Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:42, 18 January 2020

• 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

Open tasks

• 3 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 7 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 38 sockpuppet investigations
• 23 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 3 Candidates for history merging
• 3 requests for RD1 redaction
• 92 elapsed requested moves
• 1 Pages at move review
• 19 requested closures
• 24 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 14 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

An update on and a request for involvement at the Medicine MOS

A month ago I closed an ANI thread which was a mixture of behavioral concerns and content concerns. That thread reached no consensus of sanctions against any editor but did arrive at a strong consensus for how to handle the content dispute - by conducting a formal Request for Comment (RFC). Basically by default I have found myself as an uninvolved sysop attempting to see through the ANI consensus and mediate a way towards an RfC. We are at a moment where additional editor attention would be helpful and in some cases essential to this process. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS RfC

• The discussion has been voluminous despite only a half dozen or so editors, including myself, participating. (Fun fact, with a hat tip to EdJohnston, but the discussion is longer than AN and ANI combined). I should have worked harder to limit this output from all participants (including myself).
• Most editors who have been participating in the process have gravitated towards this RfC question (option 1) and format with the belief that only minor changes are necessary before launching. Tryptofish feels that the other RfC format will not be successful and has offered an alternative (option 2) which so far has not garnered any support from participating editors. If you wish to comment about either RfC and/or the potential launch of Option 1 here is probably the best place to go.
• Note there is an ongoing RfC

According to the ANI close this should be done by an uninvolved sysop. While I remain uninvolved someone with fresh eyes agreeing that the RfC is neutral would be for the best, in my opinion and so I am looking for that uninvolved sysop. Additionally, I would love to line-up an experienced and capable editor (or panel of 3) and who would be willing to act as closer(s) at the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I can act as a closer (or be a member of the panel). I am totally uninvolved.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Sorry, got unexpected real-life emergency issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there no chance the differences between Tryptofish and others can be resolved without a lot more participation? Might an approach where Tryptofish highlights one part of the proposal and explains how they would change it and why, and the participants discuss this and try to come to an understanding work? Or has this been tried and didn't work or is not possible since Tryptofish feels the nature of their concerns mean they can only be understood by changing the whole RfC? In any case, Doc James seems to be one of the biggest proponents of one "side" and Colin and to some extent SandyGeorgia the other. Are they at least all on board with the current proposed RfC? This doesn't guarantee the RfC will work or product a clear outcome and I'm no means suggesting other's views aren't also very important, but it would I think reduce concerns that the RfC may have ended up one-sided. P.S. Other participants highlighting a part of Tryptofish's RfC proposal and how they will change it an why is another possibility but since it sounds like there is significantly more support for option 1, it makes more sense in the other direction IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the differing proposals, I understand why what I suggested probably isn't going to work as it is indeed a difference in how the RfC should be approached that affects the whole RfC so I've struck that suggestion. IMO "option 1" doesn't preclude something like Tryptofish's proposal in the future. I already sort of said this yesterday but IMO if most editors feel a more open ended approach is preferred, it may be better to let them try provided they understand that sometimes it just means limited participation and also no clear outcome, and there is probably no way to word an RfC to prevent that. And so it's possible this RfC will provide little help in drafting the 2nd RfC and in addition, the 2nd RfC may also have depressed participation. And in the mean time, the issues will be unresolved and likewise any concern they have over articles, as the moratorium/embargo may remain if there's no clear direction of the community. Of course it is also possible there will be a clear result from the first RfC maybe not even requiring a second 2nd RfC or at least convincing everyone of the right course of action for articles before it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The first RFC is laughably POV. I find very little chance that it will be NPOV before it is launched. Trypto was only being fair when they explained that it will probably end in failure due to this POV, for which they were threatened with interventions. When Barkeep talks of most editors they are mostly talking about the ones who have not been bludgeoned out of the discussion, which are two on one of side of the argument and another paid to be on Misplaced Pages.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't share your view that the first RfC is biased towards a specific point of view. In fact, I think it may be trying too hard to just present examples without going through the pros and cons of how the data is presented. I suspect most people who aren't highly familiar with the competing concerns will just take a cursory look at the text and give a gut-feel reaction, which won't help move the discussion forward.

On a more general note regarding multi-phase discussions: the sticking point for many Misplaced Pages decision-making discussions is maintaining engagement from a broad set of editors in order to establish a true broad consensus view. There are a few issues that have addressed through multiple phases of discussion, such as pending changes (for example, Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012) and the request for administrative privileges process (for example, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC and Misplaced Pages:2015 administrator election reform). Even with these highly popular topics, the degree of involvement by the community diminished as the phases went by. For topics with fewer interested parties, it can be a challenge to ensure there is enough input at the end to determine an unassailable result. The benefits of expediency need to be weighed against the advantages of gaining more information to better shape discussion.

That being said, sometimes it is necessary to have a workshop phase to collect data and work through ideas, refining them further. Establishing a consensus view requires patience. isaacl (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Isaacl, you're correct that I'm going a bit out of my way to make the question feel neutral, even though the two sides aren't really equal in the type or strength of their arguments. Also, on some points, there just aren't two sides. For example, the price given in the first example is mathematically incorrect. Despite the recent request from User:AlmostFrancis to hear the other side, ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845}$ does not equal the price in the first example. There is no other side here: everyone already agrees that it's impossible to multiply three numbers together and end up with a prime number. That said, I don't really want people to go into the RFC looking at trivial points like the occasional typo in a price, or with nothing but vague enthusiasm for Doing Something, without helping us figure out what can and should be done. I want editors to think about the important points: What claims do we think this database can support? We need to re-check all of this anyway (see: typos), and we might as well make any other recommended changes at the same time. I'm thinking that we need to invite the data geeks and stats folks to this phase, so we can talk about what is realistically possible with this database.

But to do that, we need to actually get the RFC open, and ANI said that we need an uninvolved admin to opine that it's neutral enough before we can start an RFC. If any admin would please look at it and express an opinion (either way!), that would be really helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Note I didn't use "neutral", as that is tangential to my view. I think it would be helpful to actually go through a list of the advantages and concerns for each example, so potential commenters can be made aware of them up front. I strongly suspect that all key issues have already been identified and so as I see it, the goal is to gather viewpoints on how to best manage these considerations. I believe there will be more engagement with an explicit list of items to consider. isaacl (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, and you aren't an admin, which ANI required for this bureaucratic step. We've been talking about it. The identified problems in those lists (not all of which apply to any given statement, of course) is lengthy, policy-focused, overwhelming, and damaging. And, yes, the group has identified valid problems, and everyone's already agreed that some of these truly are problems, but I think that the overall effect of listing all the problems at the top would be running down one side unfairly, because the "pro" side is pretty much left with little to say beyond apologizing for not magically having done a perfect job on the first try at an unexpectedly complex task. I don't think that will *feel* neutral, even if it technically is.

The problem with your suggestion in terms of what I want to learn is that if I post a list of identified problems, I won't find out what's right, or what could be done right, or which categories of problems seem most salient to editors. I'll just get a bunch of editors dumping drive-by vote on the page that say little more than "Me, too, because All True Editors are always opposed to all problems". What I need is editors saying, "Okay, maybe that first effort wasn't perfect, but this is complicated, and let's see how we can build on it. Do we need WP:INTEXT attribution for that database? I think you should try..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that the pro side is just apologizing for flaws; there are reasons why people support certain ways of presenting the data, such as conciseness and use of (I know, hotly disputed behind the scenes) standard dosages. Just because they're not perfect doesn't mean they don't have advantages. I just think it's asking too much for commenters to replicate the analyses that have already been done to isolate key issues, rather than just getting them to grapple with the issues and work on ideas to deal with them. I agree that this is better discussed elsewhere. isaacl (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

There are good arguments for including information about money. (I've made them for years and years now.) There are no good arguments for reading a source that gives you the average unit price for a single country and writing on Misplaced Pages that the one country's price is the price throughout the entire developing world. Although that has happened in some articles, it did not happen because someone sat down one day and said, "You know what? The best thing for Misplaced Pages would be for me to take this single data point about 1% of the world's population, and claim that it's how things are for 80% of the world's population, because concision matters more than accuracy". These were not intentional choices. Nobody was trying to do that. Editors were just trying to do their best, with the limited resources they had at that particular moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding one sides original research to the background section isn't neutral. Using one example as a basis for judging the entire group isn't neutral. The tone of the background is that something "serious must be done" which is not neutral. Of course you can multiply three numbers and get a prime number in fact every prime number has an infinite number of inverse pairs they can be multiplied by to make a prime number AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Noticing that ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845}$ does not equal 27.77 is not "one sides original research". Everyone else has already agreed that is just plain incorrect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

And do the links you added only say ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845}$ does not equal 27.77 or do they have more text and research at them? Are you claiming the research wasn't done by one side of the debate? Are you claiming you are not using this research to implie the prices are broadly incorrect in the background text? Are you ever going to explain what prime numbers have to do with anything?AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

2,777 is the 404th prime number. If you multiply three numbers and end up with a prime, you should check your work. I cannot imagine why you would even bother trying to defend this error. Anyone with a calculator can discover that ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845=27.675}$. That's what should have been in the article, not $27.77, assuming you're going to use that database record with that method.

I don't know which links you're talking about, but I can tell you that multiple people, on at least three different pages, over the space of two months, have been begging for examples of high-quality, well-sourced drug prices in our articles, and nobody has been able to find a single example in any article about a small-molecule generic drug that held up under even a moderate amount of scrutiny. I wrote originally that many (N.B.: "many", not "all" or "most") of the examples in a specific list were "outdated or otherwise incorrect". Doc James changed the statement later, but I'm still comfortable with what I wrote. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing that all (or almost all) of the examples in that specific list are both up to date and also entirely accurate. Even providing a single really solid example of the ideal way to source and describe this type of content would be helpful. Nobody else has been able to do it yet, but you seem to be really confident that it can be done.

BTW, when you're talking about "sides", you really ought to count me on the pro-inclusion side. I've been encouraging the inclusion of a wide variety of financial content in medical articles for many years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually anyone with a calculator would know that ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845=2.7675}$ not 27.675. Also if you could tell me how ${\textstyle 5\times 10\times .1=5}$ is wrong I would appreciate it. Or are you saying that 5 is not a prime number? AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: If you're still looking to line up some help closing, I'd be willing to be part of a panel if you need me. I haven't participated in the previous RfC and don't have plans to participate in the upcoming one. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, so far no one has raised their hand and I appreciate you doing so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

A problem of logic: the ANI concluded that a) we needed an RFC on pricing, and b) we needed an admin to concur it was neutral before launch. In the course of looking for an example of an article with policy-compliant drug pricing (excluding NOTPRICE) that could be used in that RFC, separate problems were uncovered, such that no example was found, leading to this different RFC, to be followed by that RFC on pricing in general. We posted to the No Original Research noticeboard, and got not a single response about the concerns raised, hence we need to go to the community for feedback. We have a problem that has to be sorted by the community regardless of what we eventually do with that RFC on pricing. This RFC is not that RFC, and interpreting the ANI to read that we can not now or ever independently address a separate issue without meeting the "neutral admin" requirement is overly strict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Conduct concerns around MOS:MED and WP:MED

In the last month I have witnessed sincere efforts by all involved to put the past aside and work together. Despite these efforts, what had been a fragile peace immediately following the ANI discussion has not held. Over the last 10 days or so there have been a steady number of behavioral concerns brought forward by a number of editors about any number of other editors. We're at a point where some sanctions are probably required and I have directed the two most recent people towards WP:Arbitration Enforcement. However, not all the misconduct is of the type that fits with the strengths of AE which is why an Arbitration Case has been mooted by multiple people. I write here in the hopes that can be avoided either through additional uninvolved sysops taking interest in the topic or through community discussion and consensus to resolve the conduct concerns. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I wish for Misplaced Pages discussions to be friendly and objective. All sorts of editors, including newcomers, should feel welcome and invited at Misplaced Pages. There is a negative and antagonistic environment at WikiProject Medicine right now which I wish to reduce to eliminate. I want people to express themselves in a positive way and avoid expressing themselves in a negative way. There is no particular Misplaced Pages protocol for determining what is a good versus bad environment, but I wish we had one, and I wish that we could apply it. As a human I can identify words which are negative and hostile, and I can see when certain user accounts use those words more frequently, and it might be the case that some user accounts use hostile negative word choices very frequently in many conversations. I wish that such accounts could get guidance to be more objective and less emotional, because Misplaced Pages discussions ought to be on the basis of merit of the arguments and not on emotional rhetoric. I appreciate Barkeep49's mediation here, but the situation is growing. If we were all together in a physical workplace then the human resource department would bring in a social worker to provide emotional mediation at this point. We have no such equivalent in place in Misplaced Pages and I wish that we did. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Huh, I have almost the opposite view. There's been a certain amount of bickering. That should have been expected, since this is a family fight. But I've found good information and good views, and I'd say that on average, the more "emotional" the editor, the more useful feedback they gave me. Also, my advice for improving Misplaced Pages's culture wouldn't involve telling people that the best way to communicate with humans is to be objective and unemotional (wow, what a culture-specific notion) or to think about individual words. If you are afraid that that there may be some significant math-and-statistics-type errors in a few hundred high-traffic articles, then "being positive" doesn't sound appropriate. Sure, there's no need for profanity (and there has been basically none of that), but good Misplaced Pages editors should ring the alarm bells when they think that hundreds of articles might have serious errors. "Word choice" isn't where the tension comes from here. Recognizing that a respected, experienced Wikipedian really does fundamentally disagree with you about what Misplaced Pages ought to be is where the tension comes from. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with WAID that the tension is probably healthy all things considered. Has the conflict that's resulted from that tension always been healthy? I think the answer to that is no. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, WAID right again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed she is. As is so often the case, she is a breath of fresh air and sunshine around this place. Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Help us, uninvolved admin, you're our only hope!

Wanted: uninvolved administrators to assist with the MOS RfC discussed above in this thread. The lucky administrators who volunteer for this task will be rewarded in the following ways:

• Fame, fortune, and glory, beyond all human comprehension
• Your name whispered reverently for generations to come
• Temples built in your honor

Actually, you'll get none of these things. But, this is a content dispute that has the potential to affect many, many articles, and they're medical articles, which for obvious reasons are particularly important to get right for our readers, and it's a situation where the pressure resulting from the content dispute gridlock is generating conduct disputes between highly experienced veteran editors. One has already resigned (which everyone is hoping will be just a wikibreak). The foolish brave admin who closed the ANI thread that preceded this has been doing a stand-up job, but it's really unfair to put all this on one person's shoulders. Barkeep49's talk page is quite active, and in my opinion, they could use help from additional administrators, both for Barkeep's sake (so that they're not held singularly responsible for the outcome of this RfC, nor for "policing" it), and also for the sake of ensuring that the outcome is credible, broadly accepted, and not subject to future claims of an unfair process. This could really use a panel of admin if possible, but at least one more to help take some of the load off of Barkeep's shoulders. So if any admin could swing by Barkeep's talk page and ask how they can help, you'd be doing a huge service not just for your colleagues but also for our readers. Thanks in advance. – Levivich 05:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Partial Blocks

Following the RfC - partial blocks will be coming soon. If you are an admin and want to practice with this interface feel free to drop me a note at testwiki:User_talk:Xaosflux and I'll flag you for temporary admin on testwiki to try it out. — xaosflux 16:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the follow-up RfC to develop policy? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the closing didn't require it to move forward, but said it should occur. — xaosflux 23:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Can I suggest if there's a policy to develop, you head over to Misplaced Pages:Partial blocks? Can I also recommend the several comments about writing just enough to get it merged into current policy instead of re-inventing the wheel? -- zzuuzz 07:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Just noting here that the feature has been enabled; sysops may want to test it out on User:ThisIsaTest. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A heads up for anyone who is testing this – if used on admins it will prevent them from accessing the block interface altogether. They will not be able to block/unblock other people. The only exception is if it's a self-block. (I know this because I can't issue a retaliatory parblock on SQL on testwiki right now.) – bradv🍁 16:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

And everyone else might want to dewatchlist User:Thisisatest while admins play with their new toys  :) ——SN54129 17:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Related: T242633. SQL 16:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparently this has been a known issue for a while, correct ticket is T208965. SQL 16:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Re-gaining Extended Confirmed status

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

Hi, just around 6 weeks ago I gained an extended confirmed status, however, it got removed by Laser brain because I "gamed the system". I was on over about 440 edits and regrettably made nonsense edits to get to 500 edits quicker. Since then I have made over 500 more edits with none being nonsense. At the time that I made those nonsense edits I didn't believe or expect it to be wrong, however, in hindsight I realised that it was a way of "cheating" and, therefore, was not ideal. Except for those nonsense edits (which was around 60), I have been regularly making as many up to date edits, reverted vandalism, made corrections and removed puffery or unsupported claims. Thus, I believe that I deserve to have my Extended Confirmed status regained as I have learnt from that lesson and have carried out the positive activities that are stated above. As I was told that I should wait a month before attempting to request back my Extended Confirmed Status, I also believe that now is very appropriate for this discussion. Thank you. Isaacsorry (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done @Isaacsorry: as you have met the normal threshold. Be sure to edit with care, and I also recommend you review Help:Archiving a talk page and change the way you archive your user talk page (the "archive to history" you are using is generally the least friendly way to manage your page). — xaosflux 20:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:RfPP

is a little backed up. If anyone would care to join me, I'll start at the bottom.-- Deepfriedokra 04:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks y'all.-- Deepfriedokra 12:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Here we go again, over 30 requests, current backlog is about 15 hours--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject history needs people

Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.

• If you have any experience at all with standard WikiProject processes such as quality assessment, article help, asking questions, feel free to come by and get involved.
• and if you have NO Experience, but just want to come by and get involved, feel free to do so!!!
• For anyone who wants to get involved, please come by and add your name at our talk page, at our talk page section: WikiProject History needs you!!!!
• Alternately, if you have any interest at all, feel free to reply right here, on this talk page. please ping me when you do so, by typing {{ping|sm8900}} in your reply.

we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Sm8900, have you found the WP:REVIVE advice yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD might possibly be closed?

Please consider whether Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Corinna Löckenhoff might be decided and closed. The AfD arises from a deletion request from the subject, who asserts the article has the capacity to cause her harm at this particular time - diff, OTRS confirmation. This being the case, and given the current state of !votes on the AfD, it seems to me to warrant speedy consideration. (Full disclosure: I'm the nominator in the AfD.) thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see Requests for closure. El_C 01:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Relatedly, in light of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mishae/Archive, should we consider the subset of Biografer (talk · contribs)'s contributions that have not been significantly edited by others for WP:CSD#G5 speedy deletion? There are a lot of them, but the SPI notes issues with both accuracy and close paraphrasing, and I've definitely seen some of the accuracy issues in my own spot-checking. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I've seen similar problems. A good many of them are in my field, and I'm checking. I don't want to make too quick or automatic a judgment about G5. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You may not want to make quick and automatic judgements, but it appears that JJMC89 has already been doing so, deleting many articles, in many cases in violation of the requirement for G5 that articles have no substantial edits by others. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It would appear the subject no longer wants the article deleted, FWIW. (per Talk:Corinna Löckenhoff) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

And with that, some article edits, some AfD discussion, and a blocked sock, the !vote has swung back the other way - now should just be left to run. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Creating MLBPitchingCoaches Template

I realize for whatever reason I cant create this because the word "MLBP" is blocked from creating articles yet simply I would like to be able to create this and cannot.--Jack Cox (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Cox: Is this about Template:MLBPitchingCoaches? – Ammarpad (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is--Jack Cox (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to squish the name of the template: how about Template:MLB pitching coaches? this avoids the blacklisted sequence— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Seconded on the template name; there has been an active push in the last year or two to make templates read more like text (and less like old-school file names that wouldn't allow spaces). Primefac (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It was blacklisted eight years ago because of hoaxes - looks like no additions to Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Wetsoap since then. Peter James (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sab Kichu Bhene Pare (2nd nomination)

No administrator is noticing the deletion discussion of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sab Kichu Bhene Pare (2nd nomination), What will happen to the article Sab Kichu Bhene Pare? The article which is of a book does not contain any strong reference in English-language. শাহরিয়ার কবীর শিশির (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done, as all participation that favoured delete was by blocked sockpuppets and IP addresses misrepresenting the notability guideline, I have closed it as keep based on consensus of the other editors involved. ~ mazca 10:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mazca. The OP above, who wanted to delete this article (and therefore may be linked with the LTA activity from the last two AfDs - both of which had significant socking), has started deleting material amounts of referenced content in the article. Not my area of expertise, but something very odd going on here. Britishfinance (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, there definitely may be some more socking involved—this seems like an unexpectedly controversial area—but the appropriateness of the poorly-phrased content removed does seem quite debatable, there's certainly nothing completely wrong here. ~ mazca 23:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969 has retired

FYI Onel5969 has packed it in. Not an admin, though always thought they should have been. At over 40,000 of the +100,000 new WP articles patrolled last year, will be a big blow to WP:NPP, and I suspect their retirement will directly, or indirectly, require a lot more work from the rest of the community. Britishfinance (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Nocturnal306

User:Nocturnal306 globally locked due to Long-term abuse, sockpuppet of Abdullah Zubayer, Paid editing, COI and violating other numerous policies. Please remove all user rights. Warm Regards, ZI Jony 17:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Confirmation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done, local rights removed. ~ mazca 19:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Partial Blocks PSA

Hello all. Being that the Partial Blocks feature is now deployed, be careful that you don't accidentally use it to create a block that does nothing. On the block interface, "Editing" and "Sitewide" must be checked, unless you intend to do a partial block. If you uncheck "Editing", or check "Partial" without entering any pages to be blocked, then you will have created a block that does not stop the user/IP from editing. You can see a list of all partial blocks, if you want to make sure that there are no "null blocks" or otherwise unintentional partial blocks. If "editing" is not listed in the "block parameters" column, then the block does not prevent editing. ST47 (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, there is no policy-based reason to issue a partial block right now. Is that correct? –xeno 18:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That, I'm not clear on. The RfC was closed with a result that broadly allows partial blocks. That should be written into policy, but in the mean time, I wouldn't have a problem with someone issuing a partial block in a way that is consistent with that RfC. ST47 (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What a great question! There was an RfC (Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Partial blocks) and I'm still not clear on if the result is that administrators must not, or may, use a partial block. @JJMC89: closed the RfC. I know I was on the side of not enabling this technical feature without a policy - but the majority were not. — xaosflux 19:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see they wrote "Community consensus is not required to apply partial blocks. Administrators may apply partial blocks using their discretion, in line with the Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy". –xeno 19:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I added two of the explicit RfC uses to the blocking policy. Further changes are needed though. Partial blocks may be used with admin discretion within the parameters of the blocking policy. I expect that a second RfC (if one is held) plus common and failed uses will inform future changes to policy. For those concerned about the lack of governing policy, I urge you to start a second RfC to discuss any changes that you want to see. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately the default is a "sitewide" block, so you'd have to change something on the block form to impose a partial block. It's annoying because now the block form is longer, but whatever.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I cannot believe that we have yet encountered the universe in which Bbb23 does partial blocks :D ——SN54129 20:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocks via Twinkle appear to proceed as before. Partial blocks don't appear to be an option when blocking via Twinkle. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Amorymeltzer is on it, so it'll be there soon. You can use the {{subst:Uw-pblock}} in the meantime and use the |area= parameter to list pblock details and |email= if it is a email pblock. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Can the template be reworded? Although no-one expects a template to have FA-worthy prose, You have been partially blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges is one of the worse sentences ever. "Partially blocked" implies the block itself is somehow incomplete, whereas, of course, they're wholly blocked from specific areas. Suggest something like: "For abuse of editing privileges, you have been temporarilly blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia", or somesuch. ——SN54129 11:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I've implemented your suggestion. The long-term issue is, ofc the name of the feature, so not many ways to get around it. The current |area= parameter would also fit in nicely with your suggested sentence. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Also if you want to hide the ability to partial block from Special:Block and keep things as before you can follow the steps at User:AntiCompositeNumber/Hiding partial blocks. I’m assuming twinkle will have a way to keep the classic block screen as well? TonyBallioni (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  Mostly I would suspect, the ideal way would be a radio button switch. @Amorymeltzer: has all the top-secret blueprints. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  I was more thinking like a button in twinkle preferences that would either enable/disable the partial block functionality, but these things are beyond me :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  In all likelihood it will be a single little checkbox, off by default, that if checked will change the form. Nothing much will change from how it is now unless you opt for it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Whitelist Request

Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/01/30/obama-to-speak-at-baltimore-mosque-where-imam-condoned-suicide-bombings/ Link requested to be whitelisted: https://dailycaller.com/2016/01/30/the-us-mosque-obama-has-chosen-for-his-first-presidential-visit-has-deep-extremist-ties/

I want to use the links in the Islamic Society of Baltimore article, specifically in the Controversies section. I need them because I'm trying to show the viewpoints of different news media for a topic, although they seem to be blocked. I will quote the news outlets, and will not use them for factual information. I made a request elsewhere about a week ago, to no response, so I decided to ask here. Thank you! —  Melofors  TC 

You already have a request open at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Please be patient. Raising the same request in multiple places can be construed as forum shopping. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion to unblock Ricky81682

Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) is a former administrator who was desysopped by the Arbitration Committee for misuse of multiple accounts in 2016, and subsequently checkuser-blocked. Following an appeal to ArbCom by email, we have posted a motion to unblock Ricky81682 for discussion on-wiki. Comments and discussion are welcome on the motion page. – Joe (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Ricky81682 unblocked.

Category whitelist request

Hello! I would like "Category:Minecraft servers" to be whitelisted. I want to put this category under "Category:Minecraft", and add the articles 2b2t, Hypixel, and Mineplex to the category. I am also planning on creating an article called "Minecraft servers," which I've been working on in my sandbox for a few months, which will also be added to that category. (I will have to get that article name whitelisted as well) —  Melofors  TC  00:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

By whitelisting you mean MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist? I don't understand why it's blacklisted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, figured it out - the item was blacklisted globally at meta:Title blacklist. I've added an entry on the whitelist and modified the error message so that people know that the global blacklist can trigger it as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Melofors: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Was it actually necessary to whitelist it? The blacklist entry doesn't seem to be marked with "noedit", so I think an admin or pagemover could have just moved the mentioned sandbox page to that title and then it would be able to be edited normally. Anomie⚔ 12:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, a false positive case is better dealt with through one-time whitelisting rather than asking people to override it each time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Help wanted from everyone who has the time

A massive (the largest ever) Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigation, Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Dr. Blofeld, was recently opened. The usual 3 people at CCI won't be able to complete it themselves, so I am asking everyone who has the time to help clean it up. No copyright knowledge is required, and instructions + further information can be found at User:Money emoji/Dr. Blofeld CCI cleanup. I will also be listing this at WP:CENT, as the last time a large scale CCI cleanup effort was conducted (Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo), it was listed there. A big thanks to all who sign up, 💴Money💶💵emoji💷 02:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not want to go through all the pages now, but at some point Dr. Blofeld created a couple of thousand pages about districts of Russia. This was done in collaboration with the Wikiproject, and I was involved. There is no copyvio there.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Dr. Blofeld whose assistance—in terms of background knowledge—in this area could be...forensic, to say the least. ——SN54129 20:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, his assistance would definitely be appreciated. He is not needed now, as the current focus of the project is to get rid of the vast amounts of non-copyrightable material strewn about the CCI, but once that is all taken care of, his help in possibly identifying when the copying occurred would be extremely appreciated.💴Money💶💵emoji💷 23:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm baffled as to why you think I'm a serial violator in the first place @Money emoji:. This is basically like mowing down a whole cornfield just to find a couple of needles... I guess you'll have to find out the hard way.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, I'm not going into this with the mindset we'll find much. In fact, this cleanup effort was created with the intention of removing the thousands of stubs that contain non-copyrightable prose from the listing, so the people who are in the know regarding copyright can figure out what to do with the remaining articles (likely to be under 300). As someone who primarily edits in the copyright field of wikipedia, I am aware that most of these stubs contain nothing actionable, and therefore they will not be deleted. Furthermore, I am not going to have your other articles presumptively deleted, because I would like to collaborate with you in figuring out the status of articles which contain sources not readily accessible to me, which there are not many of (1% of listed articles). I don't think you're a serial violator (If you were, wikipedia would have died), and I also don't care whether or not you or Fram are vindicated as a result of the project. I simply care about decreasing the monstrous backlog at CCI. I do not want our working relationship to be that of enemies, but rather friends, for the benefit of the entire project. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷 12:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand and I'm not commenting in annoyance but as the issue is likely to be extremely minimal it just seems a little unnecessary, if you wanted to block out the short stubs why didn't you use a bot?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

There's the problem; a script to cull the listings was already run, and it removed about 60% of the content. Now the humans have to do the work.💴Money💶💵emoji💷 14:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The first days' results are very encouraging; at this rate the first phase of the project will only take 2-3 weeks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

My restrictions

I was wondering of someone could tell me what editing restrictions I am still subject to. There apparently is a Tea Party movement restriction of some sort, which was extended to a topic ban on American Politics, with that restriction being reduced to 1RR/week (with removing spam, as well as vandalism, excluded), and there's a Gun control topic ban, which I'm planning to appeal for reduction of. Are there any other restrictions I should be aware of?

For that matter, is there a centralized board for editing restrictions, or should there be? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

There is one at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions which mentions the Tea Party movement topic ban. The Gun control topic ban isn't logged there but at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement log. Both of them appear to be still in force. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I think those 2 cover it for the OP. There only seems to be those 2 restrictions. AFAICT, the 1RR per week is only for the tea party movement not the entire post 1932 American politics space. But especially for the benefit of others, my read is there are several main places you probably should check out. If you start at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions, it has arbcom and community imposed restrictions.

However it notes that:

Inactive accounts have been moved to Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions/Archive.

That page confirms that it's for restrictions which are nominally still in force, but the editor has either been blocked or inactive for a long time. Editors should be move back to the main list when active but I would imagine this doesn't always happen especially for editors who simply went inactive.

Then if you go down, it notes that:

From January 2015, sanctions imposed by an administrator in accordance with an arbitration remedy (including discretionary sanctions) are recorded at the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement log. This includes the discretionary sanctions authorized for biographies of living persons.

However if you check out that page, it notes:

An annual log sub-page shall be untranscluded from the main log page (but not blanked) once five years have elapsed since the date of the last entry (including sanctions and appeals) recorded on it, though any active sanctions remain in force.

Fortunately there is a search bar there to help you find any restrictions more than 5 years old.

Finally if you scroll down even more on the editing restrictions page, there is a section for final warnings and unblock conditions. This notes:

These warnings/sanctions are generally imposed by a single administrator in accordance with the policy on conditional unblocking. Restrictions may be logged here but must be logged as a permalink or diff in the unblock log.

This is a bit confusing since I don't think final warnings require an editor to be blocked first. But then again final warnings are a bit of an odd duck since they're not really a restriction or something that can be appealed. If they aren't logged there I guess they may be forgotten about over time. But you should check your block log for any unblock condition.

If you check these 4 places, I think you're fairly safe. But noting of course that if you're aware of a restriction, the community is not likely to take kindly to an editor ignoring it simply because it wasn't properly logged. By comparison, an editor who notes the mistake will probably get at least some minor brownie points.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

TL;DR version, I think any restriction should be on one of the several pages Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions, Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions/Archive, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement log or in the individual year if more than 5 years old (use the search bar there to help you find them, for the OP ) and your block log ( for the OP but I can't provide a general link AFAIK). Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikihow

Please can the admin add wikihow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.142.75 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Add it to what? WikiHow isn't a Wikimedia project and therefore isn't affiliated with us in any way, so we have no business referring people to it from this site. Deor (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for User:Magherbin

Magherbin was blocked in April 2019 as a checkuser block as a result of this SPI report. They have made several unblock requests at their talk page, which has been largely ignored. At their request via the IRC unblock channel, I am copying their request here. They have admitted on their talk page to operating the following accounts:

• Magherbin (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Betamhara (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kikolio (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Lokiszm7 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Do not let the size of that SPI archive fool you. This user was only checkuser-confirmed to the list of accounts above, and was found to be  Unlikely to the rest of that SPI archive. In fact, there appear to be at least six separate sockmasters who had SPI cases filed under that name. Again, there is no technical reason to believe that this user is Middayexpress. I have done a CheckUser just now, and there is no evidence of recent sockpuppetry either. I asked them to explain why they created sockpupped before, and why we can now trust them not to do so again, here is their response:

My intention was to improve the encyclopedia by garnering opinions from the wider community ex; using RFC's, third opinion etc; see , . Many of the articles related to the Horn of Africa either have misleading information or sometimes just made up facts hence I felt that I needed to correct them without harassment from editors by opening another account. After a dispute was resolved with an editor, he/she immediately requested checkuser against me and I believe i'm probably the only user that is actively attempting to improve articles in this field hence why the user suspected I was abusing multiple accounts. I have realized that my block was due to abusing multiple accounts therefore I will keep all Misplaced Pages edits under this account moving forward to avoid any sock incidents, since the incident I caused would have been avoided altogether if I had kept one account. The reviewers must understand that I have no reason to use multiple accounts ever again. I am not here to vandalize any pages on the encyclopedia except to sincerely improve the articles, the contributions I have made so far is proof of that. I will give permission to have my account reviewed by admins regulalry to show my commitment.
— User:Magherbin

There are some earlier unblock requests on their talk page as well, which may have some more information. Since it has been more than six months since their block, should they be unblocked under the Standard Offer? For what it's worth, I would support an unblock, as they do not seem to have been continuing to sock, they seem to have reasonable intentions to improve the wiki if they are unblocked, and as per WP:ROPE. Pinging @Bbb23:, as the original blocking CU. ST47 (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblock under WP:SO. It's good that they have plans for areas where they want to contribute. Schazjmd (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock based off ST47's words and WP:ROPE. Though I'm not sure we'd want to create a parole system where users requesting unblocks had to allow unlimited CUs on their account, so best to turn that offer by the applicant down, I think, even if it were permitted. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock with an indefinite one-account restriction. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock per the others. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support unblock. Hopefully, common sense will prevail, and the community will realise that there is no reason for the user to engage in sockpuppetry moving forward. As they had explained, they only made use of sockpuppetry to avoid being targeted based on username alone. Of course, if they do that again, or if there is any suspicion, they'll simply be reported and blocked indefinitely. I doubt anyone would willingly want to get indef-blocked after months of dedication to upholding this very block. They're not a sock spammer, and they are not an agenda pusher. As per Misplaced Pages:NOPUNISH, users may be blocked or unblocked only for the benefit of the community and not to simply punish the user for past deeds. In this case, there is little benefit gained by keeping the user blocked. _{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 18:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Drafts duplicating existing articles

Would an admin mind taking a look at Draft:Jewel of the Nile (album) and Draft:The Jewel of the Nile (1985 film)? Articles about these two subjects already exist as Jewel of the Nile and The Jewel of the Nile and the drafts just seem to have been created by an IP account to try and move the existing articles to new titles for the purpose of turning "Jewel of the Nile" into a DAB page; see Talk:Jewel of the Nile#I copied the pages exactly and added a disambiguation page and the page history for Jewel of the Nile for more details on that. I don't think a DAB page is really needed here per WP:ONEOTHER, but new drafts shouldn't be created to try and MOVE articles even if such a page is needed. These are drafts so I don't think WP:A10 applies, but I'm not sure if they need to go to WP:MFD or can be tagged per WP:G6 or WP:G14. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Nasty expletives need redaction

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

• 49.15.77.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  

vandal IP has already been blocked. Please also redact their entire contribution history per WP:CRD #2. Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. As they are posting nasty expletives in Hindi language.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus for hiding the above, there is one more IP (same user) below,

• 106.67.106.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --DBigXray 11:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

106.67.3.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

We have another IP with same edits. Jo-Jo Eumerus or any other admin. Please revdel the contributions.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

They are gone and the IP is blocked. Perhaps some kind of filter is warranted? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The good folks at WP:EF may be able to set something up for you. I have always found them quite helpful. --Jayron32 11:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist has blocked the last IP as a WP:LTA. So I would support an edit filter. Jo-Jo Eumerus are you taking this forward to get the filter ready? Also ping User:Zzuuzz--DBigXrayᗙ 12:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Edit filter/Requested#Expletives in Hindi in edit summaries & page content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Celia Homeford keeps undoing my edits to List of current pretenders and even undoing edits made by previous users before I started working on the page, all the information I add is verifiable but she keeps undoing the edits before I have a chance to provide sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chisnallmarty (talk • contribs)

If you want to avoid this happening then cite your sources at the same time as adding content. Sources are not an afterthought. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how you can source any of that material. Per WP:CIRCULAR, you can't source pages on wikipedia from other pages on wikipedia. You need independent, third-party reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You haven't notified Celia. As explained at the top of this page and in the page notice, when you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. DrKay (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Addition to Special:Import

Hello! I have started an RfC over at VPP regarding adding commons as a wiki source to Special:Import. Feel free to comment over there! --TheSandDoctor 17:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Turkey's Misplaced Pages ban lifted

I don't know if this has been reported elsewhere but see Misplaced Pages is back online in Turkey after two-year ban is overturned.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Also being discussed at Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Candidates#Block_of_Wikipedia_in_Turkey_lifted.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's some excellent news. Reyk _YO! 14:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like they had about 16,000 new users create accounts yesterday, and people who haven't edited from years are back in their old accounts. This might be a good time to be nice to your favorite m:global sysop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

See also the Wikimedia announcement Access to Misplaced Pages restored in Turkey after more than two and a half years.--Ipigott (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Requests for unblock

There have been a few unblock requests sitting there for over three weeks that require a decision from an uninvolved admin. Thanks in advance. MER-C 19:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The ones I'm not involved in, I try to use Template:decline stale if nobody including me decided to act within two weeks. This may be useful if you are a reviewing admin and... can't decide one way or another, but don't want to let the unblock request remain open indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I managed one but the documentation desperately needs improving to tell newbies like me what to copy/paste with suitable editing. One problem I saw was that {{unblock}} shows text implying that Template:Accept reason here can be used but that page has never existed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

In case it inspires anyone, here are the notes I made for my personal use:

Reviewing an unblock request:
    {{unblock|reason=XXX}}
Change above to one of following:
    {{unblock reviewed|1=XXX|decline=REASON. ~~~~}}
    {{unblock reviewed|1=XXX|decline={{subst:decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
    {{unblock reviewed|1=XXX|accept=REASON. ~~~~}}

I hope that's right! Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Note! If you click the link in the "Administrator use only" section at the bottom of the unblock request, you get a set of options you can copy-and-paste to accept or decline the unblock request. If the unblock request is essentially free of content, just using the default decline, the one that looks like {{unblock reviewed|1=XXX|decline={{subst:decline reason here}} ~~~~}}, will paste in a default decline message. Or you can write your own message! --Yamla (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Category created by mistake

Deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Excuse my distraction, I thought I was on Commons and by mistake created here the category Naturalized citizens by country. Would you please delete it? Thanks and my apologies again. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 13:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

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

AfD discussions that are fully protected from the get-go

Last month, there was an AfD on the Kyle Kulinski page. The AfD saw insane amounts of canvassed votes, as the subject of the article and some fringe-left forums directed people to the AfD discussion. The closer concluded that there was "no consensus" and suggested that we might re-do the AfD and have it protected from the get-go to avoid interference from outside actors. Would it be possible for an admin to start such an AfD or to immediately protect it after I myself start one? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Concur with a new AfD being fully protected. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You want an AFD only admins can participate in? Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected from IPs. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

That's semi protection not full protection. (Well close to it. There's no such thing as only protecting from IPs.) It may be helpful to check out Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#Types of protection especially if you are going to comment at AN. Nil Einne (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops, that's correct. Concerning registered editors, how do we determine who's been canvassed off Misplaced Pages? GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not using the correct language here: the amount of protection needed to prevent IP numbers and very recent accounts with few edits from participating?. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is fine as you didn't ask for full protection. It was not possible to clearly indicate I was replying to GoodDay since they failed to follow normal WP:Indenting rules. Nil Einne (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please let me know when this happens. KidAd (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for being grumpy above, it mostly came about because I made a significant mistake myself. I conflated Kyle Kulinski with the similarly named Kyle Kashuv. Given what I've read before, I felt an AfD on Kashuv would either be keep or at most no consensus. Therefore it seemed a waste of time to open yet another AfD. Still if the previous one was tainted by canvassing and an editor genuinely felt there was chance of reaching a consensus to delete, I also couldn't object to the suggestion. I see now my error and can understand the desire to open another AfD. Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle and speedies

Looking at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth, it seems to me that perhaps we should ask the Twinkle devs to change the default for TW/CSD to "tag only" unless there's an existing CSD template. We should probably not summarily delete by default - there's no reason not to invite a second admin to review before an article is nuked, especially since we could simply uncheck the delete box for egregious cases such as attack pages. Guy (help!) 01:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

We just had a discussion about this topic at WT:CSD, for which there was no consensus for such a thing (if not consensus against the idea). --Izno (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Izno, consensus there is that an admin is allowed to delete without tagging. That doesn't answer the question: is it a good idea, and certainly not the question: should it be the default. Best practice should be that no article is nuked without two sets of eyes, unless it's blindingly obvious, abuse cleanup or whatever. Guy (help!) 11:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ricky81682 unblocked

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to an indefinite account restriction: Ricky81682 is restricted to one account, and may not edit anonymously.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Ricky81682 unblocked

Oldstone James creationism topic ban appeal

Appeal by user

As simple as that, I should not really have been banned in the first place. This is a comment I posted to the closing administrator in reaction to getting my topic ban 9 months ago:

1. I hadn't even been warned that I might be topic-banned, and so I wasn't even given a chance to prove that a ban might not be necessary. Once the topic ban proposal was posted on ANI, I immediately made it clear that I had changed my behaviour (see 3.) and won't be disruptive from then on.
2. The topic ban was proposed straight after my block had expired, and I had barely done any editing in the meantime. I had not violated any policy which warrants a block, such as WP:3RR, and the only edit-warring (2 non-BRD reverts) that did take place was a result of my misunderstanding of what a self-revert is: I had immediately admitted that I was wrong. Furthermore, while of course not a justification, these only reverted an edit that had absolutely no consensus at the time. Other than that, I showed signs that I had learnt from my block and had taken on advice given to me by other users (such as taking to the talk page before reinstating my edit and not assuming consensus even if I believe it is there ( – note how this is a reversion to WP:STATUSQUO and not to my preferred version).
3. I had demonstrated on numerous occasions that I was willing to listen to what others editors had to say, and I also demonstrated my desire to become a better editor. I accepted almost every advice that I was given since the ANI post. Here are some examples:

• "The advice here to you is, in essence, to disengage" by user:Guettarda on WP:ANI, referring to the edits I made on Answers in Genesis. Since that comment, the only two edits I made on the page were adding a comma and a hyphen. I have also now gotten myself voluntarily blocked in order to disengage from edits on all pages.
• Related, this advice by user:jps is to "take a breather from Misplaced Pages". This was the main reason for my self-requested block: I realised I was spending too much time on Misplaced Pages, while I had lots of real-life work to do.
• "...my point is about general approach, that making a clear statement on what you are willing to commit to is more effective than debating what you have said previously or how earlier comments should have been taken" by user:EdChem on my Talk Page, referring in part to this comment by Guy Macon. My reply was "I will try this approach as well" to EdChem, and my reply to Guy Macon included "I will not claim consensus ever again", but I have also adopted this approach in other comments.
• "ANI sees the Tu quoque fallacy a lot -- most recently by Oldstone James -- and will not allow anyone else's behavior to excuse bad behavior" and "And anyway, Yeah, but they're just as bad! is just about as weak an argument you can make... so don't make it" by Guy Macon and jps, respectively on WP:ANI. My reply to the latter's comment included "I've already stomached the fact that tu quoque isn't going to help my case" and "That's just my position - not an argument. Never said stating this position is a good idea" (admitting my tu-quoque-based position was never a good idea). I hadn't resorted to tu quoque since.

I can provide numerous other examples (feel free to demand them from me) of me taking on the advice of others and acting on said advice, admitting my mistakes, and showing my intention to become a better editor, but I think that would render this already long comment Tl;DR. My argument here is not even that I wasn't even given a chance to redeem myself – it's that I wasn't given a chance to redeem myself, then dug that chance out for myself, and did my best to take it, and yet all my efforts were still ignored. Note how even if I was simply promising that I would stop without any evidence to back that up, the best approach would sometimes be to give me the benefit of the doubt as per WP:ROPE – let alone when there is also a fair amount of evidence for that promise being genuine. Please recall that bans and blocks "serve to protect the project from harm and reduce likely future problems" – NOT to punish users (WP:NOPUNISH).

1. (4.) Why topic-ban me? Every single one of the edits brought up at ANI was in relation to my edits on one single page, and these edits did not display any obvious POV relating to creationism. Wouldn't a WP:PBAN hence be more appropriate? Why creationism? This decision seems very arbitrary to me.

So most of my evidence that I had changed as an editor is just a continuation of the evidence that I provided 9 months ago.

For example, I haven't engaged in a single act of edit-warring since the topic ban (i.e. violated the BRD cycle, for example). One example of where I chose to give up my editing in an area where I was confident that I was correct because of a lack of consensus is the article scientific racism. Here is the discussion of my proposed edits, where it can be seen that I remained firm in my position. Nevertheless, after a few proposed compromises (1 and 2), I gave up and moved on to other topics. It's important to note also, before anyone else points out, that in this instance I was NOT arguing in favour of scientific racism (as the ungrounded belief that genetics are responsible for the difference in IQ across different ethnic groups would constitute), which is indeed WP:FRINGE; instead, I was arguing in favour of content that already exists and is well-sourced on other Misplaced Pages articles (for example, Race and intelligence), so WP:FRINGE shouldn't be relevant to the discussion, especially given that I am an opponent of the very topic that I was topic-banned on (creationism).

Also, despite the ban, I remained relatively active on Misplaced Pages and managed to edit successfully on other articles. Some examples are this edit and , which prove my dedication to improving Misplaced Pages as a whole and not just fixating on one topic (surprising that I even need to prove this, given the edits that led to my topic ban were some of the first creationism-related topics that I had ever made). Other edits can be seen through my contributions page; note that I did violate the topic ban regulation on a few occasions, but after I was reminded of that by jps, I thanked him and immediately stopped editing in inappropriate areas.

Hopefully, the community can evaluate my behaviour and eventually get the topic ban lifted. _{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 14:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

!Voting

• Oppose. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This is genius. Concise and to the point. I love this. _{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 16:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Thank you for providing the links, JBL. Having looked into this, I feel that both sides have good points. However, I think James deserves a second chance, and has potential to provide a lot of effective contributions. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per I should not really have been banned in the first place, which suggests that nothing has been learned and the issues that led to the topic ban have not been accepted, let alone addressed. Guy (help!) 17:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. See my reasoning in the "comments and questions" section below. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments and questions

Question: When was your topic ban implemented? Foxnpichu (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me like the relevant discussions are here and here. --JBL (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Foxnpichu (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Correct. Thanks for supplying this information. _{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 17:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Question:

1. Why do you want to edit creationism-related pages?
2. I get that you are convinced you were railroaded in the sanction processes. You aren't the first and will not be the last person to feel so victimized (I myself have felt this way and sympathize with the feeling). On the other hand, using this as a basis for an appeal essentially never works. Can you identify the aspects of your own behaviors that led to the topic ban, and can you show any progress you have made on wiki in changing those behaviors or can you explain how you will conduct yourself differently to avoid this kind of problem in the future?

jps (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but it is my opinion that I have already described in the original post both the behaviourial patterns which I believe led to my block and the improvements that have since taken place. For the most part, I believe it was 1) me not being careful enough with the policies, like 3RR, and 2) me not being careful enough while the idea of a topic ban was being discussed. Another important lesson that I learnt from the topic ban is "when in doubt, just refrain". For example, most of the arguments for a topic ban (and the original proposal) were made as a result of two of my edits which I believed to be self-reverts; however, they weren't, and I had to pay the price for that. Therefore, since the topic ban was implemented, I didn't engage in any activity that wasn't unanimously uncontroversial, an example of which I provided in the op. Additionally, I provided numerous examples of me taking on advice from other editors (which I still follow to this day), which clearly shows the progress that I have made since the topic ban proposal.

As to why I want to edit creationism-related pages, there is not really a big reason why I want to edit creationism-related pages specifically, but it's just that I tend to edit articles across all subjects, and sometimes articles on the topic of creationism or religion randomly pop up within my editing sphere. For example, I recently experienced a spike of interest in Jewish tradition, culture, and history, given that I myself am Jewish (only ethnically and perhaps culturally; religion-wise, I'm an atheist). Naturally, my research involved reading Misplaced Pages articles, some of which contained grammatical or factual mistakes, for example. I always strive to make Misplaced Pages as good and accurate as it can possibly, and the thought that other people might visit an article and get incorrect information out of it really worries me, as when they realise that it's incorrect, they are likely to then distrust Misplaced Pages completely, which is a huge loss (I actually describe this concern on my user page). Therefore, I really want to be able to edit all articles, without silly restrictions that are of no benefit to really anyone in particular - neither Misplaced Pages, nor Misplaced Pages readers, nor me (okay, maybe Roxy may benefit). As I have already demonstrated, I have generated minimal trouble since my ban, so I don't see what the harm will be in lifting my ban on creationism. _{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 17:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Your motivations for wanting to edit creationism are the same as editing Misplaced Pages, which seems reasonable to me, but I worry that you may be a bit too attached to your own predilections for what constitutes "incorrect information". For example, one of the things you insisted upon was the idea that a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis was an encyclopedic perspective. You are also insisting that a description very similar to that of a race realist position on intelligence tests and race is one that is mainstream. These sorts of positions smack a bit more of WP:ADVOCACY as opposed to the ideal which is following WP:RS even when you disagree with the sources (as you seem to in the two instances I outline). Your rejoinder seems to be that you are willing to accept a consensus that is opposed to your understanding of what is correct and, even, your interpretation of WP:PAG. My concern is that this kind of attitude can lend itself to a kind of tiresome tendentiousness even when it doesn't result in edit warring. This is especially concerning to me since you describe your own attitude toward editing as being intense and peripatetic. One thing I didn't like about our encounter was what a time sink it was. I think the direction of "when in doubt, just refrain" is a good one to point towards, but I think there is even more WP:DROPTHESTICK you can do in this regard. I speak from experience here as someone who sometimes has a hard time doing this (we, none of us, are perfect!), but I would like to see a little more introspection in this regard before I would be comfortable seeing you very active on creationism pages. I guess the question is, will we regret giving you WP:ROPE? Will we end up back at WP:ANI, WP:AE, or worse in short order? jps (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, "incorrect infromation" to me is something that is refuted by WP:RS. You see, you have your own opinions; I have mine. You may think that the statement that race and intelligence are connected constitues scientific racism; I believe that it is the WP:RS consensus, a consensus which is in fact thoroughly described in another Misplaced Pages article, and is supported by at least 7 independent reliable sources which I had previously linked. You may believe that the Bible was written entirely metaphorically; I believe that at least of its contents were based on ancient Babylonian science (again a statement supported by numerous reliable sources) and were indeed intended to be taken literally, although of course within a larger metaphorical, story-telling context. None of these opinions by themselves make either me or you a problematic editor. Or, if they do, you have just as much of a potential for tendentiousness as me, or any other editor for that matter, as we all have our opinions and interpretations of reliable sources, all of which differ. Except my "tendentiousness" will probably harm Misplaced Pages less than other editors, because I already made it the basis of my approach not to edit-war. And I certainly think that this approach is more efficient than just "dropping the stick" and refraining from even discussion; in the vast majority of cases where I actually had the time to make the arguments, I eventually had my way (my contributions to the AiG page included). Once again, you are absolutely free to !vote in whichever way you find the most appropriate, but, if I were to weigh in, I'd say that simply having different opinions or approaches to editing by itself isn't a strong enough justification to !vote negatively. _{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 18:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment:
For context, I am going to copy what I wrote at 22:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC) at ANI:

Oldstone James has been told -- repeatedly -- what he should do when he knows that the change he wants to make is opposed by multiple editors (stop edit warring, post a specific proposal on the article talk page, make his arguments, and try to get consensus for the proposed change). He has been told this by a wide variety of editors. He has been told this gently and respectfully. He has been told this aggressively and forcefully. He has been told this in the form of a block by an administrator. He has been told this by an uninvolved administrator who reviewed the block and denied his appeal. I question whether any mentoring will be acceptable to him. I think that the moment the mentor tells him to stop edit warring and seek consensus he will instantly add the mentor to the list of inferior beings who he will not listen to because it is all their fault. I also question whether, given his present attitude, he has the ability to contribute constructively on any page related to creationism. I have not yet concluded that he cannot contribute constructively on other topics, which is why I am asking for a topic ban and not for another block. This may be one of those cases where someone is topic banned, learns how to get along with other editors on articles where his feelings are not quite so strong, gets the topic ban lifted after six months, and goes on to make real improvements to the article that he formerly edit warred over.

I now see what appears to be a completely different attitude from what I described last April. Based upon this, Unless Oldstone James indicates that he disagrees with my advice (when he knows that the change he wants to make is opposed by multiple editors he should refrain from edit warring, post a specific proposal on the article talk page, make his arguments, and try to get consensus for the proposed change) I am strongly inclined to lift the topic ban per WP:ROPE. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I apologise for the unwarranted dig that I threw at you in the previous comment. Thanks for having some objectivity and common sense. _{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 18:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: In response to

This is a Misplaced Pages user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard.

This editor is a Vanguard Editor and is entitled to display this Unobtainium Editor Star with the Neutronium Superstar hologram. This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time. 22.1 This user has 22.1 centijimbos. This user is a Rouge admin. This user has been editing Misplaced Pages for more than 15 years (20 years, 4 months, and 27 days). This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 20 years, 4 months, and 27 days.

The values and distinctions you are trying to stress are so far outside my Overton window that they're not just out the Overton door and down the Overton block--they're 40 miles away on the interstate from the town of Overton. -- Mike Godwin

• In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, user:Stephan Schulz.
• My activity level is 53mKo (milli-Koavfs).
• Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.

You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.

— - Robert A. Heinlein

Obligatory disclaimer

I work for Dell Technologies but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right?

About me

I am old, British, married to the world's most tolerant woman, and have two adult children. I was an amateur baritone prior to developing debilitating tinnitus. I do not tolerate racism, or any kind of bigotry. Being British, I have the British sense of humour (correctly spelled) and I absolutely do not have an accent, since I went to a thousand-year-old school. Everything I do or say could be wrong. I try always to be open to that possibility. If you think I am wrong, please just talk to me nicely, and it can all be sorted out like grown-ups.

On politics See User:JzG/Politics for a statement of my views.

Spam

{{duses}} produces an insource search and a Linksearch search. The former is flaky in my experience but does have the benefit of focusing on mainspace. {{Link summary}} is the canonical search but produces a lot of extraneous items such as links on other wikis that are not always useful when managing non-spam bad sources. {{deprecated publisher}} and {{deprecated journal}} help with fake journals.

Filter

• 869 (hist · log)

Includes many bogus sites includiong Royal Ark.

The elephant

• amazon.com  
• Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ASIN

XYZ

Almost all links to this domain are spam. Pass 1: Remove or whitelist existing refs to .xyz (244 links found in mainspace as of 220-16-10).

• xyz: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Advocacy

• saynotodogmeat.net  

Predatory open access publishing

• Self-published: Filter 894 / log
• Predatory: Filter 891 / log

These publishers are on Beall's list, feel free to suggest others with DOI roots I can work on.

• DOI 10.5897: Academic Journals
  • academicjournals.org  
  • academicjournals.com  
  • academicjournals.net  
  • Nigerian-based publication mill used for fact-washing climate change denialism. Definitely dodgy.
• DOI 10.4172: OMICS Group (also SciTechnol, shares same 10.4172 DOI)
  • esciencecentral.org  
  • omicsonline.com  
  • omicsonline.org  
  • omicsgroup.org  
  • scitechnol.com  
• DOI 10.11648: Science Publishing Group
  • sciencepublishinggroup.com  
• DOI 10.4236: Scientific Research Publishing (mainly done)
  • scirp.org  
• Biomedical Research (search/all) biomedres.info   Likely or proven predatory open access - imprint of Allied Academies
• Center for Natural Science & Engineering Research (CNSER/CenNSER) (search/all) cennser.org   Likely or proven predatory open access
• Center for Promoting Ideas (search/all) cpinet.info   abused for promotional purposes Likely or proven predatory open access
  • International Journal of Business and Social Science (search main/all) {{ISSN|2219-1933}} {{ISSN|2219-6021}}
  • International Journal of Humanities and Social Science (search main/all) {{ISSN|2220-8488}} {{ISSN|2221-0989}}
  • International Journal of Applied Science and Technology (search main/all) {{ISSN|2221-0997}} {{ISSN|2221-1004}}
  • American International Journal of Contemporary Research (search main/all) {{ISSN|2162-139X}} {{ISSN|2162-142X}}
  • International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology (search main/all) {{ISSN|2162-1357}} {{ISSN|2162-1381}}
  • American International Journal of Social Science (search main/all) {{ISSN|2325-4149}} {{ISSN|2325-4165}}
  • Journal of Business & Economic Policy (search main/all) {{ISSN|2375-0766}} {{ISSN|2375-0774}}
  • Journal of Education & Social Policy (search main/all) {{ISSN|2375-0782}} {{ISSN|2375-0790}}
  • Journal of Agriculture & Life Sciences (search main/all) {{ISSN|2375-4214}} {{ISSN|2375-4222}}
  • International Journal of Language & Linguistics (search main/all) {{ISSN|2374-8850}} {{ISSN|2374-8869}}
• Current Pediatric Research (search/all) currentpediatrics.com   Likely or proven predatory open access - imprint of Allied Academies
• David Publishing (search/all) davidpublishing.com  , davidpublisher.org   {{DOI|10.17265}} Likely or proven predatory open access
• OPR Science (search/all) oprscience.org   Likely or proven predatory open access
• Research Publisher (search/all) researchpub.org   Likely or proven predatory open access
• SciEP (search/all) sciepub.com   Likely or proven predatory open access (currently appears to be down)
• Scientific Journals International (search/all) scientificjournals.org   Likely or proven predatory open access
• WFL Publisher (search/all) world-food.net   {{DOI|10.1234}} Likely or proven predatory open access - using DOI 10.1234, but this seems to be fake as it's listed as Inactive:
• WIT Press (search/all) witpress.com   {{DOI|10.2495}} Likely or proven predatory open access
• World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET) (search/all) waset.org   {{DOI|10.1999}} Likely or proven predatory open access
• World Scholars (search/all) wscholars.com   Likely or proven predatory open access
• World Science Publisher (search/all) worldsciencepublisher.org   Likely or proven predatory open access (domain hijacked as of 2017-11-17)
• World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSAES) (search/all) wseas.org   No DOI abused for promotional purposes Likely or proven predatory open access see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wseas, deleted at Wseas, WSEAS, World scientific and engineering academy and society, World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society.
• World Wide Journals (search/all) worldwidejournals.com   {{DOI|10.15373}} Likely or proven predatory open access
• Wudpecker Research Journals (search/all) wudpeckerresearchjournals.org   Likely or proven predatory open access
• Zenith International Research and Academic Foundation (ZIRAF) (search/all) zenithresearch.org.in   abused for promotional purposes Likely or proven predatory open access

Also generally shite:

• Frontiers (search/all) frontiersin.org  , frontiers.in   {{DOI|10.3389}}
• Insight Medical Publishing (IMedPub) (search/all) imedpub.com   {{DOI|10.36648}}

ijddr.in   - has published scraped Misplaced Pages content

Vanity press

An on-demand print house, masquerading as an academic publisher:

• DOI 10.4018: IGI Global - igi-global.com  
• lulu.com in mainspace/everywhere - lulu.com  
• onlinegatha.com  

Spam

• raex.com  
• beastcoins.com  
• robin-quinn.co.uk  
• countryhouseweddings.co.uk  
• brideshead.co.uk  
• holiday-lakeland.co.uk  
• spartacus-educational.com  
• britishessaywriting.co.uk  
• smartessaywriters.co.uk  
• lawessayteacher.co.uk  
• christianhistoryinstitute.org  
• Genealogy spam
  • leighrayment.com  
  • royalark.net  
  • worldstatesmen.org  
  • thepeerage.com  

Web hosts

• geocities.com  
• force9.co.uk  
• angelfire.com  
• angelfire.lycos.com  
• rootsweb.com  

Citation spamming and Vanispamcruftisement

Multiple additions of citations to the same author from predatory and other journals, by multiple editors with no history other than adding that material (i.e. probable citation spamming):

• Koszowski, M / Koszowski, Maciej
  • Amelkoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Andywoorhole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Angy55555n (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Antoninscell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Doorwaythegreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Foolingtool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Ivaniwanow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Joobik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Lawmaker222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Lawmander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Layerlayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Looky1222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Mooroverduper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Soonerthanlater2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Pearce, J.M.
  • 74.219.71.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 206.47.39.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • A.Buitenhuis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Batboys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly Recyclebotboy)
  • Chum2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Coylyre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • EconomistfromtheFuture (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Enviro1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Farmbob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Farmerbob2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Fwarre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Geralu1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Gihiw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Goih1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Gredr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Greeny9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Guill8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Jillcet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Joefull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Kisds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Loins5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Lynher1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Offsobe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Richardbrt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Sochyh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Stonejm9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Tatiana1112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Toasty22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Vanstrato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Wendsjinnit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Wendydi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Wikiwarrior77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Wooda52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Yugoyugo1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Bishop, J. / Bishop, Jonathan.
  • Jonathanbishop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • VCHunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • crocels.com  
  • crocels.info  
  • crocels.org  
  • jonathanbishop.com  
• Snodgrass, Brett

• Walid, MS
  • mswalid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 72.210.76.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 70.184.4.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Moustafa, Khaled / Moustafa, K

• Mraz, M (also potentially Pospisilova, S)
  • Europeanhematology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 78.102.206.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 85.248.18.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 89.221.212.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 94.113.98.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 98.155.90.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 147.251.157.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 147.251.157.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 147.251.89.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 147.251.89.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 176.74.129.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 193.86.126.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 195.168.25.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 213.220.227.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Brázda, V / Brazda, V
• Korstanje, Maximiliano / Korstanje, M

• David W. Solomons

• • dwsolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• • dwsolo.com  
  • dwschorale.com  
  • Special:Search/DWS Chorale
• thaut.io  

• Trevisani, Daniele
  • Culturalresearch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Igor Janev

Shitty sources

The Media Bias Chart is widely referenced in reliable sources. It appears to be accepted as broadly correct.

It has two axes: partisanship and reliability. In Misplaced Pages terms, the following seems to be true:

• Hyper-partisan sources are not reliable for unattributed statements of fact. This includes the likes of The Intercept, Mother Jones, HuffPos, Slate, National Review, Reason, Weekly Standard. These sources are always open to challenge and should be removed if challenged and only reintroduced if there is consensus.
• Unreliable sources are unreliable, and also usually highly partisan. Only the National Inquirer seems to publish bollocks pretty much regardless of its political angle.

As a principle I would have zero problem with the following:

• Sources in the green box (AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, WSJ, WaPo, FT etc. are generally considered reliable for factual statements because they clearly distinguish them from editorial. They are generally acceptable for editorial when attributed with a few qualified exceptions such as the WSJ's inexplicable promotion of climate change denialism, which qualifies for exclusion under WP:FRINGE.
• Sources in the yellow box are generally reliable for reports of fact but require care and attribution for statements of opinion. The position on the axes matters. CNN is more reliable than the Washington Times or HuffPo (equal quality but less bias), Slate is more reliable than Washington Examiner (equal bias but better quality). There is internal variability. Rachel Maddow is pretty scrupulous about fact-checking, but much of MSNBC is just unsourced opinion and should not be cited.
• Sources in the orange box - "extreme / unfair interpretations" - should not be used unless there is a compelling reason and consensus on Talk among editors of multiple ideological viewpoints.
• Sources in the red box - "nonsense, damaging to public discourse" - should be blacklisted. That is massively controversial right now, because it includes a handful of liberal sites that most liberal editors know not to use (Palmer Report, Wonkette, Bipartisan report, Occupy Democrats) and virtually all the conservative outlets popular with MAGA types, including InfoWars, WND, Blaze, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, Daily Caller.

Note that Alternet is in the same box as the NY Post, Daily Mail and Daily Wire here. I agree with that. Neither are appropriate sources and both could be blacklisted: nothing of value would be lost. In fact I would also include Daily Kos, Second Nexus, OAN and Fox News. It's highly unlikely that any of these would be the sole source for any genuinely significant fact.

Also sites with no evidence of WP:RS:

• insidesources.com  

Bag o'shite

• WP:DAILYMAIL dailymail.co.uk  , dailymail.com  
• News of the World newsoftheworld.co.uk  , newsoftheworld.com  
• takimag.com  
• lifesitenews.com  
• prageru.com  
• askmen.com   - crap aggregator
• epochtimes.com   / theepochtimes.com  

Red box sources

• alternet.org  
• bipartisanreport.com  
• theblaze.com  
• breitbart.com   (blacklisted)
• conservativetribune.com  
• dailycaller.com  
• dailykos.com  
• dailymail.com  
• dailywire.com  
• thegatewaypundit.com  
• guacamoley.com  
• Infowars:
  • infowars.com   (blacklisted)
  • infowars.net  
  • infowars.tv  
  • newswars.com   (blacklisted)
• occupydemocrats.com   (deprecated)
• palmerreport.com  
• patribotics.com  

• WorldNetDaily
  • worldnetdaily.com  
  • wnd.com  
• wonkette.com  
• worldtruth.tv  

Egregious fake news and other "fuck no" violations

• amren.com  

2,292 links prior to September 2018 (UTC)

58 links, sources in 2 articles including self-source as of 08:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

2 links, valid in 2 articles as of 13:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• worldnetdaily.com  

910 links as of 08:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• stormfront.org  
• prisonplanet.com  
• Blood & Honour
  • bloodandhonourworldwide.co.uk  
  • bloodandhonourcentral.co.uk  
• globalresearch.ca   - see Michel Chossudovsky

Think-tankery

We should never source anything directly to a think-tank, their function is policy-based evidence making and is the absolute antithesis of everything Misplaced Pages stands for.

• Libertarian think-tank spammed by user:Vipul and others: Liberty Fund / Library of Economics and Liberty / EconLib / econlib.org / EconLog / Bryan Caplan
  • econlib.org  
  • libertyfund.org  
  • econtalk.org  
• freetrade.org  
• margaretthatcher.org  
• marxists.org  
• setamericafree.org  
• socialisthistory.org  
• ccel.org   - mainly replaceable from free online sources
• conservative.org  , spammed by PoliticalScientist3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fake universities

• liberty.edu   (creationist whacknuttery)
• mruniversity.com  
• prageru.com  
• bircham.edu  

Unofficially official and personal pages

• fandom.com  
• Castlecruft
  • ecastles.co.uk  
  • castlewales.com  
  • castleuk.net  
  • gatehouse-gazetteer.info  
  • laverocks.co.uk  
  • thecumbriadirectory.com  
  • eastthewater.co.uk  
  • castlesfortsbattles.co.uk  
  • tracesofwar.com  
  • britishlistedbuildings.co.uk  
  • keystothepast.info  
  • roman-sites.com  
  • victorianforts.co.uk  
  • pastscape.org.uk  
  • castleexplorer.co.uk  
  • castles99.ukprint.com   (Paul Martin Remfry, self-published author)

• Mansoncruft
  • tatelabianca.blogspot.com  
  • 2ndofficialtate-labiancamurdersblog.blogspot.com  
  • truthontatelabianca.com  
  • charlesmanson.com  
• Old spam nest
  • billofrights.com  
  • citizensmedal.com  
  • defenseoffreedom.com  
  • historyhotline.com  
  • iraqiwar.com  
  • koreanwar.com  
  • latinamericans.com  
  • medaloffreedom.com  
  • medalofvalor.com  
  • mexicanamericans.com  
  • 1stamendment.com  
  • spanishamericanwar.com  
  • terrorismmedal.com  
  • usconstitution.com  
  • vietnamwar.com  

• alanwood.net  
• geocities.com  
• www.lsb3.com  

Woo

• Explore (NY)
  • explorejournal.com   - in mainspace
  • deanradin.com   - in mainspace
  • deanradin.org   - in mainspace
• Frontiers - frontiersin.org  
• SCAM advocacy sites that should never be cited as sources:
  • avn.org.au  
  • childrenshealthdefense.org  
  • cmsri.org  
  • collective-evolution.com  
  • davidwolfe.com  
  • drtenpenny.com  
  • foodbabe.com  
  • greenmedinfo.com  
  • healthnutnews.com  
  • i-sis.org  
  • medicalveritas.com  
  • mercola.com  
  • modernalternativehealth.com  
  • modernalternativemama.com  
  • momsacrossamerica.com  
  • naturalnews.com  
  • nvic.org  
  • organicconsumers.org  
  • peteevans.com  
  • realfarmacy.com  
  • townsendletter.com   / tldp.com  
  • usrtk.org  
  • wddty.com  
• Cold fusion
  • lenr-canr.org  
  • newenergytimes.com  
• Purveyors of dodgy information (e.g. anti-GMO "safe food" labelling BS)
  • edf.org  
  • ewg.org  
  • pesticideinfo.org  
  • centerforfoodsafety.org  
  • foodandwaterwatch.org  
  • fwwatch.org  
  • pan-international.org  
• Climate change denialism
  • thegwpf.org  

• Just plain old woo
  • telekinesisworld.com  
  • indiahealthguru.com  
  • sis-group.org.uk   - Velikovskian nutters
  • dr-rath-foundation.org  
  • candida-international.org  

• Agecruft
  • lef.org  
  • worldhealth.net  
  • grg.org  

Random junk sources

• liveleak.com  
• royalark.net  
• routesonline.com  
• familytreemaker.genealogy.com  
• liliputing.com  
• lifesitenews.com  
• conservativehq.com  
• mavenroundtable.io  

Gunwanking

• inetres.com  
• globalsecurity.org  
• jedsite.info  
• pancerni.net   / pancerni.abajt.pl  
• reloadbench.com   (blacklisted: malware)
• thetruthaboutguns.com  

Royalcruft

• royalark.net   (formerly 4dw.net  /royalark)
• royalcentral.co.uk  
• worldstatesmen.org  
• thepeerage.com  
• rootsweb.ancestry.com  
• jacobite.ca  
• englishmonarchs.co.uk  
• nobility-royalty.com  
• genealogy.euweb.cz  
• nobilitytitles.net  
• unofficialroyalty.com  
• noblecircles.com  
• angelfire.com/realm/gotha  
• heraldica.org  
• medals.org.uk  
• Fake sites (see Talk:Almanach de Gotha)
  • almanachdegotha.org  
  • imperialcollegeofprincesandcounts.com  
  • almanachdechivalry.com  
  • imperialcollegeofheraldry.com  
  • almanachdeholyromanempire.org  
  • imperialteutonicorder.com  
  • almanachdechivalry.org  
  • imperialcollegeofheraldry.org  
  • almanachdeholyromanempire.com  
  • imperialteutonicorder.org  
  • nobilityregister.com  
• Turned up during cleaning:
  • kutchtourguide.com  
  • itihas.wordpress.com  
  • chiefacoins.com  
  • kutchguide.blogspot.com  
  • gujaratguideonline.com  
  • members.iinet.net.au  
  • memorialdrinkingfountains.wordpress.com  
  • anextractofreflection.blogspot.com  

Wikis & fancruft

• gameo.org  
• theraider.net  

Plain old-fashioned spam

• theodora.com  

Possible medispam

• thyroid-info.com  
• lipidsonline.org  

Abortion activism

• texasrighttolife.com  

Russian propaganda

• 112.ua  /112.international  's !vote: not quite. I understand exactly what led to the proposal of a topic ban. However, I had acted upon these issues as the proposal was being discussed and, in my opinion, had more than enough evidence of that by the end of the discussion for a topic ban not to be warranted. However, even that's not really relevant. If you believe that my comment proves that I had not learnt anything, you should be able to find a reflection of that in my actions. However, if you look at my actions, you'll find that I had not been problematic since the imposal of the ban. _{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 18:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Members of the Ten Year Society of Misplaced Pages editors
• Members of the Fifteen Year Society of Misplaced Pages editors