Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:15, 3 April 2018

• 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 37 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 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 104 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 83 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)

would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 74 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)

Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?

(Initiated 72 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 58 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)

Discussion has slowed on the RFC. TarnishedPath 07:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Done.—S Marshall T/C 18:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic Church#RfC: Establishing an independent Catholicism article

(Initiated 24 days ago on 26 December 2024) Requesting closure from uninvolved impartial third party to close a discussion that has not seen a novel argument for a bit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 18#Category:Belarusian saints

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

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters

(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Redundant WPANIMATION categories

(Initiated 13 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (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 116 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 82 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:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 73 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)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 22 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II#Proposed merge of Stone in Focus into Selected Ambient Works Volume II

(Initiated 13 days ago on 6 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure czar 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal to supersede consensus #50

(Initiated 9 days ago on 10 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its degenerated into silly sniping and has clearly run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup, the discussion does need to be closed. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2025 (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

X1 Cleanup complete

Hello everyone. I'm pleased to report that after checking over 70,000 redirects created by User:Neelix, over the course of nearly 2 and a half years, the cleanup is finally complete. Pinging some major contributors to the cleanup (Not an exclusive list, and in no particular order): @Tavix:, @Nyttend:, @Legacypac:, @SimonTrew:, @Beeblebrox:, @Oiyarbepsy:, @The Blade of the Northern Lights: - Thank you all. I'd like to invite the community to audit our work. The full lists of redirects may be found here and here. X1 was set up to be a temporary criterion, and will automatically expire once the problem has been resolved. It therefore will be retired after an audit is performed. I think a week is plenty of time to perform this audit. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, hopefully this should be the last of it. The very last few are working their way through RfD now, so giving the community a week to check things over should suffice as one last check before putting this fiasco behind us once and for all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: Just to clarify, as I'm not entirely familiar with the situation, are all of the Neelix redirects being deleted? Yoshi24517 _{Very Busy} 03:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

very unfortunately editors voted we could not nuke them all - editors who had no intention of cleaning up tens of thousands of stupid/wrong/useless/misleading redirects created by Neelix. We had to manually check them all and CSD, retarget or RfD one by one them. Granted he actually created a few useful redirects, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The benefit of keeping the few useful ones was not worth the pain of deleting the rest one by one. An important lesson for the future. Legacypac (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd look at the raw lists. The 70,000 redirects are approximately evenly split between keeps and deletes - A blanket approach was going to have a 5 figure number of mistakes. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Useful redirects of some value would be recreated but reviewing these was a HUGE job. Many of the keeps are useless but not worth the effort or debate to delete. Anyway we are done and any more can be RfD bound. Legacypac (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The intention is that all redirects that are going to be deleted have been deleted (save a small number at RfD), and all that are intended to be kept, have been kept. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks to those who did the hard work! Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! Should User:Anomie/Neelix list and its 7 subpages then be deleted? Also, should Template:Db-x1 be deleted with a TfD? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I would support the repeal of X1 now, and the consequential deletion archiving of Template:Db-x1. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I would keep them for historical reference, but tagging them as historical would be appropriate. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste time on an audit. If a redirect was needed badly enough, someone would recreate it. 90 percent of them were total trash. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed no need to waste even more time on this with an audit. Repeal X1 and delete the template. Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is great news. This was such a big project, my thanks to everyone who helped finally get it done. Agree that if those directly involved are convinced we’re done there is not need for further ado on the subject, on which so many of us have spent too much time already. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-related X2

What's the status with the Content Translation Tool cleanup? Now is as good a time as any to check in on that, seeing as we're about to repeal one of the X criteria; if that's finished too we can kill two birds with one stone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions closed

An arbitration case regarding civility in infobox discussions has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Any uninvolved administrator may apply infobox probation as a discretionary sanction. See the full decision for details of infobox probation.
2. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.
3. Cassianto is indefinitely placed on infobox probation.
4. The Arbitration Committee recommends that well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be weighted.
5. All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
6. For canvassing editors to this case, Volvlogia (talk · contribs) is admonished. They are warned that any further instances of canvassing related to arbitration processes will likely result in sanctions.

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions closed

For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Can a Mobile phone vandal be dealt with?

Is it possible to range block an unregistered Mobile phone editor? The same individual continues to vandalize the articles Rashtrapati Bhavan, Indian order of precedence, List of Presidents of India, List of Prime Ministers of India & List of current heads of state and government articles. If it's not possible, then what about permanent semi-protection? GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Oshwah protected everything for now. SQL 02:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

SQL - These articles were protected the other day, but I've see these thrown into the same protection request twice since I closed the original one. This makes it request number three... I'm really curious as to why these articles being constantly put in requests, and after I've already taken care of the original one. ~Oshwah~ 03:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

BLP Discretionary sanctions template needed

At new article: Shooting_of_Stephon_Clark. Possibly American Politics DS as well. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don’t know how broadly people want to interpret the DS requirements, but this is not a biography (although it deals with something that happened to a recently-living person) and it only peripherally deals with politics. In any case, there has not been edit-warring or other significant problems at the article so it's unclear why DS are being requested. (Note: I am WP:INVOLVED at that article.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Update: Today the article did develop some edit warring. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Passing of Alice Dacuba (User:Corinne)

• Originaly posted on AN/I, but notices such as this are normally posted here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to inform the Misplaced Pages editing community that my sister Alice Dacuba, a Misplaced Pages managing editor, has passed away. I do not know her login information.

Please let me know if the appropriate person or people have been informed.

Thank you. -Carol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B168:B121:58B0:111F:6933:F549 (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Carol, but what would be most useful for us to know is the account name your sister edited under. Do you know it? Bishonen | talk 20:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC).

(edit conflict)Carol, I'm so very sorry. Corinne was a fellow coordinator of the Guild of Copy Editors, and we had come to know each other off-wiki as well. Corinne's specialty was request articles, and her copyediting skill (second to none) was a factor in many Good and Featured Articles. I hadn't heard from her in a while, but RL obligations prevented me from following up. My deepest sympathy is with you and your family. Sincerely, Anne Miniapolis 21:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Prayers and deepest condolences. Memory eternal! -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Rest in peace. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• I'll raise a cup of tea to you, Corinne. Rest in peace. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've requested a checkuser for verification. Corinne hasn't been here since mid-February, and the last email I received from her was in mid-January. Her passing is a great loss to the encyclopedia. Miniapolis 22:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest that Corinne's friends and colleagues share their thoughts and memories at User_talk:Corinne#You will be missed. EEng 23:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've copied the above thoughts to Corinne's talk page; editors may remove them from there if they wish. Best regards, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It would be useful to have someone go through her sandbox to see if there were any works in progress there that can be completed. She does not appear to have any drafts outside of that space. bd2412 T 02:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The material in her sandbox appears to be translation notes, extended commentary about copy-edits and other meta-talk. I don't think she intended using any of it for article space. There are no other pages in her userspace except her .js pages and talk page archives. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. bd2412 T 03:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Unblock Request: Paul_Bedson

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

• Paul_Bedson (talk · contribs)

Hello, Another 6 months has passed and I am due another appeal to my community ban. I have had an idea that might be acceptable to arbcom and the Misplaced Pages community that could partially un-ban me and allow me to contribute my knowledge and artistic talents in a meaningful and non-harmful way. Why not try “sandboxing” me?

I thought to appeal my ban to the extent that I can only edit my sandbox and no live pages. I would only to be able to write or create images and maps in my sandbox for other Wikipedians and future generations to use as they see fit. This might solve my problem of knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet.

The first thing I would like to get on with, given permission is a map of the Levantine Corridor to improve your page on that.

Pending enough other suitable contributions and nothing disagreeable comes from this, I thought it might make a suitable way or rehabilitation?

I look forward to hearing what you think?

Thank you. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unblock request copied here by SQL (talk • contribs) 6:07, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

• You're "due" another appeal of your ban? It doesn't work that way, the fact that someone can appeal every six months doesn't mean we have to reconsider the ban every six months. The major issues with this editor seem to include treating fringe theories as mainstream and adding original research, characterising that as "knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet" is not encouraging. I don't think it's a good idea to make people waste time trying to rehabilitate this editor. Link to the last unban request. Hut 8.5 10:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Paul Bedson is relevant for folks who are missing the context. I'm not seeing that anything has changed in this editor's ability to see why they got banned. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• I agree. The ban was instituted for good reasons and I see no reason to lift it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Editing only outside article space seems a good idea, but "This might solve my problem of knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet." means that nothing that would be created there would be usable anyway. I would decline this request. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Last year's appeal is here. I see nothing in this new appeal that changes my mind. I hope Paul will acknowledge that he is still promoting this work by Christian O'Brien and this "Levantine corridor" fringe hypothesis. It appears that he is still trying to find a way to promote his ideas and I don't think this would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. As for the map, we can't stop him from creating one elsewhere for us to use but I would much prefer one reliably published. Decline. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • He is still using Misplaced Pages to promote his ideas, linking to
• Oppose unblock: rationale is at best illogical and at worst, indicative he doesn't understand why he was blocked. DrKay (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but I'd say no. "This might solve my problem of knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet" is classic WP:OR and shows that Paul still does not understand the problem. Knowledge that academia hasn't caught up with yet is of no relevance to Misplaced Pages (other than as neutral coverage of fringe ideas per se as fringe ideas, providing there is evidence of the notability of the ideas), and Misplaced Pages sandboxes are not appropriate places to engage in such original/fringe/alternative research. The place for that is, for example, peer-reviewed academic publications, and when academia has "caught up" with it (or rejected it, or whatever) then such material might be relevant to Misplaced Pages with due weight. Until then, this is simply the wrong platform for it, in any space. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Boing!, DrKay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of user talk page while blocked

I think it's a commonly held understanding (I cannot find the exact policy quote for some reason; hopefully someone can help me out) that generally speaking, when a user is blocked, their user talk page should only be used for submitting unblock requests. However, there are also instances where the user decides to not appeal the block, but during the duration of their block, they may sometimes have some minor discussions that aren't strictly related to unblock request, and in some cases suggesting uncontroversial edit requests. WP:PROXYING is potentially ambiguous about this practice: Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits (bolded for emphasis). I would like to invite some insights and clarifications over this subject. This is related to User talk:Joseph2302#Edit request 2. Alex Shih (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ah. I see Yamla has revoked TP on account of proxying; I wondered when that would happen. The thing is, that in this particular case—not withstanding one's interpretation of the policy—Joseph2302 is making such edit requests because I think I'm correct in saying—they have never been told they should not. See, for example, the last block, for two weeks in January: , six edit requests—one even answered by yours truly (but see my comment in which I ~predict this situation!)—and misuse of talk was never raised by an admin (or, explicitly, anyone). As to the broader interpretation of WP:PROXY, I've read that as saying that one can make the requested edits but (perhaps a bit like a sock's edits?) one takes personal responsibilty for them...not that that is anything like what the policy actually says, as the last portion you quote is actually rather hard to parse (any idea what "independent reason" an editor might have for wishing to make an edit, blocked or not? Or non-independent for that matter!). —SerialNumber54129 15:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  They have been explicitly told now, via utrs:21060. SQL 17:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• I considered revoking TPA myself after the first request, but it had already been answered. If this was not a vested contributor the revoking of TPA would not be in question, but would be seen as normal. Yamla acted correctly. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's slightly more nuanced than that; and I hope I'm misinterpreting you when you seem to be saying that you would have revoked talk-page access rather than immediately explain why their request would not could not and should not be fulfilled. There's more: in this particular case, not only has an editor not been told to refrain from a certain behaviour, but they arguably have custom and practice actually telling them otherwise. Although I agree that J2302's block history makes his a bloody shitty hill for me to fall on  :) —SerialNumber54129 17:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • WTF, we haven't got an article on that?!? —SerialNumber54129 17:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  In almost any other instance, I believe that TP would probably have been revoked, and the proxying editor might receive a reminder about proxying. SQL 17:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  Arguably the history makes it more likely that he should have had TPA revoked because we had reason to believe he would still be doing it as he kept doing it previously. Like SQL says, in almost any other case, that would have been what happened. So, no, you aren't misinterpreting me. I would have revoked TPA and explained why just as Yamla did. He wasn't appealing his block, he was trying to edit around it. If he wants to appeal his block himself, he is now free to do it through UTRS where it will be considered. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I suspected I was not. —SerialNumber54129 18:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Your point on past experience is also fair though, I'd agree with Jbh below that I wouldn't have lengthened the block personally, but given that in the past he had made so many requests, it seems limiting them while providing an available appeal alternative through UTRS would be fair: it allows for access to appeal while also preventing what would be the equivalent of 12 edit requests if he went at the same rate as the last two week block. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is extremely inconsistently enforced and seems to be based on what admin has eyes on the talk page and how many "friends" the blocked editor has. Edit requests not related to the block might get talk page access revoked for one editor while another editor will get the same type of requests fulfilled (sometimes by an admin). --NeilN 18:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Also a fair point. I think we are pretty consistent on this with editors who are not established: you get to use your talk page to appeal a block, not ask the reviewing admin to make changes, and doing so would normally get TPA revoked for an editor with less experience. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: No, actually there's no consistency anywhere. I've seen blocked IPs (that I haven't blocked) carry on productive conversations with other editors about content. No one is complaining so I leave them alone. My rule of thumb is that if you're not continuing to push for the edits that got you blocked, and you're not engaging in any other disruption, and no other editor is complaining then I'm basically going to ignore what you're doing. --NeilN 19:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Regardless of whether it was appropriate to revoke TP access or not, resetting the block under these circumstances was both an overreaction and grossly unfair. The user not only received no warning that their behavior was inappropriate but one of their requests was just performed by an admin and they evidently made the same type of requests during their last block. Yamla would you please set the block back to the original expiration time. Thank you. Jbh 18:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Reset to the original block time (assuming "1 month" is a "calendar month" and I can do math correctly; if not, please anyone else modify the block). I obviously think it's a form of block evasion to attempt to edit by proxy, but I see there's at least some ambiguity here. I think it should be unambiguously prohibited and should result in TPA revocation. I think allowing such proxy edits tends to encourage outright sockpuppetry; that is, setting up accounts to get around the block, but where edits are suggested rather than made directly. Or the same via IP addresses. --Yamla (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Yamla: Thank you. Jbh 19:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• • To clarify my position (Why?—Why not!) I do actually agree with Yamla's stance on this, academically—a blocked user's talk page is, or should be, for discussing the block and that (kind of thing) alone. Editing by proxy does somewhat smack of not taking the block seriously, as if "OK, I'll get someone else to do it." My particular beef here was the principle of prior warnings generally combined with the recent history specifically. —SerialNumber54129 19:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Proxying is not something we want to encourage, but in this case it was encouraged, so we can’t really blame this user for it despite their other problematic behaviors. I think I’m going to open a discussion about the broader issue of proxying at all at WT:BAN. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done See Misplaced Pages talk:Banning policy#Proxying for blocked users? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Close at ANI; subsequent admin behavior

I filed at ANI which was closed by Paul August (talk · contribs) with a note No need for administrative action. and with edit note Close nothing needed here.

I found that close surprising, as two admins another admin had noted that there was substance to my OP, and asked Paul about the close at their TP - the whole thread is here: User_talk:Paul_August#ANI_close. After Paul replied I asked him to reopen it or refine his close, and noted that the behavior is continuing. and Paul asked me for diffs: What behavior is continuing exactly? Diffs please.

Given that the ANI was about Colin's overwhelming focus, forumshopping, and vituperation on one issue and one person really, a simple glance at Colin's contribs at that time would show anyone trying to understand what is going on that this was still happening, and I tried to explain that. I also noted that I would not seek a close review, as Colin has toned down the worst of the behavior. As far as I was concerned the conversation was over.

At that point SandyGeorgia showed up and helpfully posted Colin's 11 recent contribs (these)

To my surprise, as you can see in the thread, in Paul's next message they continued to ask that I provide diffs; and continued, and in their last note to me, they have threatened action because I have not provided specific diffs. So I am kicking this here.

I suppose reasonable people can differ as to whether action should have been taken at the ANI, but I do not see how a neutral, competent admin can not see that someone can see a continuation of the behavior discussed in the ANI via a glance at Colin's contribs, on their own, or via the link that SandyGeorgia placed directly in the thread (and one can add CANVASSING behavior to what was already discussed at ANI, based on those diffs).

But especially as I had said I was not challenging the close and was willing to let this lie, I find Paul August's behavior to be some kind of drama-stoking badness.

I was not looking for more drama, but since an admin turned a question about their close into something absurd, I am giving this to you all. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC) (correct, Kosh is not an admin Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC))

Look, you were accusing editors of continuing bad behavior following the close. Something that, if it were true, as the closing admin, I would not look upon favorably, and I might need to take some action. So I asked you for diffs of any edits, after the close, which you found problematic. I asked politely three times, the last time adding “I'd really appreciate it”. Your response to this was “Thanks but I am not spending further time asking you to reverse your close”.

Providing diffs was apparently something you were unwilling or unable to do. In my view making unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct against your fellow editors, to an admin acting in their official capacity, is a serious matter. I tried to tell you that on my talk page, I see nothing “absurd” in that.

I’m still willing to look at any evidence you're willing to provide of continuing bad behavior. But in lieu of that I really do think you owe the editors you accused an apology.

Paul August ☎ 19:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Perhaps there is some sort of misunderstanding going on here? (If I'm to blame for that then I apologize) but here is what I'm seeing:

• My close of that ANI discussion occurred at 19:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC).
• Your comment on my talk page about "continuing" inappropriate behavior following my close, occurred at 22:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC).
• I see only one edit in Colin's edit history between the time of the close and and your comment: (this one) in which Colin asks:

"SarahSV: "do ou think those "millions" are just page hits for the medical pages touching the preview image of each video, or actually people clicking to watch the video?"

I don't see how this constitutes "continuing" inappropriate behavior. Do you? Am I missing something? Can you please explain?

Paul August ☎ 12:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Paul August though I did not participate at the ANI, I have witnessed the disruptive nature of Colin, this being added today it is very detrimental and lacks respect for the project and makes me not want to edit here anymore...

>>>would appreciate any action/help you can offer w/ this individual--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: That seems like an April Fools' Day joke to me. Paul August ☎ 14:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

of course, thank you for looking...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: could you please work on better formatting your posts? Most folks here can read a diff. Please read this one. (Jytdog, might you provide that diff yet? I am keen to know what behaviors you would like me to change, but can't do it unless you tell me what "behaviors are continuing".) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Serial Number 54129: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The posting is not a light hearted joke, but rather a transposition of all the rage of the original posting at talk-jimbo into satire; there is nothing even a little subtle here. And SandyGeorgia, your behavior around this "april fools" posting is par for the course. All surface-civil, golly-gee-who-me, and deflection/distraction.

I don't know if you are aware but there was an arbcom case a couple of years ago arising from people turning this meant-to-be-a-day-for-silliness into another field in a battleground, behaving badly in all kinds of ways. (See especially the 2nd principle on the relevant case page) I have no intention of going anywhere near Arbcom with this; i am trying to communicate that april fool's day is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

It was unwise of Colin to post that and it is unwise for you to continue running interference for him. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you're aware, but AGF Is A Thing, and there have been multiple arb findings about casting aspersions without diffs. I have asked you dozens of times over the past weeks to please stop doing that. Do you have a diff of the "continuing behavior" you alleged to Paul August? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

More deflection/distraction. I will not be replying to you further to avoid what happened at ANI as was noted by Paul here) Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Let’s grant that Colin (and others) edits have been somewhat overheated. What exactly do you want to happen here? Paul August ☎ 15:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Paul, no vague aspersions please. Specific and diffs. Does no admin find this and this concerning? Which part of WP:V did the admin Doc James not break? This behaviour occurred many times before the discussion, and is likely to continue with other edits. So, I stand behind what I've said. Perhaps, given a diff, there may be a comment to retract. But at the moment I do not recall any and willing to repeat. -- Colin° 15:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

No one is blameless. Paul August ☎ 16:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well that's kinda true in life. "overheated" suggest more "unnecesarily inflamatory" than "righteous anger". We've had bullying of peers, edit warring, explicit statement that consensus only applies to other people, a flagrant disregard of WP:V when inserting and when restoring content against consensus, repeated lies about the content of the vidoes being a summary of the article text, a worship of editors with an MD, the creation of articles (as-videos) that cannot be edited by just anyone, the promotion of a small private firm on several hundred major articles, COI editing, proxy editing on behalf of a private firm, etc, etc. Possibly most importantly for WP:MED, we've had some dangerous health advice about breastfeeding that was complained about, removed, and then edit warred to be retained. And that, you know, really should be making WP:MED wonder at itself. Plenty to be angry about, with justification. At least a few of those issues have been resolved in the space of four days, which is quite remarkable and possibly something of a record for anything on WP. Anyone who thinks that was not going to involve a battle of some kind is either deluding themselves, is ignorant of the deep-seated problems at WP:MED, or is clearly wasted on WP and should go solve some world peace issues, or Brexit, or something. I'm going to unwatch this AN page now, as nobody has raised specifc issues that seem to require my or any admin attention at this time. -- Colin° 19:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Paul, you asked about here.

If by that you mean this thread:

What I want here is for our interaction at your Talk page to be looked at by independent admins.

That no admin has posted here shows, I think, the pettiness of this, and I will continue to disregard your what-are-now-pretty-much-demands that I strike or apologize.

With respect to you, all I have been trying to do since my third post at your talk page is disengage from you.

In my view your judgement on this whole matter has been poor, including your post above dismissing Colin's post as a mere april fool's day joke.

If by "here" you mean the original Colin (sub SandyGeorgia) matter:

I do not expect action on that here.

My OP attempted to call the community's attention to Colin's disruptive behavior that has been assisted by SandyGeorgia, with respect to the videos, which appears to be driven by an underlying long-term dispute with Doc James that has become very personalized by Colin and SandyGeorgia. I suggested a temporary TBAN on the videos and just raised the issue of the longer-term personalized conflict; another editor suggested an IBAN with respect to that.

As I noted in that third post, if Colin continues to continue, I will be opening another thread about that.

If other admins choose to reopen the original matter here, that is for them to decide. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no interest in obtaining an apology for the allegation you made on Paul August's talk page, but I suggest you provide diffs from here forward. I do have an interest in having this behavior stop. Again, you have an entire post above, alleging behaviors, with no diffs. And you have still refused an admin's request to provide a diff for the original allegation you made on his page. You have brought this to yet another noticeboard, yet refuse to do the one thing that could help wrap this up collegially (provide a diff so one can know what needs to be remedied), and it is beginning to appear that the result will be to damage reputations. Please start using diffs, as I have asked you over and over throughout these discussions. Also, when you have a concern, please take it directly to the person you are concerned about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The response was a little terse, but that discussion was going nowhere fast, and given the bickering I doubt that any admin was going to touch it with the proverbial bargepole (I suspect I will regret involving myself in a little while). If you want something done, why not take up Paul August on his offer to listen to a well reasoned critique rather than equally terse responses about how it's all very obvious? Lankiveil 06:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC).

List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2008

An IP raised an issue (see User talk:89.240.143.247) - he edited this page (it's unprotected, and there nothing in the logs on being protected), then he noticed the notice on the talk page which says IPs cannot edit. Now either the page needs protecting or the notice removed. Any suggestions? Ronhjones  00:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well it would seem to fall under Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles so I EC protected it. Forever and a day. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Would it be useful if I listed a bunch of other similar unprotected pages? -- BobTheIP editing as 89.240.143.247 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

They aren't usually protected preemptively. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Beckethic1944

Beckethic1944 (talk · contribs) is a blatantly obvious sockpuppet of Jack Gaines (talk · contribs). Please indef-block on sight. Passes the WP:DUCK test for disrupting Alan Jackson articles and spraying "Alan Jackson Killed Country" everywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• ETA: Does this need to be stricken? It's pretty vitriolic and hateful. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Orangemike indeffed the guy and I have RD'd the diff due to the violent content bordering on threats. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! The owner of that account has stalked me on Twitter, Facebook, and on Simple, Spanish, and French Wikipedias. This is not the behavior of an every day garden variety vandal. This little dipshit has been going around since at least thanksgiving with his "Alan Jackson killed country" shit. His twitter is full of hateful memes he's made, and he's trying to tweet them to bloggers and journalists. I've been able to shoot an e-mail to someone at Alan Jackson's label, but the bullshit is not stopping and I'm seriously concerned this guy's out for blood. Should the WMF step in and find out just who this nutjob is? Ten Pound Hammer • 02:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Definitely email the off-wiki information to WMF's trust and safety team, who can see if there's anything they can do off-wiki about that. For the cross-wiki issues, drop a request for a GLock at Meta where the Stewards will take care of it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Shroud of Turin topic ban for Pernimius

Pernimius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pushing the WP:FRINGE theory that the Shroud of Turin is the burial shroud Jesus was wrapped in (the mainstream scientific view is that it dates no older that the Middle Ages.) Despite several editors attempting to engage with him he continues to push his fringe POV on Talk:Shroud of Turin. This is becoming a bit of a time sink for everyone involved.

I propose a six month topic ban on the topic of the Shroud of Turin with the standard encouragement to demonstrate a willingness and ability to edit productively in other areas. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Pernimius comments: I have not been "pushing a theory" but trying to maintain article neutrality and acceptance of other evidence pointing in other directions. Not at all FRINGE. The vast amount of available material questioning the adequacy of some scientific results and proposing other understandings makes this charge by Macon not accurate or fair at all. I move that this proposal be dismissed. Pernimius (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• That talk page appears overrun with supporters of said theory, although Pernimius appears the most active of them. There's a real failure to grapple with source reliability. I'd support such a ban. Mackensen (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I have never proposed that the article declare authenticity but only that it give due attention to the vast amount of material that points towards authenticity. It is not sufficient or accurate to shout "Fringe!" when there are so many scientists and reasonable scholars proposing this particular direction and interpretation. There are books, international conferences, websites, talks, scientific papers that all say that there is more to be considered than a single moment of C14 testing on a dirtied oily fringe piece of the cloth. I listed many pointers toward authenticity, e.g., the Jerusalem-area travertine aragonite found on the shroud. It is not acceptable merely to spout a blanket denial and disregard so much work done by so many scholars and scientists. Macon has a POV and he is sticking to it. I welcome a review of my interventions on the page, though I am disappointed with Macon's tactics here. I would be happy with a truly NPOV article. Pernimius (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean giving equal validity. Failure to understand and abide by WP:FRINGE has consequences. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• April Fools Day/Easter joke ban (could have waited until Monday)? The page itself contains pros and cons for many theories and explanations, it seems a good balanced read and maybe needs a few more cites in both directions. As the accused has said, books and conferences and other forms of belief-communication have been in play for many years, and to ban an editor for advocating theories, even if evidence is scattered or not accepted by mainstream science, seems a bit much. But Pernimius should also pull it back a little, and pick the fights with a chance of winning or they are just knocking over tables in a temple. In other words, maybe let the offender stay although everyone could let up on the fighting and turn the other cheek (or something). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

  The problem with your suggestion is that this is an encyclopedia, and per WP:WEIGHT neutrality requires that the Shroud of Turin article fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. For an explanation of what a reliable source is, see WP:RS. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Am a bit concerned that fringe is trying to grab up the semi-religious pages now (see the epic discussion on Faith healing). That's after it's given a good going over to the vegan and vegetarian pages and the many doctors who work in those fields (see Gary Null for example, and others). The shroud of Turin has many sources on all sides of the question, as it should be for this type of page. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unless much better evidence is brought that this user is being disruptive. The idea the shroud is authentic is a very long standing idea not seriously challanged until recently. I'm not at all sure it is authentic, but C14 dating is hardly percise Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability Legacypac (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The fact that the shroud is not from the first century has already been established. Nothing in the page you linked to suggest an error large enough to move a date from the middle ages to the first century. See Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Your claim that "the idea the shroud is authentic is a very long standing idea not seriously challenged until recently" is factually incorrect. For example, John Calvin questioned the authenticity of the shroud in 1543. If you want something more recent, how about 1978? See Walter McCrone#Shroud of Turin. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't rely on McCrone. He is an outlier, believing the painting theory and he is utterly debunked here: https://shroudstory.com/2011/02/06/thoughts-for-a-sunday-morning-if-i-am-right-then-i-am-right/ . Pernimius (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The reference to McCrone was for the sole purpose of refuting the claim that that "the idea the shroud is authentic is a very long standing idea not seriously challenged until recently" I simly showed by example that it was challenged in 1543 and it was challenged in 1978.

I see that you are still completely ignoring our content guideline AT WP:RS and at WP:BLOG by citing shroudstory.com. This is the behavior that is likely to result in you being topic banned from all shroud-related articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support the article talk page does show a depressingly common pattern with articles which relate to fringe theories in which supporters of the fringe theory engage people in detailed debates about the article topic in general in the hope of getting more attention paid to the fringe theory in the article. As a result that talk page is filled with general debate on the topic of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, much of which is not related to specific changes suggested to the article and where supporters of the historicity of the Shroud are citing some extremely dubious sources (Pernimius has cited , , , , - all clearly unreliable for scientific information). This pattern produces a toxic environment, tends to drive away editors who don't subscribe to the fringe theory, produces a battleground mentality in any who don't leave and we get lousy articles as a result. Pernimius isn't the only one causing the problem but s/he is one of the major offenders and I think that the suggested sanction would help. Hut 8.5 19:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • That's a very astute observation ("supporters of the fringe theory engage people in detailed debates about the article topic in general in the hope of getting more attention paid to the fringe theory in the article") For example, Pernimius just responded to my above comment about 1988 on the article talk page instead of responding here. I have seen some proponents of fringe theories who ended up being very helpful by forcing the editors working on a page to make sure that every claim is supported by a reliable source. Pernimius, on the other hand, is a sea lion. Very disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Since I chimed in already, I'll continue a bit. I agree that, from what I've read, Pernimius should cool down a bit, let other editors enjoy their Misplaced Pages experience. Nothing wrong in that. I'm now interesting in reading more of the talk page collection and have read two of the sources linked above and found at least the first raises questions, so it sounds like some very productive discussions were occurring, lots of information and debate among Wikipedians on such a good subject. This is the stuff that talk page discussions were made for. But everyone should be comfortable and happy to be posting on the talk page. I don't read this page, so I don't really have an entire mental structure of what has occurred, and maybe Pernimius needs to post more in this discussion. Maybe some questions from each "side"? Then again, it is still Easter here, which probably gives the shroud page an uptick in views, and it is a good read. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support, classic True Believer WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support- I'm with Guy on this. Discussion of what the believers believe is fine, but it should not be equal to the verifiable facts about the Shroud. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Pernimius says: if you read my part in the discussion, I'll believe you will see reason and not fanaticism in what I have said. The all-too-easy dismissal of data other than the C14 report of 1988 makes for a boring and shallow and deeply misleading article. No need to re-litigate the points on this page. I believe I have said most of what I wanted to say. Others keep coming up with foolish articles of their own faith, like "It is a painting." No...not at all. Sorry. You can't have your own facts, just opinions. Pernimius (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, a compendium of verifiable factual information. For the most part "boring" is good, because straight-forward presentation of facts is often boring. Things get to be not boring when you create drama for the sake of drama, or when you draw false equivalence between two viewpoints simply because there are two viewpoints, and one has a longer history than the other, although it is not well-supported by verifiable facts. As I said, no article on the Shroud would be complete without covering the beliefs that have been held about it for a long, long time, but that is not the same as giving those beliefs equal time (and equal value) with modern verifiable scientifically-evaluated facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose That's not a fringe theory at all, and per the learning channel (and by extension various academics studying the Shroud of Turin) they actually can't decide what the actual date is.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  13:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Umm, "documentaries" on The Learning Channel (and other similar channels) are most emphatically not reliable sources. They routinely pander to the presumed prejudices of their audience, revel in false equivalence, and overemphasize contrary viewpoints in order to create drama. In short they are intended to be entertainment, and are not serious explorations of the subjects covered. The scientific data on the Shroud of Turin does not support that it was Christ's burial cloth, nor that it is a "transfer" from the countenance of a dead person, as opposed to having being painted. That hasn't changed, despite anything The Learning Channel may have to say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You have a conclusion, Beyond My Ken. Other people, bona fide researchers, scholars, and scientists have reasoned argumentation for another conclusion. This is what the interesting controversy is about. For an easy example: the discovery of dirt that matches the precise chemical proportions found in the travertine aragonite of Jerusalem is a pointer toward authenticity. It is ignorant and non-scientific to ignore that pointer. It is not proof. That is not the claim. But it is not religious zealotry either, even if this claim is presented on a believer's website. It is not honest simply to say that "Well I won't believe anything from such a website even it copies scientific reports." You seem to be missing a basic distinction here. I encourage you to read the whole back-and-forth on the Talk page. It is not religious dogmatism vs. scientific truth. There are scientists on both sides. Both sides can be challenged or supported on grounds other than belief. Pernimius (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I have no personal opinions about the Shroud of Turn, since I'm not an expert in the many specialties required to examine and evaluate it. All I have is an acceptance that, on Misplaced Pages, the collective opinions of mainstream scientists are always given precedence over the opinions of WP:FRINGE scientists and religious believers. Your arguments are not going to change that, because you can quote individuals, but you cannot provide proof that the collective opinion of relevant scientists supports your preferred theory, because it doesn't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The Law of holes would seem to apply here. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Call for close

I believe that we have heard enough. Could an uninvolved administrator please evaluate the above thread, make a decision of whether to apply a topic ban, and close this? just as has happened at Talk:Shroud of Turin, it is clear that if we leave this open we will simply get more of the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If we actually give people time to read and digest the Talk page concerned, there is more of a chance that Guy Macon's objections will be shown to be without merit. I invite a careful reading of the material. Take as much time as you'd like. I will be happy to respond to questions. I stand behind my argumentation and against a simplistic non-scientific denial of everything outside of Macon's POV. Pernimius (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I read it. It's clearly WP:FRINGE and it's time you dropped the stick. O3000 (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Why can't administrators stop the white space vandal?

Why administrators and/or Wikimedia can't stop the White space vandal, is beyond me. He's been 'bleeping' around Misplaced Pages for at least 2 years, now. Generally on the same articles. Well anyways, I'm done with reporting his actions here & at the vandalism board. FWIW, his latest incarnations - 191.254.171.94 & 119.103.0.171. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay, I'd genuinely like to see suggestions on how to do it. They're a dynamic IP and I'm pretty sure we can't set up an edit filter to catch every IP that edits some white space. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Rangblock the entire area. Eventually somebody will complain from that area & will help try to tract down the guilty. Either that or permanently semi-protect the articles, he frequents. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock from 119. to 191.? That's... incredibly excessive. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It'll get the local government's attention & then they'll try & track down the person. Either that or perma semi-protect the articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

A-April Fools? — Moe Epsilon 17:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I think GoodDay is super cereal.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Not joking. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Those IPs are in China and Brazil. And you'd like to block both regions to get their governments to do something about whitespace edits. That does sound like it befits the day. I don't believe these are the same user, but the main thing to do when you are having issues and requesting help is document the case in order to see the bigger picture. I don't know, maybe you've done that somewhere. And admins are often overrated. There's a whole bunch of stuff we can't actually stop. -- zzuuzz 17:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Permanently semi-protect the articles. Eliminate the bank, if you can't stop the burglar. After awhile, people will complain about the elimination of the banks & that will encourage them to go after the burglar. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

We let any idiot edit here - it's the Wiki Way. 18:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

I've blocked a half-dozen of them and I haven't seen any pattern. If there were one, then maybe semiprot would be appropriate. Primefac (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

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

Category:Categories is a real mess, and needs to be cleaned up today. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, I can say categorically that this is a big problem. Look at all the subcategories: Category:Submarines, Category:Submarine sandwich restaurants, and on and on. It's like herding cats! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

April fools day related question

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

 Question: Would it be standard practice for an admin to block an editor on a first offense for nominating a category for deletion as an April fools joke (assuming no other exacerbating circumstances)?- MrX 🖋 20:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't. If the community sees joke CfDs as a big no-no, then I would issue a stern warning. I know the community has serious issues with joke AfDs, not sure about CfDs.Cp678 20:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In these circumstances, it would be much more appropriate for the editor to block the administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Can someone unblock Wumbolo as per time served ? BrownHairedGirl has blocked them for an April Fools joke - Not everyone agrees with April Fools (understandable) however blocking them is way OTT, So can someone unblock and maybe we should get some sort of RFC running on what is and isn't an appropriate WP space for April Fools (AFD is providing you instantly remove the AFD from the article and that you place said AFD at bottom of the AFD log). –Davey2010 21:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think I would have either. This is apparently related to the heading above, as well as User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Please_explain, and Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_1#Category:Category_namespace. the blocked editor is Wumbolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). SQL 21:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It appears that BHG has unblocked with the message "Several editors belive that a block was too harsh, and I couldn't be bothered aguing the toss, so I'll reduce it to time served". SQL 21:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Looking at this RfC, the only supporters of an automatic sanction are now blocked or retired. The category-namespace page I nominated for deletion hasn't been viewed by anyone for over two months. Is vandalising the category disruptive, and notifying the original author not disruptive? wumbolo ^^^ 21:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC) per TP request L3X1 ◊distænt write◊
• BTW I may or may not have nominated Category Living people for deletion, but i sent it to AFD instead of CFD so as to limit the disruption. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• This is thoroughly out of line. We don't block blatant vandals (the ones who replace articles with gibberish) for a first offense, and April Fools jokes are not vandalism. If anyone gets sanctions in this situation, it needs to be the blocking administrator. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• I thought at first that this was a joke here. Sorry! If someone was really blocked, this was very much a bad block. The block should be reversed, and frankly, the blocked editor is due an apology. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not just me.- MrX 🖋 21:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• It's heavy handed, but by fuck April Fools Day gets more & more tedious and less & less funny with every passing year. The general consensus has always been to allow pissing around in the 'contributor' namespaces and to keep the 'reader' namespaces clear of these (far from) 'jolly japes'. If people are going to do something which disrupts the project, even in good faith or in jest, then a block is always going to be a possibility, though other measures, such as a good old fashioned bollocking should be tried first. Blocks though, lest we forget, are not punishment and don't have to take into account of motive, they're intended to be protective measures deployed to prevent damage and disruption to the project, if someone is disrupting and damaging the project, even if it's in good faith, a block cannot be ruled out. All that said, if the disruption has halted and no further issues are anticipated, the block can be removed. Nick (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, you got the "not punishment" part right. Going straight to a block here is not justified by a perception of tedium. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is really unfunny, tedious shit that lacks any sort of originality or creativity is virtually indistinguishable from common drive-by vandalism or low level disruptive editing. Nick (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

OK then, per WP:BLOCK: The blocking administrator should evaluate the originality and cleverness of the edit; edits that lack these qualities justify a block without warning. Got it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Block review

Per the above, the community really should comment on the block. I consider it a bad block. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In thinking about comments from other editors, something that occurs to me is that there are two issues here. One is community norms about April 1 humor (take a look at the Main Page, by the way), and the other is community norms about blocking. In my opinion, whatever one's position on the former, the latter still means that blocks are generally meant to be preventative, not punitive. And administrators should never be in the business of using blocks to declare what is or is not funny. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - As I said above not everyone agrees with April Fools (and that's fine) but blocking over it is not on, If you disagree with an editors actions then warn them ... and if they carry on without either stopping or modifying their actions then block them, Bad block all round. –Davey2010 21:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Bad block, obviously per my previous comments here and on the blocking admin's talk page.- MrX 🖋 21:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Block reduced to time served, and lifted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Your attitude about this leaves a lot to be desired. I hope you'll do better next time.- MrX 🖋 22:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The block log summary for the unblock reads: Several editors belive that a block was too harsh, and I couldn't be bothered aguing the toss, so I'll reduce it to time served. In my opinion, the "couldn't be bothered" part is unsatisfactory. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, the amount of meta discussion about precisely how big a trout to use on people who disrupt en.wp with "jokes" which were stale years ago is unsatisfactory. YMMV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• As its been lifted I won't comment, but we should clarify that the XFD tag must be removed from what ever is nominated, regardless of wiki-space. Contrary to FOOLS, I do suggest using Twinkle, de-selecting the creator notify box, hand deleting the AFD lin if appplicable, and then using rollback to rm the tag off the page. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Note. Although the block has been lifted, it would still be useful for editors to comment, given the differing perceptions of where current community standards are. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Was a little heavy handed? Maybe, but I empathize. But like many other admin, I'm sick of April Fools "jokes". I've barely been here today, and half the time has been dealing with people putting hoaxes in main space or other silly crap. In the previous discussion on April Fools jokes, I said we shouldn't encourage them at any level and treat it like disruptive editing, and my opinion hasn't changed. This isn't a community of 1000 people anymore, and someone has to filter through the real vandalism just to find "jokes" that quit being funny 10 years ago. I haven't seen anything that is actually funny on 4/1 in many years, all I've seen is more cleanup and arguments over whether it is allowed or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• April Fools is so last century. I think we need to say clearly no April Fools at all, to save everyone the hassle. I can't imagine anyone over the age of 3 being "fooled" anymore. But I think the block was heavy-handed, and per Tryptofish, the couldn't be bothered aspect of it does not sit well. Wet trouts all round please. Aiken D 22:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:Rules for fools would be the place to discuss or have an RFC, linked to VP of course. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to set anything up like that myself, as past experience puts me off but would certainly support something like it. However, it's clear to me that we cannot simply "Ignore All Rules" as not everyone is on the same page with it. Therefore, the simplest solution would be to not allow any pranks. (Exceptions could perhaps be made with main page efforts, as these are co-ordinated and organised.) Aiken D 22:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't know what the big deal is. Just let the jokes happen without admin interference. Then, at the end of the day, just rollback enwiki to March 31. Problem solved! - MrX 🖋 22:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• I personally think April fools' jokes are fine, and I'd like to think I personally come up with some new non-disruptive jokes, but if it actually disrupts view-ability or misleads readers, then I draw the line. I approve of jokes even in article space, as long as the joke can be based on fact and still carries educational and factual value. Placing a deletion tag on an article does not qualify. With that being said, blocking immediately for someone making an AGF joke, is inappropriate. Established editors have a right to a warning first before being blocked.CP 22:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's fine to quickly revert such deletion-related joke attempts. The question, for me, is how quickly the admin should proceed to issuing a block. Often, just reverting and maybe warning is entirely sufficient. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In fact, to flesh that out, this is what I think would be best practice for any deletion-related prank: (1) promptly remove the tag from whatever page was nominated for deletion, (2) close the deletion discussion with no action taken, and a closing statement saying that the joke was contrary to community standards, and (3) make a warning on the editor's talk page. If the editor continues to do that stuff after the warning, then block, but only then. If that had happened in this case, nobody would even be discussing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, come on. Someone put an AfD tag on Donald Trump, and I just warned them and left a note pointing them to WP:FOOLS. No need to block someone over a category. ansh666 22:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• In my opinion WP:SKCRIT#2 has to be used, nothing more nothing less. Don't let your feelings influence the warning you give out, maybe something like {{uw-fools1}} (a variant of {{uw-vandalism1}}) would be appropriate in order to standardize (but not normalize) these. wumbolo ^^^ 23:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Well as input is requested I'll give it a go: 4/1 is my favorite day on Misplaced Pages. I've done it twice so far, and find the deletion rationales amusing and some of the RFA talk hilarious. I will even go so far as to say it isn't disruptive. Why? Because as soon as I am done cooking and cleaning up after supper, I will show up with my little AFDclose tools and make sure everything is closed and tagged for the history books, just like I did last year. Admins don't have to do anything. The only fallout really that I see is that the 4/1 AFD Log is 15%useless, but that disruptive is limited with the click of the button "hide closed debates". FOOLS needs to be written to emphasize that 4/1 is a behind-the-scenes event, even though some IPs have shown up with amusing !votes, and I share the listing with some of my close friends and family members whom A. find this thing funny, and B. I trust to not vandalise wikipedia. TWINKLE should be encourage because most editors are too lazy probably to hand make AFD pages, they should be reminded to insta-rollback the tagging, and deselect Notify the creator (though many fo the pages I have seen are so old they were created by IPs or long departed members. Leaving AFDs open for less than a day (really should be 47 hours because of global time zones, but if Misplaced Pages is only going to celebrate UTC that's OK w/ me) doesn't detract from the project enough to justify any early closures. As for joke edits like rotating pages' TOC by 59487 degrees, I don't find that funny, if the community wants to write off page related edits as vandalism, than Soviet. TLDR If ordinary readers never find out, Ignore All Bulls thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If there is confusion as to what I mean by "page related edits", see Dennis's comment above. AFD MFD RFA RFB don't coutn, so therefore are valid. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

TWINKLE should be encourage - fuck no. Keep this stuff out of mainspace history - it doesn't matter if it's immediately reverted or not. Speaking of which - I see you've been doing that. If I'd noticed earlier, I would have blocked you if you continued after a warning. Consider that a warning for next year. ansh666 23:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I got distracted and didn't finish a sentence, sorry. Just make sure you follow WP:FOOLS and you'll be fine. ansh666 23:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Some more things, because I am doing my best to see both sides, as for tools.wmflabs AFD logs being messed with by all the 4/1 joke voting, that doesn't matter because we don't let bots electe admins. And to further ensure a lack of disruption, Imma IAR and start closing joke AFDs 18 minutes early. I leave the RFAs and anything in the userspace for others, and the no/low G6ing for admins. Vote for the deletion of gravity while you still can. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess I should be glad I was working/sleeping and did not think of Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Willy on Wheels 3 until it was too late. I do think a brief word of chastisement and a revert would have been a better way in the above instant than a block.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@L3X1: deletions are always a grave matter.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Brownhairedgirl's WP:IDHT is shocking. Unblock summary "so I'll reduce it to time served" is also misleading because the user didn't had to "serve" any block for what he did at the moment. Someone needs to reblock Wumbolo for 1 second and the block summary should be: "Brownhairedgirl's block was totally ridiculous". Raymond3023 (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Our annual day to fight over nonsense (because we never do that enough) has come and gone again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• WP:Tedious and unfunny April Fool "jokes" really should be a thing. Does anyone really think that nominating something for deletion is actually still funny (if it ever was) even after years and years of the same tedious dross? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The April Fools (WP:BOLLOCKS applies) stuff should be confined to user space only; per WP:UP, it's traditionally the (only) place where editors are given greater laxity in both edits and attitude. Clearly, as BHG's block goes to show, they can't expect the same laxity in WP workspaces. —SerialNumber54129 15:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I kind of tried at the last RfC but it didn't pass :( ansh666 17:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I tried a bit of coordination but it wasn't responded to. A note about not rehashing Earth, Misplaced Pages, and anything which would redirect to Sol 7. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Bad block. The joke nomination did in fact affect article space. However, editors who deliberately vandalize articles are supposed to be given a number of warnings for vandalism before they are actually blocked. Blocking someone for a single accidental edit to article-space is completely unwarranted. The fact that this occurred on April Fool’s Day is irrelevant; our community has firmly rejected the proposal that editors be immediately sanctioned for vandalizing articles on April Fools Day. The admin was aware of our standards, but still decided to block the user due to her dislike of April Fools Jokes. I get that April Fools jokes are controversial on Misplaced Pages, but this is not an excuse to unilaterally ignore policy and past community consensus. If the admin wants to end April Fools jokes, she should get consensus to change the rules instead of enforcing what she believes the rules ought to be. (Not an admin, but responding since community input was asked for). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Bad Block some of the jokes were pretty funny and give us a chance to see how silly we are the rest of the year. A block stains the editors record forever - the blocking Admin gets no stain for making a bad block. Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

About the closing statement: Copyvios? Categories, maybe. In any case, if this is going to be closed, let's be clear that the consensus was that it was a bad block. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

As always, if someone objects to my close, and wishes to castigate BHG further, please feel free to re-open. I simply thought things had gone on long enough. But, really, what earthly good would a formal consensus of "bad block" do for Misplaced Pages? For crying out loud, it was only a block, and it only lasted for less than two hours, there was no capital crime here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I can only reiterate my original statment, which is that silliness like this happens every year, so this remains entirely accurate. Should this go on longer I'll feel compelled to post it again, so... just let this die. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: At the risk of keeping this alive even longer, I'll say that I removed your first facepalm image because (1) it was way larger than necessary, to the point of being intrusive in my view, and (2) more importantly, it was anonymous. Image comments are still comments, and—never mind that they appear to violate the spirit of WP:SHOUT, giving undue emphasis to one editor's viewpoint—in my strong opinion, they should be "owned" (signed) for the same reason as any other comment. Had it been smaller and signed, I probably would have left it alone. I understand that the practice is common, but stuff can change. I also understand that you're an admin, although I didn't know that until after the removal. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about me, just now I was only trying to add a humorous touch to the end of this depressingly predictable sequence of events (something of this sort happens every year). Didn't realize the size, I thought I'd shrunk it to 250 instead of 350. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

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

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

• Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
• Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
• The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
• The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

• A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

WP:RPP could use some attention

Please and thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

User with nearly identical name

Is there any kind of limit as to how close a username can be to another? Today an account just got created named User:SkyGazer 5!2 (see

Looks like that user just got blocked for sock puppetry - never mind then.--SkyGazer 512 23:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're able, you might want to take a look at the edit filter log for SkyGazer 5!2. If not, I can tell you that they attempted to vandalize your userpage. I'm not sure why, though. The other socks all vandalized American political articles, which doesn't seem to be one of your areas of focus.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

File:14,5 x 114.jpg

Can one admin check this case? Thx.--Sanandros (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog