin rights being added to my bot so that I can edit those pages as well and fix the issues with them. I could edit them with my own account but it would be better to edit them via a bot account. A few example pages with issues are: , , , , , . Does anyone have any concerns? -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, yes. Every admin account presents a certain degree of risk in that it can be compromised and used to put dicks on the main page, etc. I don't think that this is worth it just to make purely cosmetic changes that have no relevance to our project's goal of writing an encyclopedia. Sandstein 10:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you think that fixing the signaures of pages such as is just a cosmetic edit and that you are able to read it easily without any fixes? I'm only asking for admin rights on the bot while I get those pages fixed and then I will ask for the admin rights to be removed again. I think it will be need for less than a month. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. ∯WBG 10:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• The issue with making the changes with your main account was the high volume spamming watch-lists - how many pages remaining are protected? Knowing that would be very helpful in determining if it is necessary to have an adminbot for this; my impression from the error log when running User:Galobot was that the overall number of such protected pages with significant lint errors is in the range of few hundred (or less) which would seem too small of a volume to justify another BRFA and an adminbot. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  I've got some lists at User:WOSlinker/user_lint. Ignore the items with over 100 in them as I'm still going though those. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Sandstein and oppose per it being something related to bots on my watchlist, which means it is a bad idea as there is no reason any page on my watchlist should have a discussion about bots on it. BRfA is the place for this, not AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @TonyBallioni: the bot policy on adminbots specifically calls for this type of discussion at this type of venue prior to BRFA's. — xaosflux 14:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I guess I’ll oppose for that reason every time then. VPT seems like a better place for this if the discussion has to happen. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I suppose your objections will be summarily skipped, then. Silly reason to oppose. Killiondude (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @TonyBallioni: I have great respect for you, I hope you know that, but I'm unhappily surprised by that oppose rationale. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
        • I’m aware I’m tilting at windmills here, but I think it’s worth it because people tend to overestimate the importance of bots/bot policy to the community at large. I would quite literally be fine with any bot that didn’t create articles (we have those) and doesn’t break anything. Beyond that I find discussions about the bot policy or bots outside of the pages devoted to them to be massive wastes of time that are frustrating. It’s a token oppose, but it’s a frustration worth raising in my view (and that I’ve raised in the past and will raise in the future on everything bot related I’m aware of, which, thankfully, is limited.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
          • But opposing this request which has been made in a policy-approved way because you don't like that policy seems petulant. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
            • Fair point, I suppose I can support this mainly because I don’t really care and it seems unlikely to damage anything. I would much prefer to remove AN as a venue for this sort of thing and stick it at VPT, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support, rather strongly given the ridiculous nature of the opposition here. SD0001 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support, subject to final ok by BRFA. Agathoclea (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Ofcourse WOS's account could be compromised but realistically what are the chances of that happening ?, I would support granting for say 3 months?. –Davey2010 17:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. The problem to solve seems to be rather a blatant misuse of the administrative tools. Pages like User talk:Keeper76/Archive 17 have been write-protected without any apparent reason, while policy says that full protection applies only to "articles with persistent vandalism or edit warring from (auto)confirmed accounts; critical templates & modules". For this page, ADMINACCT is only a 9-letters word... from 23 September 2010. Pldx1 (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Pldx1: Misplaced Pages:UPROT does allow for protection of userpages and these are usually given fairly wide latitude, though in general I agree that there is way too much of this, especially admins protecting their "own" talk archives. I don't think that fixing the readability issues should be avoided just because of that though. — xaosflux 17:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I doubt if there's any reason for 99.9% of these talk-pages to be fully protected anyway, so why not make a list of them and simply unprotect (or at least semi) them all using your own account (using AWB, is that possible?)? Then you can use the bot to fix them and have fixed two issues in one go. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  Black Kite, Depends on the exact number of matching pages, I guess. It looks like there are around 3800 NS3 (User_talk) pages/subpages with protection level "sysop" and protection type "edit". SQL 02:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support Net positive. -FASTILY 21:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support Not seeing any reason not to, hypotheticals aside. AIRcorn (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support for a limited duration - after looking at the provided examples, these should be fixed, and this looks like it should be a one time run to catch back archives from years past (if one-offs happen occasionally moving forward, we can just fix them manually/as they occur). Given that, I have no issues granting admin rights that are temporary/set to expire one the run is completed/after a certain time, which should address most of the security concerns raised above. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support Black Kite's option as first choice, as I agree that the vast majority of these pages should not be protected, and the original proposal as second choice. I'd set the authorization to expire in 3-6 months. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 03:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support, either solution is fine. I've done a few of these by hand before and boy is it annoying. ansh666 08:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support, as it's definitely to the project's advantage to fix up archives to make them readable. Just because something is archived doesn't mean it's no longer valuable, and I find it very frustrating when looking back at archives to find broken formatting often makes them very hard to follow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support as someone who was trawling some archives today and was unpleasantly surprised by syntactical errors making the page difficult to read. Vanamonde (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Need a little help with a redirect

I just moved NK Posušje to HSK Posušje in order to match the actual name of the team as used in the press, but the correct move was to HŠK Posušje - I missed the Š. If I had included the Š properly, I would have not been able to move the page because of the redirect. Can someone please:

1. Delete the HŠK Posušje redirect and move HSK Posušje to HŠK Posušje?
2. Explain to me how I can do this myself going forward?

I'd be much appreciative. SportingFlyer talk 21:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done with a page swap. For future reference, SportingFlyer, the place to make uncontroversial techical requests is WP:RM/TR. Doing this page swap yourself would require you to have page mover status. Primefac (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Image vandal-compromised account

Rudrozzal (talk · contribs · count). Seems to be taking up new tactics... GAB 17:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Already globally locked.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Wrifraff101 (talk · contribs · count) + 9dfgdfyhx (talk · contribs · count) Same ones I guess. I've blocked them at Commons. Podzemnik (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Somebody want to fix Boxing Day and box the vandal (15 rounds, bard knuckles). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure that the Bard was much of a pugilist Jschnur (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

User:D123fo

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

I wasn't even sure where to go with this one. This user has set up a redirect from the User page User:D123fo directly to a Misplaced Pages project page, Misplaced Pages:D123fo. In addition the user has submitted Draft:Deepak Kumar (actor) multiple times for AFC, however they are not making any improvements which has become disruptive and wastes the time of the editors who choose to review these articles. VViking_TalkEdits 15:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a SPI report. I will assess their edits.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely as not there. A number of block rationales might apply. May be a block evading sock as well.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

PS. I find it troubling when people award themselves barnstars.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:ANI Discussions

There are a few requiring admin attention that have been there all day at least. IWI (chat) 17:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

2nd RfC: The Daily Mail

The latest Daily Mail RfC is about to close. If anyone reading this has input on this, now is the time to participate in the RfC.

See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Starting an article for author

I would like to start an article for the author Ryan Hampton. Notable work is "American Fix: Inside the Opioid Addiction Crisis and How to End It". Notability includes several journalistic profiles in Forbes, New York Times, New York Book Review, Slate Magazine, The Wallstreet Journal, MSNBC, and others. I was referred to post on the admin board for this because the article title is currently blacklisted. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sionodonnell (talk • contribs) 05:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging MER-C, who added it to the blacklist. ansh666 07:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

User:GoldWoodWaterFireSoil is a sock of a long term vandal

This user seems to have an obsession with East Germany and West Germany. In the past, under multiple IPs and names, they alter the map infoxboxes to read "FRG/GDR in 1989", even though the GDR existed until October 1990. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Indefblocked by Oshwah--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog