Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:45, 21 November 2010

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

Violation of non-admin closure

The closure at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System was not unanimous for Keep - and though I do not disagree with the closure, per WP:NAC, it should not have been closed by a non-admin. Requesting an admin close the AFD instead. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Why?--Scott Mac 01:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NAC says an non-admin can close when it is "beyond doubt a clear keep". It says nothing about requiring unanimity. Personally I'd delete the entire page as crap. Providing we have a consensus, who the hell cares who closes what. The only reason non-admins shouldn't close an AFD, is if it requires a deletion - and that's only because they can't technically do it.--Scott Mac 01:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I am also glad to note that WP:NAC is only an essay and not a guideline or policy. Which leaves me asking, Cirt what are you on about? The close is good. The closer is allowed to do it under WP:NAC. And WP:NAC is only someone's opinion anyway. So what's this about?--Scott Mac 01:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is all rather moot now, since T. Canens has endorsed the close as an admin. Silverseren 01:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

An utterly unnecessary practice, designed to keep non-admins in their place.--Scott Mac 01:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think this should be good enough. Since Cirt's comment in the AfD was in alignment with the close, I doubt that he is looking for a different result. Perhaps, if I may venture a guess, he thinks an "admin close" is somewhat more conclusive than a non-admin close for future nominations? For better or worse, my experience has been that there is some difference in practice ("it's just an NAC!"). Note that I explicitly did not revert the close, and I think that the discussion is NAC-able, but I see no compelling reason not to add an extra sentence if someone wants it. T. Canens (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that is presuming that admins automatically know better on how to sum up consensus in AfD discussions. While that may be true in most cases, it is certainly not true in all cases. There are quite a few users around who aren't admins, but have been around longer and are even more likely to be capable in such matters than a number of admins. Silverseren 01:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I do. All endorsements like that serve to do is to underline the false idea that non-admins have less value. A close should stand or fall on its merits and we shouldn't be giving the ridiculous idea that non-admins have less weight - or drawing attention to the "status" of the closer. An endorsement like that simply encourages this WP:NAC nonsense, which is antithetical to Misplaced Pages. If we deleted essays, that one would be top of my list.--Scott Mac 01:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs), for the close endorse. ;) Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I am merely commenting on the reality that some people seem to consider NAC a second-class close; I certainly do not agree with it. T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was more responding to Cirt (or in general) than anything. Silverseren 01:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As the closer, I did not, And still do not feel I did anything wrong. It was certainly not a delete, this I did not break any rules. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 01:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You certainly did nothing wrong at all. There are no rules here, only a silly essay.--Scott Mac 01:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, coming here complaining about a NAC only serves to underline this stupidity. If people consider NAC closes as second-class, then the solution is not to pander to it with endorsements - which will just underline their misconception - but the solution is to beat them with cluesticks.--Scott Mac 01:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

1. The AFD was closed too early.
2. The AFD was not unanimous for Keep.
3. The AFD was controversial, on a controversial topic.

For all of these reasons, it should not have been closed in the manner in which it was initially done. -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The first of those may be true (but would also be true for an admin) the second two are quite irrelevant. Show me the policy that supports them?--Scott Mac 01:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Show me the policy that says non-admins are encouraged to close controversial AFD discussions that are not unanimous for keep, and close them early, in the manner in which was done here? -- Cirt (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh? You need a policy to let people do things on a Wiki? That's absurd. And since when did "unanimity" become relevant - the silly essay WP:NAC doesn't even ask for it. The quality of the close has NOTHING to do with the status of the closer whatsoever. The close is good or bad, consensual or not. There is no other consideration - certainly not imaginary caste-system rules.--Scott Mac 02:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The close was seven minutes early, the article was certainly not going to be deleted. I try to help out a bit, and this is where I end up, looking stupid, and getting yelled at. To bad. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The close was over 24 hours early. -- Cirt (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It was the beginning of the seventh day. By the end of the seventh day, 95% of articles in AFD are closed anyway. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed on admin boards before. The consensus is certainly not to close AFDs over 24 hours in advance. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, you fatally misunderstand Misplaced Pages. Please consider WP:BITE in how you treat people. Misplaced Pages is not a status-bureaucracy, and complaining because the right thing was done by someone you consider to be of the "wrong status" is damaging. It is not much wonder keen people don't want become admins with this type of abuse heaped on them when they try to help out.--Scott Mac 02:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I myself have been criticized in the past for closing AFDs too early. I modified my behavior after receiving such criticism. Hopefully, Tofutwitch11 (talk · contribs) will be able to do so, in the future, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems I will be question whenever I close AFD's. Just being a non-admin makes me vulnerable. Why did you even bring this up in the first plane, you even said "though I do not disagree with the closure".......Could it have waited untill/if I messed up? Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it did not fit into the "appropriate" cases for WP:NAC, and because it was closed over one full day early. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You've made your point nice and clear that it was closed over one day early (although the fact that you see seven minutes as over is mind-boggling, perhaps you are just using it to make it seem like I did something worse that I actually did). But you had no objections to the final conclusion? Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note:If I waited untill the seven days was fully over, the only AFD's left to close would the those in strict debate which I cannot close anyway. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That is what you must do. Per community consensus, AFDs should not be closed early, and especially leeway should not be given for AFDs to be closed over one full day before the seven day discussion period. -- Cirt (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Again with over one full day. I give up. You Win, I loose. I certainly have no clue at all what I am doing and I shouldn't be here. I should have known. Woops! Thanks! Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, it is never helpful for controversial but good faith AfDs to be closed early by an admin or anyone else. All too often it leads to a deletion review, and the same controversy is gone over once again. If then returned to AfD, as often happens, it is then rehashed yet a third time. The more difficult a decision, the more controversial the topic, the more reason to follow the full procedure to the letter, and to the minute. Experience has also shown that it is much better for non-admins to avoid closing such AfDs, for the same reason, that of discouraging further arguments--such as the one here. This was the right close, but that it was done at the wrong time and by a non-admin, makes it the more easy to attack. Fortunately, I do not think it will now be attacked, in large part because of Cirt's excellent improvements in the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't think I just counted Keep and compared it to delete. I looked over the AFD, and because I saw Cert was improving the article, I felt it appropriate to close. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, very much, for your kind words about my improvements to the article page. ;) Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

AFDs run for seven days, not six days

1. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive200#Premature_AfD_closers
2. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_53#7_days
3. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive182#Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion

There are multiple more discussion threads about this. Community consensus is that AFDs should not be closed one full day in advance, and should only be closed slightly early if there is overwhelming near-unanimous consensus, without multiple "delete" comments. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You've made your point. I understand, but it is done all the time, for 11 Nov. 2010, many delete discussions were closed already, as well as my keep ones. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Other people do it", is not an excuse - especially not for AFD closure one full day in advance of seven days. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So Cirt did you politely ask the closer on his talk page to revert and wait 24 hours before closing - trying your best not to embarrass a keen non admin? Or did you come here spouting crap about non-admins and non-unanimous, and then change your rationale when you started to lose the argument? Frankly this looks like a case of admins bullying non-admins, either that or rule-mongering (which is wonderful when you were wrong to claim NAC is a rule, or that it required unanimity). Frankly your behaviour here is reprehensible, especially when the close is good and you don't deny it.--Scott Mac 02:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Cert, remember, im not an admin. I look up to the Admins, and when I see them closing AFD's early (or as I though on time) I follow. Is that wrong, to look up to Admins? You seem to know....Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment about this, by admin DGG (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have bypassed my question. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question is do not close AFDs earlier than seven days. -- Cirt (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If that's the issue, why didn't you ask him to revert his closure, rather than asking for an admin to endorse it? You are stretching for a justification for your own inappropriate actions.--Scott Mac 02:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What if an Admin had closed the AFD. Would this have happened? I doubt it, it is just because I am a non-admin that this happened. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be very easy to ameliorate this problem without rancour, if someone would code into the AfD header a notice of the correct time for closing , just as has been very usefully done for PROD. If this too is unsuccessful, I suggest it lies within the province of any admin who has not taken part in the discussion to revert the close. In the situation the usual request and 24 hour delay will generally make the point moot. Better that it be reverted immediately, on the basis that it must simply be a mistake, since it is assumed anyone closing knows and wants to follow the rules. . DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

DGG you may well be right about early-closures. But that's not the fundamental issue here. Review the whole thread, you are being caught in a smokescreen.--Scott Mac 02:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Read the comment by admin DGG (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I did. As I say, he's been distracted by your changing the subject from non-admins to early closures. If early closures were really your issue, then your behaviour is inexplicable.--Scott Mac 02:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Evidently then you have failed to read the entirety of the the comment by admin DGG (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think people have talked enough; I wish they'd stop. The Wordsmith 04:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

However we all need to be more careful closing AFD's earlier, there was a point in extending the time to 7 days, which was to allows those that only get on once a week a chance to participate. Perhaps we need a tempalted warning for those that close AFD's early. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, AFDs used to run for about five days, and as far as I can tell, that worked out fine. I supported the expansion to seven days specifically and explicitly so that closing a few hours or even a day "early" from the normal time (NOT: "mandatory minimum number of minutes") wouldn't be a big problem. If people want to complain about an AFD being closed correctly—that is, according to consensus and policies——at day 6, then I want the official time returned to its original five-day length. And if it's closed incorrectly—that is, against consensus—then that's what DRV is for.

In short, if the "shorted" 15% of time is unLIKELY to change the result, then who cares if it was open only 85% of the normal time? IAR exists for a reason, and stopping people from whinging about the exact number of hours at AFD is one of those reasons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• IAR seems to be a shortcut for "I can't be bothered to follow the rules". Spartaz 06:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

1. You can't "violate" an essay, as the thread title suggests.
2. These things should be discussed with the editor in question first.
3. Closing a day early is good to avoid if there's any suggestion the outcome might change. There's just enough here to suggest that at 7 days the closure would have been just fine, but at six days, it would have been better to wait. But not enough to make a fuss about it at AN. (Sidebar: the extension from 5 days to 7 was primarily to ensure weekend editors got a look-in, which due to the timing of this AFD, they already have.)
4. Unless anyone actually wants a different outcome (and "merge" is still possible post-AFD), there really nothing to do about this, is there?

Rd232 06:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Actually, since I seem to be the only one that re-read the links that Cirt provided, there does not appear to be a clear consensus that seven days must be mean exactly 1 second over 168 hours, and not a second earlier. A sizable number of commenters in all three discussions he links thinks the seven day limit is "not that big of a deal" and closing a few hours early shouldn't be cause to raise a stink. In the first linked discussion: contains a lot of general "all admins are corrupt assholes and we can't trust any of them" sort of bullshit, but weeding through indicates that of the 13 distinct people that commented, 8 appeared to support a strict interpretation, while 5 supported the more fuzzy 7-ish days interpretation. In the second linked discussion: , I count 8 distinct people commenting, 4 stricters and 4 fuzzies. In the third linked discussion: predates the 7 day limit; I will avoid counting through this discussion simply because several people who commented in the two later discussions noted specifically that the move from the 5-day limit to the 7-day limit had moved them from the "strict" camp to the "fuzzy" camp (i.e. that they supported the 7-day limit because they merely wanted to see the AFDs run at least 5 days, and weren't stuck on 7 days per se). Neither of the more recent discussions, after the 7 day period was enacted, show a strong support for "seven days means not one second less than seven days" interpretation. I am not saying that this means we should allow early closures, and I am also not saying that we should categorically disallow them. I am just saying that there does not appear to have been a clear consensus in past discussions regarding this, so we cannot use that to claim the superiority of one position over any other. --Jayron32 07:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A deletion discussion needs to run long enough for reasonable effort to be made to enable consensus to arrive on whether the article matches the criteria for deletion. While the process usually involves 7 days, even a much shorter discussion can be quite valid. Process for its own sake must be ruthlessly stamped out wherever it is identified. Tasty monster (=TS ) 07:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the most recent thorough discussion of this was at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive217#AfD's generally closed too soon. One comment in that discussion was particularly relevant for those not seeing the problem: If most admins follow the seven-day rule, but a few don't, then those few admins will close the majority of AfDs. This is not desirable. (comment made by Sandstein, bolding by me). If you follow the seven-day rule, you will not only get less complaints of a formal nature, but every hour a few AfD's will be ready to be closed, giving more people (admins and non-admins) the chance to hone their AfD skills, and giving a more diverse perspective of closers. There is not a single good reason to close AfD a few hours or even a day early (except for clear speedy and snow keeps), the extra time for discussion doesn't harm anyone or anything. Fram (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting statistical argument: that's its undesirable to permit early closures because this would lead to more discussions being closed pre-emptively by a select group of early closers. Wake me up if and when that ever looks likely to happen.

You claim that "There is not a single good reason to close AfD a few hours or even a day early" and that's obviously false. One good reason is that Misplaced Pages isn't a bureaucracy, another excellent reason is that the basis for decisions is consensus, not clockwatching. If arguments or evidence that should be considered are not, this is exactly why we have a review process that has the power to reverse a deletion closure.

I'd like to focus on the argument that one good reason not to close early is that "you will...get less complaints of a formal nature". Such complaints are misconceived and contrary to policy, so if we got fewer complaints of that nature it would not be a good sign. The presence of such complaints provides an excellent opportunity to educate those who don't know that Misplaced Pages isn't a bureaucracy. And any successful attempt to impose bureaucracy for its own sake is harmful. An attempt to impose bureaucracy because this would lead to fewer complaints from people who want to turn Misplaced Pages into a bureaucracy is comical.

I notice by the way that Deletion review isn't particularly busy these days. If there is a problem with early closing, why on earth is that forum not brimming with reviews of prematurely closed deletions?

Remember: we have a policy that says Misplaced Pages isn't a bureaucracy. Bureaucratic arguments are contrary to policy and bureaucratic assumptions aren't appropriate. You need especially strong arguments to support a breach of this fundamental policy. -- (reminder: I am the same person who posted above as Tasty Monster). TS 08:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Closing something early "because we are not a bureaucracy" is not a good reason to close something early, but a total non sequitur. "Why did you close this AfD early?" "Because we are not a bureaucracy". Yeah right. That's either a non-answer or a WP:POINT violation. Your second argument, that we should close based on consensus, not clockwatching, is equally unconvincing. Of course teh close should be based on consensus: how does closing an AfD early help with this in any way? Will you get a better consensus if you close a day or a few hours early? Will you get less bureaucracy if you close a day or a few hours early? You are arguing why it doesn't harm, not why it would actually be good. The latter is what is usually considered "a good reason to do something". What problems are caused by waiting until the full seven days are expired? None. What problems are caused by closing early? Complaints, people unable to practice closing AfD's because other people sweep in early (especially important for non-admins), earlier and earlier closures (if seven days isn't necessary, then what? 6, 5, 4?) Fram (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If you don't accept that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, or do accept it but don't accept it as a reason for not applying rules in a bureaucratic manner, then there's no communication going on. You're talking past me and ignoring Misplaced Pages's fundamental policy. --TS 09:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I do accept that Misplaced Pages is not a bureacracy, just like it isn't an anarchy or a steamboat factory. That it is not a bureaucracy means that early closings, or in general overriding minor policies or guidelines, is acceptable if there is a good reason for doing this. It does not mean that ignoring such policies and guidelines, like the 7 days fo an AfD, should be ignored just because you can. "Not a bureaucracy" is a strong argument why reason X may override policy or guideline Y: "Not a bureaucracy" is however not in itself a reason to override policies or guidelines. Fram (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Not a bureaucracy" is exactly sufficient reason to ignore bureaucratic rules. The only way to stop those rules turning Misplaced Pages into a bureaucracy is to allow cases where somebody has ignored them, unless the effect is clearly detrimental to the encyclopedia. And again I'm asking you and Cirt, since you appear to agree with the notion of following Misplaced Pages's processes, to follow the established processes such as deletion review, dispute resolution and discussion of policy problems on the talk pages of those policies. You don't get to make an end run around policy by raising a complaint on this page. --TS 10:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is not an isolated incident. The same user NAC Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kye Allums which had 2 comments and was appropriately relisted. There's a specific criteria about this and this is clearly not it. Shadowjams (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Should it have been closed as delete? If not, then there is no problem except for those who think, incorrectly, that Misplaced Pages is a bureaucracy. --TS 10:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy", and yet we have "bureaucrats". Ignore all rules, but follow some essays to the very letter: to the very second. A plea for closing, a trout, a close and a reopen. How many more? It's become sort of..."lamer" now. Can I say this as a non-admin? I know I shouldn't close it. End this poor thread's suffering. Doc talk 11:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
      • For all of you complaining about me closing AFD's early, I'm sorry. Before I started closing I looked over the AFD for a few days, and saw that they began to be closed that the beginning of the seventh day. By the end of the seventh day, there were only about 10-15 AFD's left, none of them eligible for me to close. I saw admins closing AFD's as early as 0:09 in the seventh day, So I thought it was okay. I followed the admins, I guess I should not have, It won't happen again, If I even ever close another AFD for along time, since there have been objections over every closure. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 11:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm sure you were doing what you thought was right. You are right, however, that once you hear objections, it's time to back away for a bit and learn from what the objectsions say. Even admins are not supposed to close AFD's until a full 7 days are over, except in a few specific situations. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can make this as brief as Jayron32, because there's more to say now, alas:

• MediaWiki, the wiki software, has groups called "bureaucrat", "administrator" (a.k.a. "sysop"), and so forth. These are all just arbitrary names chosen by the software developers, years ago. "Bureaucrats" have nothing to do with bureaucracy; "Sysops" are not system operators for any computer system, and indeed have no more access to the computers that run the servers than any other editor; and "administrators" are not part of any sort of administration or government. It's an object lesson in software design that this choice of nomenclature has caused reams of confusion and argument over the years.
• The period 2010-11-11 17:24:35 to 2010-11-17 23:53:16 is six days six hours and approximately 29 minutes.
• Non-administrator closures are one way to learn the ropes of closing AFD discussions.
• We stick to seven days because we don't want the period to progressively erode back to six, then five, then four, … Seven days gives everyone, no matter what walk of life they are in, no matter what days of the week they most often contribute to Misplaced Pages, and no matter what timezone they are in, a chance to be involved in the discussion.
• Cirt is a regular AFD discussion closer and a major content contributor on the subject area of these articles.
• This whole Werner Erhard vs. … thing is a minefield, and Tofutwitch11 you had the bad luck to step onto it. Here's just some of your background reading, which only includes the noticeboards, and not the user talk pages nor the article talk pages:
  • Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System
  • Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User THF and subject Arthur Alan Wolk
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive649#Behaviour of admin Cirt in content disputes
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive649#No Legal Threats and User THF
• The point of the IAR policy is that rules are not our primary purpose. There's a tendency in any project involving large numbers of people for it to become bogged down in creating rules and procedures for getting the work done, and to not actually get the work done as a consequence. That's one of the major things that the IAR policy is aimed directly at stopping. However, rules do give structure, and in a system composed of complete strangers from all around the planet collaborating with one another remotely, going around ignoring the structure just for the sake of ignoring it results in loss of collaboration and friction for starters.

  Misplaced Pages isn't a micronation, nor is it an anarchy. It has no government of its own, but it is governed. It is a project comprised of collaborating volunteers, supported by a charity, that operates according to the laws of the world that it is a part of. The charity has rules of its own and various policies imposed from the top; the volunteers have various fundamental principles that everyone basically has to agree upon, or look for another project to participate in; and on individual projects there are various widely-agreed procedures, practices, conventions, and rules that are there to ensure that the work isn't overwhelmed by chaos.

  Have, again, the charity shop analogy: There's a charity that owns and maintains the buildings. There are volunteers who work in the shop. They don't make the laws of the land that the shop is in, but they do coöperate amongst themselves to set various rules, procedures, and conventions for their work, which they do with consideration for the fact that their volunteer pool is diverse. Some volunteers are empowered by the group with the abilities to throw stuff in the bin, to take it back out again, to show people out of the door onto the street, and to put padlocks on things. And the whole of the planet can see through the big shop window what goes on in the shop.

Uncle G (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Uncle G, I was involved with this AfD and also commented in some of the other venues mentioned above. I wonder why you included the following two threads in the Werner Erhard vs.... "minefield"?
  • Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User THF and subject Arthur Alan Wolk
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive649#No Legal Threats and User THF
• Those threads related to a different AfD altogether. The only connection they have to the AfD that Tofutwitch11 closed is the fact that THF asserted that he was being "harassed" about COI by Cirt regarding comments at that other unrelated AfD because he opposed Cirt in the Werner Erhard vs. ... AfD. Regarding Tofutwitch11, I wouldn't imagine that someone in his position would see this connection as obviously as those involved in the debate might have. If you agree with THF's view that his threads at ANI and COI/N were a result of the Werner Erhard vs. ... AfD then this AN report becomes the last in a series of reports and complaints filed by the article creator about other editors who are working towards outcomes he's not happy with - in the latest case this "undesirable outcome" isn't as obvious though. I note above that Scott Mac pointed out that the original complaint here had nothing to do with a premature closure, but instead focussed only on this being a non-admin closure, with the seeming worry that such a closure would be less authoritative. That worry appears to have ignited all of this. Has anyone considered discussing WP:OWN issues with the article creator? Is all this unnecessary drama desirable for the project? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You've managed to yourself answer your own question about the background reading, there, without need for me to do so. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• I remain convinced that it is necessary to consider additional options to more strictly enforce the seven days rule and thereby to preserve the integrity of the AfD process. An idea I've proposed in the past would be to allow any admin to simply undo and relist an early closure, with no need for DRV. This would still allow the occasional justified WP:SNOW or speedy closure, because no admin would likely undo these if they are really justified.  Sandstein  18:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Renominations

For reference, Shadowjams (talk · contribs) has renominated for deletion all of the following articles after non-administrator closures of prior discussions by Tofutwitch11 (talk · contribs):

• UCL Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences (AfD discussion)
• Ethnoburb (AfD discussion)
• Air Myanmar (AfD discussion)
• James Horley (AfD discussion)
• Mariza Ikonomi (AfD discussion)
• Kye Allums (AfD discussion)

Uncle G (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've speedy closed all of them as WP:POINT nominations. There is no valid reason for re-nomination. WP:NAC is only a worthless essay, while WP:BURO is solid policy. If you want to change policy to preclude non-admin closures, don't do it by pointy AfDs - start a policy debate and get consensus. If you believe the close is actually flawed in substance, then try WP:DRV.--Scott Mac 17:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • As a worthless non-admin, I agree with Scott Mac on this issue. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • That is correct. If somebody disagrees with an AfD outcome for whatever reason, the correct response is to seek deletion review, not file another AfD.  Sandstein  18:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
      • This just really does prove that non-admins are not wanted to close AFD's, or be involved at all, that thier descions are constantly questioned. Would this have happened to an Admin, no. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 19:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Tofuwitch don't be discouraged by this. As you can see most of the admins commenting here (I am not one) are not discouraging you. Quite the opposite, the appear to agree that the actions of Shadowjams were inappropriate and that there is no reason why these closures shouldn't be treated like others are. Just take this as a learning experience. Some people get prickly about rules and processes so its best to follow them strictly. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, it was Shadowjams and Cert, but this should not have been made a big deal, now I look like an Idiot on my talk page, and here. Wasn't there another way to go about this? Now I am bieng questioned about why I closed those AFD's....Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
            • From my understanding Uncle G is correct about admins also being questioned constantly by others about their closes on their talk page, however they are probably not usually brought here for it. I agree that you have a fair gripe there. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
        • On the contrary, questioning of decisions happens to closing administrators regularly. Go and watch User talk:Ron Ritzman or indeed User talk:Cirt for a month. Uncle G (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Tofutwitch... Closing AfDs is not easy. You only have a few months of active editing under your belt, and very little involvement in the administrative areas of the project other than vandalism patrol. Our policy and practices are somewhat subtle. As it says on the NAC essay, if someone challenges your closure, take it to just mean that the issues involved were more subtle than they seemed. Gigs (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I've read WP:NAC. All of my closures have been challenged, and all have been re-closed by Scott Mac. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
        • As a former adminstrator who used to close AFDs on a regular basis, I don't think it's the end of the world if an AFD was closed 2 hours early, it wouldn't make a difference other then some no consensus AFDs. Tofuwitch did right in closing them following the adminstrators. You guys are taking policy too far. Secret 21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Did anyone else notice that the original Kye Allums AfD was listed by Shadowjams on November 4th. He then relisted it earlier today, where it was closed by The Wordsmith as a procedural keep. Shadowjams then relisted it again a mere two hours later, which was nine minutes after The Wordsmith closed the previous one. This seems to be extremely pointy and I see it to be a major issue. Silverseren 23:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed. I did all of those nominations in roughly the same time period, before ever looking back here. Frankly I thought that both closures were wildly inappropriate and that relisting them as opposed to reopening them was the less disruptive and pointey option. I'm actually very surprised that my relistings have been met with this response; I understood the first closes as inappropriate closures. I understood, and still think it's correct, that DRV is for procedurally correct closes (uncontroversial non admin closures and proper closures).
  Because I didn't anticipate that this would be such an issue, I'll refrain from taking any more actions on those nominations. Ironically I think Tofutwitch11 and I both find ourselves in the position of having acted in good faith, perhaps too boldly. Shadowjams (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• DRV is of course for any dispute you have with the closure of an AfD, or else my reading comprehension is not what it used to be. Also you ought to be aware of the fact that guidelines here do in fact specifically allow non-admin closures, and I don't mean just that essay you keep referring to. See WP:NACD for instance. I fail to see any basis for your claim that the closures were "wildly inappropriate". Can you articulate a policy basis for this please?Griswaldo (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have anything further to say in this discussion. We have established what I did, and I now know. Thanks for your help, see ya'll round. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 01:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible solution?

My take on early closure: I see a number of good points, but some comments made by Tofutwitch11 hit home. As I see it:

• Some editors would like to participate in the community by closing AfDs (can we all agree this is a good thing)?
• Non-admins are permitted to close AfDs, but only non-controversial ones.
• The current seven day "rule" is treated as a guideline, rather than a hard-and-fast absolute rule

I think this leads to the following situation: a non-admin sees an AfD close to the closure time, reads the support and oppose, concludes that, while it is not unanimous, the consensus is clear, works out in their head or in writing a close statement, then, just before the seven days expires, someone else swoops in and does the close. Rinse, repeat, and the non-admin realizes that the AfD still open after seven days are controversial, so the only way to close an AfD is to jump the gun a bit, just like everyone else.

If I've summarized the problem, I see a relatively straightforward solution: At some time (to be determined) prior to the close time, an editor can "sign up" to do the close.

That's it, other than picking a sign up time, deciding how to signify that one wishes to close it, and a couple minor details.

The person who has volunteered to close it still waits the seven days, but no one else is permitted to do the close. There is no longer any need to jump the gun. (The details- if someone signs up, and then is unavailable at close time, we should specify some window of time, e.g. four hours, such that if the editor signing up doesn't do the close, anyone else can do it.--SPhilbrickT 14:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This might be a good solution, however it might also create even more drama, and I'm thinking precisely about the original concern brought here, which was not a timing issue but simply a "non-admin" issue. Say a non-admin "signs up" to do this, and someone doesn't want a non-admin close because they are worried that it is less authoritative (see the original thread posting by Cirt and responses by Scott Mac above). That editor sees the "sign up" and starts to lobby against the non-admin performing the procedure, either here or at the non-admin's talk page. Or any user not happy with the developing consensus starts to complain about the proposed non-admin closure, saying that they wont accept such a close and demanding an admin close. As much as I wish people would not get so upset over this issue, I think that the best solution may simply be to hold people to a stricter procedure. If an entry snows keep that's one thing, but if it is a normal AfD maybe we ought to ask everyone to keep to 7 days from now on. Patience is a virtue we are often sorely lacking around here. I do not think that Tofutwitch11 was wrong, because he was acting out of the convention he saw practiced by admins, but maybe we ought to seek a stricter convention of waiting for 7 days. That way non-admin's wont get into this pickle, and no one will complain about early closes of any kind.Griswaldo (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• What is it about Non-Admins closing AFD's that people are against? Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 19:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a fan. Seems like classic WP:CREEP. In addition I see a) confusion and argument arising from uncertainty over who can close what and when b) disagreement by AFD commentors/nominators if they see a non-admin "signing up to close" c) problems with people signing up and not coming back to close (or only being able to get back to close many hours after the AFD "ends"). It's a positive suggestion, for sure, but I don't see it as being practical to implement. Really, people need to be chastised if they treat NAC any differently to an AC; I think the best idea would be to discourage the note of "non admin closure" used by many, plus encouraging non-admin closers to stand by their decision and avoid undermining themselves (as I often see) with phrasing such as "NAC: admins feel free to re-nom or re-pen" etc. We should work towards a system where any editor of good standing can close any AFD debate without prejudice - apart from deletes, and only then because of a technical inability to implement the close outcome. --Errant 15:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

@Griswaldo - you correctly note the concern about non-admin closures, but I think my solution reduces the problem, as opposed to adding to it. Everyone is in agreement, I believe, that a non-admin closure of a controversial AfD is problematic. A non-admin closure an hour early, or an hour late is still a problem, so enforcing the seven day rule by itself does nothing to solve that problem. Of course, the problem is the non-objective metric of what constitutes a non-controversial AfD. If a non-admin see eight supports and two opposes, but thinks the opposes sound on the fence, they may conclude this is non-controversial. By "signing" up to do the closure, they provide some time for someone else to come along and say, hold on, two opposes is too many to count as non-controversial. Drama ensures if we allow this to turn into a mini-debate. Drama does not ensue if we simply state, a la prod, that any dissent (other than article editor) is compelling. If anyone says, "I don't see this as non-controversial" leave it to an admin. That reduces the drama of an non-admin making the close, and sending it to DR with both a non-admin close and an early close, neither of which speak to the merits of the close.--SPhilbrickT 15:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There isn't really a problem that isn't covered by Do not bite the newcomers. You don't need an admin bit to close a deletion discussion that doesn't require use of that bit, and any closure you make as a non-admin can be reverted without much fuss so it's not a hassle at all. As somebody above mentioned we should beware of instruction creep, and the instructions suggested above are ridiculous and pointless. In particular, further seeking to restrict the scope of action of Wikipedians is not a solution, it would only cause more problems of the kind we saw here where experienced editors interpreted an essay as if it were policy and ignored our long-established policy that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. Even now I see it being ignored. -TS 15:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we should not be allowing newcomers to non-admin-close AFDs. That being said, non-admin closures are made based on the presumption that the non-admin who closes said AFD is clueful enough to close them. Personally, I support the status quo and current practice (back in the day, about 2 or so years ago, WP:SNOW/WP:SK was decidedly looser in that you could close an AFD as keep at any time with 6 or more valid "keep" !votes without any other type of !vote in there), which if there is a clueful enough uninvolved non-admin out there to close an AFD, and the consensus for non-deletion is clear, then let the non-admin close it; if it may result in a deletion, then an admin should close it. –MuZemike 08:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Experts

User talk:Caesarjbsquitti has followed the Standard Offer, and is now requesting to be reinstated.

Relevent links:

• Caesarjbsquitti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ban discussion

I have no opinion on the matter, I am merely forwarding this here as the user has followed the Misplaced Pages:Standard offer and stayed away for six months; they have also voluntarily stated that, as a condition of their unblock, they will stay away from the problmatic area for an additional six months if they are reinstated. DIscuss away. --Jayron32 05:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock under the SO conditions. Basket of Puppies 06:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not think that staying away from the problematic "area" for 6 months will help. The problems, based on the ban discussion, were far wider. I do not see any understanding of how to work collegially on this project and I do not see any recognition of the behaviours that led to the ban, and I see no real recognition that any additional similar actions will be met with swift action. As EdJohnson said in the original ban discussion, "Pigs will fly and hot places will be covered with ice before this editor will step up and offer to get with the program". I cannot WP:AGF if there's no proof of a change (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I would have to agree with everything that Bwilkins has said. -DJSasso (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• I also oppose at this time. A "standard offer" should never be construed as a blanket offer based purely on waiting time. As long as there are no credible signs that the contributor has genuinely understood what the problems with their editing was, and that they have a clear idea about what they will be doing differently in the future, I see no basis for an unban. Simply avoiding a particular topic area won't work in this case, since the problematic editing seemed to be spread widely across many topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I can find little evidence that this individual has ever contributed much of anything to this project except unwanted drama and a colorful collection of examples of bias and prejudice across a startling array of topics. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• oppose - the community banned him. I don't support standard offer. The ban was indefinitely. The community had decided enough was enough.--Crossmr (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm still completely ambivalent about this one user, however indefinite has never meant infinite, under what conditions would you agree to unblocking an indefinitely blocked user, speaking in general terms? --Jayron32 05:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    • If the circumstances of their block somehow allowed for them to possibly demonstrate to us that whatever caused their community ban had be rectified. Community bans are not enacted lightly and if the community has had enough, they've had enough. They haven't had enough just for 6 months, they've had enough of enough to say "That's it, we're done". If the community wanted a 6 month block, they would have agreed on that. Unfortunately with most community indefinite block/bans there is rarely such an opportunity. There are thousands of editors here, and we just don't have the time to keep coming back to ones that waste our time every 6 months. People need to be done with a problem and move on. We don't need editors sitting around going..hmm.. this guy was really disruptive. I guess I always have to keep him on my mind and keep checking on things to make sure he doesn't get let back in one day because someone picked a favorable time/forum to have a discussion. Getting rid of a problem that's exhausted our patience only to have the user suddenly pop back up when you least expect them only to find some discussion went down that you had no idea about because you thought it was over and done with can drive users away from the project.--Crossmr (talk) 06:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Thats a consistant philosophy on this stuff. I tend to disagree, but I respect your position as well. --Jayron32 06:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: "I do not see any understanding of how to work collegially on this project and I do not see any recognition of the behaviours that led to the ban."quoting Bwilkins above Seems most of the opposes here are based on that general train of thought. My question is, if a user is banned from Misplaced Pages, how does one expect banned users to show they can make positive contributions here if they can't make any in the first place? N419BH 06:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Often, with the Standard Offer, its expected that the user shows positive behavior at another Wikimedia project, such as Wikinews, or perhaps the Simple English Misplaced Pages. If a user could demonstrate good behavior in that manner (since a block only applies at THIS project), it often goes a long way towards showing that they have rehabilitated. --Jayron32 07:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also prefer to see something a little better than "I have waited 6 months, please reinstate my access". I don't want grovelling, but acknowledgment of the issues, and how they will act differently ... that would help. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Thanks guys. I agree the pledge to simply ignore the problem is not going to get it done here. N419BH 00:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral - "Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community or to the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-l‐at‐lists.wikimedia.org)". This is an appeal to the community. I'd say maybe give him a little WP:ROPE and see what happens, but it doesn't look like that's the way consensus is going. If he hasn't been socking and is still determined to edit here, it says a lot. About what I have no idea ;> Doc talk 07:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose (blocking admin) I note that the user hasn't actually indicated xe's learned, just that xe won't talk about it. There's no promise not to repeat these actions elsewhere. Since the issue has been raised here, a good way for banned users to demonstrate worth is to work on another project for a while. Blood Red Sandman 15:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Indefinately blocked users that still wish to contribute to the project need to be able to show that they are able to do so in a way consistent with policy. There is no way they can do this while blocked. Periodically, they need to be unblocked to show whether they can abide by policy. Otherwise there is no incentive not to sock. User would need to be placed on some sort of probation where they realize that a single slip will result in another long-term block. -Atmoz (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional individuals wanted for challenging two-year assignment

You are:

Y an effective communicator with a sound grasp of policy;

Y able to see all aspects of a problem and find solutions;

Y courteous, disciplined and open-minded;

Y able to deal calmly with trolls, bigots and editors with issues;

Y able to make up your own mind under stress.

If you can answer "yes" to most of the above, you are probably arbitrator material. Learn more about standing in the upcoming election. But don't delay, nomination close very soon!

Tony (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC), for the election coordinators

• PS: YYou must also be able to prove your real name (with a copy of your passport) to "The Office" in case any litigation as a result of your actions arises.  Giacomo  17:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• The unstated requirement is that one must be an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Unstated because it is not a requirement. Non-admins elected will be given the sysop bit for practical reasons whilst on the committee. Rd232 15:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Had this discussion last time (I'll try to dig up a link), for all practical purposes candidates must be admins, but for some strange reason, people are loathe to make this official. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, the discussion I was thinking of was not about Arbs, but about CheckUsers & Oversighters, a different situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

1. eh, nuts to u, this message is clearly disruptive an u should be blocked!
2. problem iz u, obviously.
3. STFU
4. Yeah I whack u with my ban hammer, bitches.
5. BSOD.

Can I haz my arb hat now? No? Well, hopefully others will come forward. Really. Please. Rd232 16:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That was entirely random and unnecessary. --Conti|✉ 16:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

See humor and sarcasm for a further explanation. --Jayron32 16:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, guess I'm too stupid to find the funny in that one. :) Seriously though, can't we just for once take things seriously around here, or is that asking for too much? I have the feeling that "Must write condescending, sarcastic comment" is the standard reaction to posts on these noticeboards nowadays. --Conti|✉ 16:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Partly humour, partly livening up a dry but important request. Rd232 17:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• The purpose of providing identification is to verify age. All editors are responsible for their actions, regardless of whether or not they are identified. Risker (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted - ID is also required due to access to potentially personally identifying information (CU, etc). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

User with recent history of bad-faith edits and stalking

A while ago, User:Longevitydude stated that it was good advice to take the opposing side for any of my AfDs. It seems that this has been happening recently, and also note some inappropriate edit comments. It's fine that people can have differing opinions at AfD, but this is a clear case of a user intentionally voting the opposite of me, just because of who I am. (I explained to the user when it was suggested he would take this course of action, that I would report it, and here I am.) An example is this AfD, which has only one non-delete vote (the author of the page) and then the LongevityDude comment, who says the AfD is "in bad faith and makes no sense". Based on other votes of that page, clearly the LongevityDude comment is about spite of the nominator (me), not article content. — Timneu22 · talk 17:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That's misrepresentation. I pointed out that your outrageous violation of WP:AGF here: was likely to result in people being poorly inclined towards you in future disputes. This is an accurate statement of human nature, with which LongevityDude quite rightly concurred.

Note btw that I have no interest in the subject, but because of your poor decision to slander everyone who disagreed with you as socks, meatpuppets, etc., I now have an interest in pointing out the backstory here.

You got unnecessarily agitated at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Jan_Goossenaerts directly resulting in this situation. It was avoidable.

Now you are upset because this user has voted against you here: and here . The second edit does look rather bad faith, but perhaps you could have tried to engage the user first and come here after trying that angle.

A bit of basic civility in the first place would have meant this never would have happened. Was it really necessary?

Suggested conclusion: Longevitydude and Timneu22 kiss and make up, running to teacher is/was unnecessary.Sumbuddi (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sumbuddi, this is way off the mark: because of your poor decision to slander everyone who disagreed with you as socks, meatpuppets. My accusations were in regard to LongevityDude's behavior at an AfD, and his known WP:CANVASSING to sway the opinion there. (Other editors found the canvassing.) That you would accuse me of making these types of remarks often — or even ever — is incredibly inaccurate. My discussion here is simply about the editor's stalking/bad-faith edits; your comments here are so far are frankly irrelevant. — Timneu22 · talk 21:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You cited my comment, which LongevityDude concurred with, as the basis for making this post. Again, your behaviour at that AFD was out-of-line, which is the direct cause of this current drama. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The direct cause of this drama is a user making bad-faith/stalking edits. — Timneu22 · talk 00:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

He appears to have made two stalkerish edits, but they don't by themselves qualify as drama. The drama starts when you try and involve third parties in this petty squabble. And yes, Longevitydude did make the edits that provoked you into coming here, but he didn't do them randomly, he did them because your edits: tend to cause bad feeling. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

But are any of those inaccurate? Overall, I see is someone trying to bring down the heat to light ratio and discuss the issue, of which my views on it can be seen on the AfD page. Are you saying that mitigates Longevitydude's behavior? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that list a joke? Some of those are diffs that aren't even my edit. Trying to build a case out of nothing by showing multiple hyperlinks? — Timneu22 · talk 10:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

'Longevitydude's behavior' amounts to a couple of 'Keep' votes on Timneu22's AfDs. Rather than complaining here, there is a procedure to follow.

Discussing the issue is one thing, but jumping to accuse people of sockpuppeting, using foul language, political abuse, etc., is going to create enemies. I haven't followed Longevitydude too closely, but I understand he has his pet articles, which Timneu22 prefers to see deleted. That's already a situation of potential conflict, but to exarcerbate that with 'Sarah Palin is an idiot' posts, sockpuppeting accusations, abusive language, on an AfD about a 110 year-old just isn't constructive and certainly didn't improve to ratio of light to heat there. I understand Timenu22's motivation to win his arguments, to challenge his opponents, but the rage: isn't consistent with making effective contributions here. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is about bad faith edits by LongevityDude. Your insinuation about "creating enemies" is not relevant. The only reason we're here is because I noticed these edits. Otherwise, LongevityDude had already been forgotten. — Timneu22 · talk 10:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Template crashed on major articles (human, dinosaur, bird, etc.)

The automatic taxobox template has crashed on a number of major articles, Bird, Amphibian, Apatosaurus, leaving these articles with an ugly red-link to the failed template rather than to information. I added the taxobox back to amphibian and the big dinosaur, before I realized that a number of major articles may be missing taxoboxes. I don't know where else to post, but here, because the automatic taxobox discussion is everywhere, and every time I post anything there I get told my input is stupid (not really, but close enough) or I posted on the wrong automatic taxobox discussion page once again.

Can interested parties please temporarily, until the automatic taxobox is fixed, restore taxoboxes to major articles, or do something else, or post this in the appropriate place? I don't know how else to fix it, and it concerns me to have so many such high traffic articles messed up with this red-link and no taxobox.

--Kleopatra (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes

Template argument size: 2048000/2048000 bytes

In short, too many transcluded templates. T. Canens (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you (or I) revert the last few of his edits and undo this quickly, now? I've run through the list and added taxoboxes to, you know insect, human, reptile, bird, but there are many more high level articles, and there were even some featured articles hit by this. --Kleopatra (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of everyone looking at this, this is caused by a series of edits made by Smith609 (talk · contribs) today. What a god-awful mess. There is a reason why you should not be editing high-visibility templates until you are sure what you are doing is not going to break. And this is absolutely unacceptable. You can't just walk away after breaking every single transclusion of the template.

Most recent edits have been reverted; page should now look normal after a reload. T. Canens (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I tried to catch the major major articles as quickly as possible by just adding their most recent taxobox, and Erik caught a few, but I missed some biggies. I just checked Eudicots, one I missed, and it looks normal now. --Kleopatra (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. BTW, the best venue is probably WP:VPT. T. Canens (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Does that have more watchers? There were so many options of where to post, bots for technical help, community boards, notice boards. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

More technically-minded watchers than AN, I'd imagine. T. Canens (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

request for comment on an issue with a school project

Hi all, there is currently an ongoing SPI here: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lalora6 A short background is that a large number of newly registered users were making up to around 10 edits each on medical related articles. The vast majority of these edits were unconstructive. Many have now been blocked. It has turned out that the users involved had been asked to make the edits by their course teacher. The reason I am notifying you is there is no consensus on what to do about this situation. The teacher wants his students to be allowed to continue with the assignment, however several users are concerned that this will just lead to further poorly formatted and unconstructive edits. I therefore request interested users to comment at the SPI page. Best regards Jdrewitt (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the whole project appears to have been done in good faith. The awkward edits showing incorrect sourcing and lack of language skills were unacceptable, but well-meant. For diffs of the edits, see all the contribs of all the now-blocked accounts listed in the SPI. --Hordaland (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes sorry, I should have made it clear, the assignment is in good faith, but has required considerable effort by established users to fix the students contributions, ultimately leading to the blocks. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I posted at talk:WikiProject_Medicine a list of new editors adding poor quality content to mental health articles. Over the next few days, the list grew and none responded to comments on their talk pages, reversion edit summaries or article talk pages. On the 10th November, Looie496, blocked all but one and opened an SPI. The editors all seemed to based at Dublin City University, so after a week I rang and spoke to the teacher who had set Misplaced Pages editing as one of several options for course work.

I have pointed him to a mini how-to-edit-health-related-content tutorial, and have offered to vet their edits before the students post. Whether that's a good solution to this situation will depend in part on my ability to recognise appropriate medical content. I'm confident I can but I wouldn't mind hearing a second opinion from someone who's seen me edit.

I should add, I read most of the students' contributions, and all were good-faith attempts to improve the, encyclopedia, many were constructive, but almost all failed to cite properly - so couldn't be verified - and the expression was unclear in many cases.

Anthony (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would also be a good idea to apply WP:PENDING to a reasonable number of the articles of interest. Could the students agree to edit only a given set of articles for this assignment? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think applying pending changes would be a very good start, bearing in mind the students are usually always new users. Anthony has offered to vet the students edits before they post, I trust that his judgement would be sound but I'm not sure how the students will go about checking with him first. Bearing in mind most of the users seem unaquainted with how wikipedia works and the vast majority completely ignore their talk page messages. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Since we have established that this was done in good faith I'm curious as to why the accounts are all still blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lalora6. The edits were made in good faith but nevertheless were generally poorly formatted and lacked suitable citations, all had to be reverted. When other established users pointed out the students "mistakes" the students completely ignored their talk page messages and continued to edit in an unconstructive manner despite being warned. The investigation has confirmed that the students were instructed to make the edits by their course tutor and hence the accounts remain blocked until a suitable solution as to how to allow this project to continue is agreed. Clearly we would all like the accounts to be unblocked ASAP but personally I think we should implement pending changes and template:invitation to edit beforehand. I have requested from the tutor a list of articles/subjects his students will be editing which will allow us to implement a system to review the students revisions.Jdrewitt (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I note that the tutor agrees that the blocks were necessary but has requested the accounts be unblocked on monday (tomorrow). Jdrewitt (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, there doesn't seem to be a consensus that tomorrow is ok. I'm happy to unblock, but I'd like a consensus about when. Dougweller (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have compiled a list here of all the articles edited by the blocked users. As a bare minimum I think these articles should be subject to the recent changes protocol. Most of these articles were edited multiple times by multiple users, however there are some unique cases. I have asked the course tutor (via his talk page and in the SPI page) for a complete list of the articles his students will be editing but have not yet received a reply. I also think that for this project to be successful the tutor should really set up a project on Misplaced Pages:School and university projects. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Addressing your point that you're not sure the students will check with me before inserting their edits, I too can't be sure, but I'm pretty sure if their teacher tells them to take their edits to me, rather than insert them in an article, they'll take them to me. I think it's a high enough likelihood to justify unblocking, without deploying pending changes. 13:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Anthony (talk)

Pending changes will help take the work load off you though. But I agree with unblocking for tomorrow as requested by the teacher and see how it goes.Jdrewitt (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at MfD

Could someone have a look at WP:MFD, particularly old business? There's almost a month-long backlog now. --NYKevin @935, i.e. 21:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

{{PD-USGov-DOE}} Laboratory image use

A discussion has shown that Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory images aren't PD. There are roughly 90 images incorrectly licensed under {{PD-USGov-DOE}} or similar licenses. In addition, other images from non-free labratories listed at Template_talk:PD-USGov-DOE also have quite a few images uploaded under the wrong license. Sandia for example has at least 100. There are about a dozen laboratories listed...their licensing would need to be checked. In all, there may more than a thousand images(though I haven't checked them all). These images should either be deleted, a large OTRS ticket file, the template modified, or quite a few non-free image use rationales created.

Any thoughts as to how this should be handled?Smallman12q (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

First, make a list. Then, go through and find those that fall under the NFCC. Then, contact the labs to see what they think about granting permission. Lastly, do one mass FfD/PUF for the rest. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

UAA

Just informing you of a UAA backlog that needs to be cleaned. Thanks. It's... MR BERTY! /_stalk 07:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Botmaster help wanted

My AWB-fu is weak and I don't have a bot so I'm asking for some help please. Jessica Liao has been disruptive for a very long time, looking at it from outside it seems to me that part (only, but part) of the problem is that she signed up using what is probably her real name. Nihonjoe has renamed User:Jessica Liao to Random account 39949472 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at my request per WP:DENY and WP:NOTEVIL. I now need a quick bot or AWB run to retag the socks and suspected socks to user:Random account 39949472. Any assistance gratefully received. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 12:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What about Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao? Rd232 13:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done by JgZ. Anything else? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

My only question would be: the old username redirects to the new one, and there are plenty of inbound links to the old one from talk pages etc. I don't know how far we should go with the renaming. (I mean if we were really keen, we could redact the move log entries with RevDel, possibly.) Rd232 13:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The main issue here is Streisand effect - betweeb this discussion, and the fact that it's not always a good idea to hide several revisions of a page because of a single account. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Uw-3block

There's a discussion at WT:UTM#Merge uw-block templates for edit warring and 3RR on whether to redirect Template:Uw-3block to Template:Uw-ewblock. Posting here because the templates are used by admins but don't have many watchers. Further input would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards