Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:59, 11 December 2011

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 14 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for closure review

(Initiated 11 days ago on 16 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Barkeep49. —Compassionate727  23:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 12 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 81 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 72 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Actually  Doing... now. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 60 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

(Initiated 44 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 44 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 42 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 41 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 37 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 35 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Deletion discussions

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

(Initiated 59 days ago on 30 October 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  15:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 59 days ago on 30 October 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 55 days ago on 2 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  16:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 55 days ago on 2 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  16:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 43 days ago on 14 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  16:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 43 days ago on 14 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  16:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 38 days ago on 19 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 30 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 25 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 22 days ago on 5 December 2024) If there is consensus to do one of the history splitting operations but the closer needs help implementing it I would be willing to oblige. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 18 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 18 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  17:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 94 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 72 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla Cybercab#Proposed merge of Tesla Network into Tesla Cybercab

(Initiated 70 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 60 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 52 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 49 days ago on 8 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  19:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 30 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 30 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done BusterD (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

ClueBot NG appears to be down

The anti-vandalism bot, ClueBot NG, currently appears to be down. The bot has not edited in almost 24 hours. As the bot has several maintainers, I assumed this would be the best place to post the notification. If I am incorrect, I apologize. Best, Alpha_Quadrant 04:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alpha, thanks for reporting this. I've had a look at ClueBot's run page and that seems to be looking ok to me. I've emailed Cobi to make him aware of the issue--5 albert square (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just saw that someone has asked about this on Damien's talk page, apparently it was originally down to maintenance work but now the server seems to be offline? Like I've mentioned above, I've emailed Cobi, hopefully he'll be able to give an ETA of when CBNG should be back.--5 albert square (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, a response from Damian, this is apparently a server issue which we're waiting on Rich to take a look at. There's currently no ETA of when this will be fixed, so until it is, I've put a notice on CBNG's talk page saying the bot is down.--5 albert square (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any further information. ClueBot has now been down for about 90 hours. Andrew Kurish (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I don't think there's any further information yet, there wasn't an ETA when I put together the notice for ClueBot NG's talk page. Hopefully it won't be too long :)--5 albert square (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, I apologise for CBNG's downtime, this is due to me not being able to pay for the server and hence it being suspended by the host. I can assure you that the server will be back alive on the 9th of December which is when I get paid next. Sorry again for the confusion - Rich(MTCD) 23:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rich, thanks for the explanation. I saw Tedders suggestion on your talk page, do you know if that would be possible?--5 albert square (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

How much does hosting cost? I may be able to help, if you want. bobrayner (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(Reset Indent)This may not sound smart but why can't you just get a toolserver account? --Kangaroopowah 02:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Its actually a valid thought, however the toolserver has restrictions on how much resources any one user is allowed to consume. Given what Cluebot does it probably uses too much resources. ΔT 00:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• The bot may be able to run on Wikimedia Labs at some point. Sven has asked below and I've added a note on the projects's talk page. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 04:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Update - The server will now be back on the 8th, however we will be moving it over to a Wikimedia Labs instance ASAP. - Rich(MTCD) 23:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to contact Rich on Skype and IRC without luck for the past two days after he suggested I might be able to help pay for it. ClueBot NG contributions indicates it is still down, so I asked on #wikimedia-labs for an update, and petan said the VM instance is created and Rich tried to start it without success. Nobody has heard from him since yesterday when he said he was busy (he's a student and works too.) I commented out the {{resolved}} header above for the time being; please check contribs before replacing it. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Update 2 - Okay, OVH have made me rage! They decided in their wisdom to fully terminate the server... so I've lost EVERYTHING(!). Me and Damian can get it back, albeit not fully taught... but it may take a couple of days. I am extremely sorry that this has happened and hopefully we can get it back up ASAP. When it is back up, we are going to need more and more community members to assist looking though the false postives so the database can be re-filled, anyone wishing to help can send me an e-mail or a talk page message and I will get you set up. Many thanks for your continued patience. - Rich(MTCD) 19:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Per Skype, the installation problem has been resolved on WMF Labs and ClueBot is compiling there presently. This thing apparently uses an artificial neural network (ANN) simulation to judge false positives. Anyway, a lot of help is going to be needed to review logs to get it working well again because the ANN database, which is usually stored in RAM apparently, was lost when the OVH ISP terminated the account. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

For clarity are you refering to the review interface? Crazynas 22:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The review interface just feeds back to the (currently missing) report interface which was databased in the same location as ClueBot itself. That's what the IP was referring too - Rich(MTCD) 00:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick question about "email this user"

Sorry, I never get into trouble so I don't know this stuff :) If I click on "email this user" and send them an email, and they later claim that I said something completely different from what I said, does anyone on-wiki have a way to check it? If not, what method do you guys prefer if you're trying to keep something private because you don't want to be publicly pointing a finger at someone, but you want to protect yourself in case they claim you said something different? - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're emailing a mailing list there is no record of the email sent, and no way to verify if someone lies about its content. The best you can do is select the "E-mail me a copy of my message" option on the email user form--Jac16888 21:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Being slightly pedantic: that is not entirely true. I ask a CU to comment below.  Chzz  ►  22:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, checkuser can verify an email was sent but there is still no way to see the content of the email. –xeno 22:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, thanks, Xeno, that was my pedantic point.  Chzz  ►  03:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that in case of an absolute emergency, the Devs could see the contents of the email. Was this an incorrect impression? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the correct impression. Sysadmins can view the contents of an email. -FASTILY 06:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Where do you have this information from? I don't know that any emails are being logged, not see it in mail config. Petrb (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's not true, it may be logged but I just don't think that Petrb (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a quick look at my own little MediaWiki installation, and did a text search in a database dump, and I don't seem to see stored sent mails anywhere in that, but maybe I missed it. More likely any "logging" is somewhere else (in the mail subsystem used by WP servers, for instance... developers could access that, and the mail subsystem could be configured to log outgoing mail). Alternatively, if it is correct, perhaps it's a particular configuration of the MediaWiki version for WMF sites (or just WP). Begoon  03:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

When a user sends an email via Special:EmailUser from this (English Misplaced Pages) wiki, currently: The MediaWiki system records the username (if registered), the IP address of the sender, the date/time that the email was sent, the sender's User agent, and an encoded version of the user-name and address of the user it was sent to. That information is only available to people with checkuser access (ie, checkusers, and Wikimedia/Jimbo, etc). The actual content of the email is not recorded by the currently deployed software - although, in theory, the server operators could store any and all information they see fit to (e.g. the content could be cached somewhere). Meta:Privacy policy applies in all cases.  Chzz  ►  04:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(Deep breath.) If you wanted to you could mail a public key signed message, or merely a suitably checksummed message, and post the sig/checksum of the message on wiki, notifying your victim correspondent on their talk page. If they then wish to claim much later that you said something else they would have to produce a signed message by you with the required sig/checksum. You, conversely would be able to prove that you had sent the message you claimed (if any message). The only thing they could then say was that they received no message or didn't check the sig/checksum. Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

Send a copy at the same time to a trusted person, crat., steward or whatever. Leaky Caldron 20:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Good news: User:CorenSearchBot is back

I don't know if this has been mentioned in any well-read fora, but User:CorenSearchBot is back for now. A few extra eyes on Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations would be very much appreciated. MER-C 08:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Huzzah! We just need ClueBot NG back and we can go back to letting the robots run everything. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 18:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as they don't like beer (Did the Good News heading make anyone else think of a certain professor?) Crazynas 09:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It is better to combat and fight vandalism. Its back when it was shut down on July 2011. --Katarighe (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Logging history merges

• It may be useful if the admins could be circulated asking them to log in Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen all history merges done and all rejected history merges. That would stop it from looking like I am getting all the work of the history merging. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

  Is that the only benefit? Jafeluv (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Actually WP:SPI does quite a few history merges on it's own, and I would think that the deletion log would be good enough to log them for me instead of having to log one ever time I do one. If we compiled a list for SPI, well, let's just say it would be one hell of a long list. Cases can be merged easily on a day to day basis and to ask admins to go over and log it when it's already in the deletion log...I think that's a little excessive. -- DQ (t) (e) 13:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• When did history merges become a part of the sockpuppet investigation process? Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• The usual practice is to history merge some of the cases if they relate to the same person but are filed in different places. For example, a case about X was filed at WP:SPI/X and archived to WP:SPI/X/Archive. Then a case is filed about Y at WP:SPI/Y and it turns out that Y == X. Whenever practical (since Y is usually a fresh case, this is very often) we move SPI/Y to SPI/X and merge their histories (instead of merely copying the text over) so that everything archived at SPI/X/Archive can be found in the history of SPI/X rather than scattered around different places. No, we don't do history merges outside SPI case pages. T. Canens (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• • I don't really see the point of logging history merges, either. I always thought of WP:SPLICE as a noticeboard rather than a log. Is there any particular reason we need to keep track of them? T. Canens (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• We keep old AfD discussions, and the Misplaced Pages software automatically logs all the page deletions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  AfDs are, as you said, discussions. They can become quite long and complicated, which is why the log entry alone is usually not enough to understand the complete reasoning behind the deletion. That's not the case here. Again, I'd like to know what benefit there would be for logging every history merge on that page. Jafeluv (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Improving AFD debates

I have been concerned for some time that the quality of AFD discussions hasn't kept pace with a clearer enforcement of our inclusion standards and this leads to a lot of unnecessary relists and will result, as participation continues to decline, in the process becoming even more arbitrary and confusing. That's if AFD doesn't end up breaking from a lack of policy based contributions. My view is that we need to improve understanding of what is or is not a policy based vote to improve the quality of debate. This will result in fewer relists, more consistent outcomes and allow the process to continue to work in the future. I'm proposing that AFD regulars who close and relist discussions explain which votes they counted and why and offer direction when they relist to make what's needed clearer. I started (yeah, its awful and needs lots of work) an essay to explain the process as above and would welcome any comments or feedback that anyone has on this. Since I'm going to spam this round the houses WT:AFD or the talk of the essay seem like good locations to hold the discussion. Spartaz 18:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we should include a list of inclusion guidelines on WP:AFD in table format and give a general overview of what each one covers and how they are generally interpreted. Then we could also have a list of inclusion essays that are often used. As an AFD admin, I will say that I give a lot of weight to WP:GNG. I also tend to give less weight to AFD regulars that use what appear to be copy/paste rationales on both the keep and delete sides. There are a few users I'll give more weight to if I feel they are voting against what they generally lean. For example, if I see DGG, MichaelQSchmidt, or Warden !vote to delete then I'm more inclined to pay close attention to what they say and will generally give their opinion a little more weight. On the same side, if Stauratyates (sp?) and some others !vote to keep then I will pay closer attention to their rationale. That's how I do it.--v/r - TP 19:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

and letting people see which votes count and which were a waste of bytes will obviously spur them to making more focused contributions the next time they step into an AFD. I do think its probably to discuss in general rather then name names though. For the sake of Harmony if nothing else. Spartaz 19:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen WP:ATA? That has existed for, oh, years, and hasn't improved much. Essays sure are fun, but are you positive yet another one will help? --Jayron32 19:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No of course another essay isn't going to make any difference unless we can persuade admins to give a clearer steer on what's a valid argument and what's a discard and providing guidance on relists. That's going to be what makes the difference because AFD participants will be able to understand better what sways a discussion and what is just noise and respond accordingly next time they vote. The essay is a vehicle to persuade AFD closing admins to take this on board and get some discussion going. Spartaz 19:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that the Arguments to Avoid essay gives general examples and best practices, but does not impact the actual content of debates in any direct way, whereas the idea behind IAFD is that admins should commit to providing feedback in the debate itself. And that's not a bad idea at all. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 21:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I see the same problems. There have been too many AfDs lately where all the comments after (& often including) the nom were for clearly unacceptable reasons. In practice, like Spartaz, I find myself in closing relying upon people I know to be sensible, rather the consensus of whoever might appear. However, trying to summarize the extremely complicated guidelines to a few words will leave out all the qualifiers and e3exceptions; the debate at an AfD is usually not about the basic rules, but over the interpretation or interpretative nuance of one of the rules. The solution is wider participation--if everyone looking here would just comment on 2 or 3 AfDs in the daily list it would help. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't always comment at AFD, but my personal rule is that I comment on two other AFDs for every article I nominate myself; that way I can assure that my nomination doesn't make any more work for anyone else. Perhaps if we made the instructions clearer to encourage anyone nominating an article for deletion to comment on a few. I know over at WP:DYK they made it standard for anyone nominating an article at DYK had to review/comment on another nomination, and it has helped reduce the workload considerably. I know that AFD is very different, but if we had a friendly reminder in a few places letting people know that it would be a good idea, when nominating, to also comment on someone elses nomination, it may drastically increase the participation. --Jayron32 04:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea but we have to face reality, participation in all of our deletion discussions is going down and that trend will continue. CFD and FFD already have very low participation rates that is affecting their credibility and I have seen numerous comments at DRV that regulars consider CFD so broken its not worth commenting on closes there. AFD is going to struggle in the future if we don't do anything about educating regular participants to make the best possible quality contributions. Am I misinterpreting the commentary here, but isn't it a bit ironic that a project designed around education isn't enthusiastic about a low overhead proposal to educate our own editors on how to best contribute to a key area that is extremely complicated and bedeviled by poor quality contributions? Spartaz 05:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I generally don't go to CFD, TFD, MFD simply because I don't think of them very much. FFD is different — they seem to delete everything that doesn't get an objection, so even if I go there, I don't make any comments on deletion nominations with which I agree, unless someone else has already voted to keep. Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll Be Home for Christmas

Can someone please undelete all revisions of I'll Be Home for Christmas and histmerge them back into the article? The article was around for over 5 years, so I refuse to see how the whole thing was speedied as a copyvio. Not all of it could've been a copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer • 04:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you asked Fastily about it? --Jayron32 04:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Over 80% of the article was plagiarized from this source, without acknowledgement. That said, I think the Library of Congress is public domain, so revisions could possibly be undeleted as such. Is it? CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was still plagiarized. Essentially, if you want to see the deleted article, look no further. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The legal/copyright notices/disclaimers for the library don't appear to mention the copyright status of content they appear to have created themselves: , . -FASTILY 04:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Federal agencies place everything they do in the public domain --Guerillero | My Talk 04:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an extremely dangerous and false urban legend. causa sui (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's actually quite true, if a little oversimplified. Constitutionally, work of the U.S. federal government itself is in the public domain by virtue of not being eligible for Copyright protection in the first place.

That said, this doesn't apply to work by subcontractors, and agencies that aren't strictly part of the federal government, and it's rarely clear when those cases apply or not. — Coren  01:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

To the second half, you're exactly right. The "it's a government thing, so it's PD!" story is a useful "rule of thumb" but when it comes to stuff like this, you don't want to get it right only 98% of the time. I know I'm picking nits but, I feel like we have to. On copyright we have to be right 100% of the time. causa sui (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Just checking, how do we know that they didn't use some of the Wiki article to write theirs? I don't see a date or attribution on theirs.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There are a few federal entities that are technically non-US government, like the Smithsonian Institution and the Postal Service, and they happily copyright things. However, the Library of Congress seems to be an agency of Congress; check images such as File:US-LibraryOfCongress-AltLogo.svg and File:US-LibraryOfCongress-Seal.svg, which are marked as PD-USGov-Congress. Seems to me that the only relevant problem with the deleted text is that it didn't cite its source: it was plagiarism but not a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In light of the above, and because I'm pretty sure the LoC is PD, I've reinstated the old revisions. I would advise however against reverting to the any of the old versions of the article, as they are mostly not verifiable or neutral statements (e.g. "it touched a tender place", etc). Just not encyclopedic... but not copyright violations either. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Since LOC is PD, is it fair game to copy text from the linked page above into the article? This is an important song, and lots of that detail is great, but budiling it up from scratch again is going to suck. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Surely. We'll have to work on the tone somewhat, but we can always solve verifiability issues by prefacing statements with something such as "According to the Library of Congress,..." Nyttend (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, copying text straight from another page to build up an article is not a good thing -- we should always try to put information in our own concepts, not plagiarize someone else's. (Anyone want to take a swing at fixing Ron Nelson, come to think of it?) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that plagiarism is uncool, but this can be dealt with appropriately {{PD-notice}}. Not technically necessary, but more ethical. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 20:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't we have tons of examples of "plagarism" of articles copied from PD encyclopedias etc? In any case, I will try to paraphrase where possible, but initial revisions may be copied. I will be sure to use the "includes text from " templates. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have now updated the article with information from the link above, as well as a few other sources I have found. I have attempted to modify and paraphrase sufficiently, but others may want to weigh in to see if further modification is needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If Sarek's point were correct, we wouldn't have templates such as {{DANFS}}. Since 2001, it's been accepted practice to copy from PD sources with attribution. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright and COI issue

After I deleted Jerusalem Prayer Team as a copyvio, Rjmains asked me for help with the copyright issue, and the source webpage now bears an unambiguous CC/GFDL release statement that's valid under our copyright policy. If I remember rightly, there's a bit of a COI issue involved here, which complicates the issue. I'm in the middle of preparation for finals week in grad school, so I can't spare the mental energy to give this situation the attention it deserves; could someone please help Rjmains? You'd do well to read his talk page and the deleted article before advising him or doing anything else. Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Mike Evans (journalist) was also deleted as a copyvio, but I'd guess (from what I remember of the situation) that the copyright issue is now resolved for it as well. Nyttend (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OK I have restored these 2 as a WP:REFUND request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Closers wanted for WP:V RfC

Hi. The RfC regarding the lead section of WP:V ended a little over a month ago. There was an agreement that it would be closed by User:Newyorkbrad, User:Black Kite and User:HJ Mitchell. However, this has not happened because of the low availability of two of those.

Would anyone be interested in joining the process so that it can get back on track?

There is an existing understanding that closers should be three in number, be admins in good standing, not have participated in discussions leading up to this point and not have commented elsewhere in such a way that their impartiality might be questioned.

It's a responsibility to be taken seriously. A minor change is at stake, but it is one about which there are strongly-held views. It's also the RfC with the highest ever level of participation on Misplaced Pages. So there is a lot to read and it will probably not be an open and shut case.

Any takers? If so, please put yourself forward by making your mark below. --FormerIP (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Tempted. Am I wrong, or is that RFC archived twice on that page? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that will make it twice as much work. --FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Could be persuaded. Depends how urgent it is, as there's a lot to read and I'm busy this weekend. Worm · (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is urgent is the sense that a decision is needed by 10 am. But I think editors want to know that it is moving in a forward direction. --FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to step in if the two above me cannot or someone below me has more enthusiasm.--v/r - TP 16:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I could do it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe SlimVirgin could work with you. Leaky Caldron 16:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll have plenty of time starting Monday and am willing to wade through the stuff. --regentspark (comment) 16:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. I don't have the time to do it justice before Monday anyway so that suits me. If Worm will join us, we'll have the requisite three admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

From my limited knowledge of the three of you, that should be good. But can I suggest making yourselves known on the WP:V talkpage first? There has been a little concern there about the risk of a runaway train of biased and incompetent admins. Yes, its a tautological concept. --FormerIP (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• just checking but are the victims... er I mean volunteers familar with the term hospital pass?? Spartaz 17:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If no one has mentioned it at the RfC by tomorrow, I'll mention it then. Lots of reading to do... yay! Worm · (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

We are playing rugby now? :P --Guerillero | My Talk 18:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Government: "A government can also be agreed to in order to close very contentious RFCs. A notable example of this was the 2011 closure of the RFC on the "not truth" issue in the Verifiability policy text. While in principle any univolved Admin is free to close a RFC, in this case it was decided that a group of 3 editors should have the exclusive right to do this. While no other Admin was formally prohibited from ignoring that decision and close that RFC him/herself, in practice any such closure would have been swiftly reverted." Count Iblis (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That proposal was pretty clearly rejected, Count Iblis -- taking the Rejected tag off is not a good idea. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten it to reflect current practice. Count Iblis (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It is my understanding that the permission class of a user that the Misplaced Pages community trusts to specifically judge consensus already exists. If we're going to limit this close to a certain class of editor based on permissions held why not entrust it to the people we already trust to make difficult decisions regarding consensus(send it to 'crat chat)?Crazynas 20:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In no way is the above meant to disparage or attack the neutrality or objectiveness or ability to judge consensus of any of the administrators that have volunteered, more of a procedural question. Crazynas 20:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding is correct, actually, Crazynas. Admins/bureaucrats don't have the exclusive privilege of closing RfCs. --FormerIP (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No I do understand that, which is why my second sentence was conditional. This is a question for this particular closure (and others of this nature) why we're limiting the close to a subset of editors that are not selected primarily for their ability to judge consensus when there already exists a usergroup that is scrutinized on their neutrality and ability to gauge consensus. (in other words, allow any editor in good standing to assist the close, or limit it to the well defined group of users that are promoted based on this specific type of trust to judge consensus). Crazynas 21:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. Yes, actually, that makes sense, except bureaucrats do not present a very large pool. I think, in this particular case it is just a case of consensus, for better or worse, between involved editors that they wanted admins. --FormerIP (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and finish what I started on my userpage. I hope you all find it helpful in reaching a conclusion on the RfC. Cla68 (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Folks, we have what is one of the largest RFC's ever, and its about a month after comments were closed it looks like we don't even have the closers picked. May I suggest that we create the short list of potential folks here, vett them not only for having no relevant issues, but also for anything that someone could successfully pretend is a relevant issue. And if that doesn't get it down to three, flip a coin and pick three and then roll. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In my naiveness, I'm listing the above volunteers and the original three, so other folks can starting paring or adding to the list, please consider this to be editable (not like a part of my post). North8000 (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• HJMitchell
• Black Kite
• NewYorkBrad
• Ultraexactzz
• Worm
• Regentspark
• SarekOfVulcan
• Cla68

I interpret the above discussion to mean that the "new team" of closers consists of HJ Mitchell, RegentsPark and Worm That Turned. Isn't that correct? Neutron (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

All three indicated that they would be willing... I would just like them to confirm that they are actually taking this on. Blueboar (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That was my understanding, but I also said that I won't be up to it until Monday. I'll probably spend a good chunk of monday afternoon on it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that people are in a super hurry, they just want to know that it is heading forward, which, right now means hearing a clear statement something like: "HJ Mitchell, RegentsPark and Worm That Turned are the trio that is or will soon be working on closing this" Can somebody say that? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Or to be more specific, can ALL of THEM say that? Neutron (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly reading through. I hereby commit to the trio of closers. Worm · (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've scanned the discussion but won't be able to read it carefully till Monday. Since a Monday-Tuesday timetable seems acceptable, I too hereby commit to the trio of closers. --regentspark (comment) 12:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Closure of image compromise at Muhammad

I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could try and close the image compromise discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images. The exact section link is Talk:Muhammad/images#Proposed_image_solution, although there is other further discussion elsewhere on the talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'd certainly hope no one claims that wall of text is a closable discussion. Hold an RfC or something, but that's just an argument that is difficult to parse and too long to follow. Voting is evil, but unorganized walls of text are worse. There is just no way outsiders to that discussion could possibly follow or comment intelligently on it without spending at least 30 minutes. It currently stands (if I counted correctly) at more than 31,000 words. That's a third of a novel. At most I'd hope it would be closed as "hold an RfC". Disclaimer/comment: I personally believe a handful of editors are creating these walls more-or-less on purpose in an attempt to get their way on censorship related issues. WP:NOT's talk page being a good example, with the pregnancy image debate being another one (but it at least was readable). Hobit (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree. Frankly, the discussion got trainwrecked by a couple editors (one on each side), and movement forward is unlikely as a result. An RfC would be pointless for the same reason. Resolute 00:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • • I don't have the time to read it all just now, and probably wouldn't if I did. You're talking about Ludwigs and whom? If you think they're an impediment to reaching a stable article, would you support an article ban for both? I find it impossible to discuss the topic with every thread being derailed into a battle of the egos. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
        • And Tarc. But remove the former, and you remove the latter as well. Ludwigs goes somewhere, repeats the same arguments he made 100 times already, and Tarc replies with the same rebuttal he made 100 times already. Ludwigs moves to the next forum, rinse, repeat. And voila, 500kb of "discussion". Resolute 06:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
          • My problem is not with Ludwigs' position - that it's a net negative for the encyclopedia to be gratuitously offending our readers - with which I agree, but with his style of argument, seemingly more intent on impressing posterity or silent watchers with his considerable eloquence and logical prowess than engaging and convincing his interlocutor. I thought you Erasorhead, Jayen, Mathsci and the others (excluding Alan, IP and Tarc) were working towards something there but once Ludwigs returned from his month away, the delicate and elegant resolution you'd proposed just got shoved aside while the various gladiators preened and posed. I don't think I've ever called for an article ban before but I'm seriously tempted here. I'll let Ludwigs know about this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I was hopeful that someone might try and close it, but fair enough. I thought it was a better option than escalation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Punishment of exposing someone's identity

I recognized an old user who used to edit under a different username last year, but ended it and started a new one. I went to his new user-page and called him with his old user ID (essentially exposing his old "user" identity). I wonder if I qualify for any sort punishment.69.232.73.16 (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are genuinely concerned that you've outed someone's identity, pointing out that you've outed someone's identity on this noticeboard is going to further compound rather than resolve the problem. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, genuinely revealed the old username of a current user and my IP has been blocked by an administrator for one month(saying that he knows the user corresponding to this IP). I am asking here if that is a fair punishment.--69.232.73.16 (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is. And evading that valid block by editing with a new IP address isn't good either. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Even though the rule says, an IP must not be blocked for more than a few hours?

"Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours," --69.232.73.16 (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC) By the way, I did not expose his name/address or anything; just his old user ID. Does that also violate the policy?69.232.73.16 (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"Should not" ≠ "must not". I'm not sure whether you're genuinely concerned or just trolling us; if the former, you should contact WP:OVERSIGHT, and if the latter, you should stop before an admin less charitable than I blocks you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That's kinda what I hinted at above ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Some IP's are blocked for months or years, just not "indefinite", unless maybe they're open proxies. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Selective deletion request (again)

The usual. Want to unclutter the page history.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 02:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed watchlist notice

I've made a proposal that a watchlist notice be added to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. Input on this matter would be appreciated. -FASTILY 08:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 Formula One season

Some more admin eyes would be appreciated at 2012 Formula One season, where the article is experiencing the usual addition of speculation, rumours, etc. I've left a clear notice on the talk page that further edit warring etc won't be tolerated. I hope it won't be necessary, but it may be that the article will need to be locked and the banhammer given some exercise. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom election reminder: voting closes soon

All editors are reminded that voting closes for ACE2011 in just over a day's time (Saturday 10 December at 23:59 UTC). To avoid last-minute technical logjams, editors are asked to vote at least an hour before the close, that is, by:

• Saturday 15:00 (3 pm) on the west coast of North America;
• Saturday 18:00 (6 pm) on the east coast of North America;
• Saturday 23:00 (11 pm) in the UK and Ireland;
• Sunday 01:00 (1 am) in South Africa;
• Sunday 06:00 (7 am) on the west coast of Australia; and
• Sunday 10:00 (10 am) on the east coast of Australia; and
• Sunday 12:00 (12 noon) in New Zealand.

For the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

AWB backlog

Hi, can an admin please address the small backlog and requests at Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish  22:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done a couple, but there are a few more; I'd prefer a more experienced admin handle them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Salting

I have been seeing a lot of MediaWiki talk:Customusertemplate-ACP2(something else) type pages being created example: MediaWiki talk:Customusertemplate-ACP2-Be a part of Misplaced Pages (Technology, Copyediting) which has been deleted 3 time now. Is there some way that we can forbid creation of any page with that prefix unless a user is autoconfirmed? ΔT 01:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It can be done by using the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Maybe you could request that on the talk page. →Στc. 02:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my bad.

There was an RM to fix the 4-Acetoxy-DiPT article (which had incorrect spelling, -DIPT at the end). In the discussion it was said that it couldn't be moved because just changing the capitalization was invalid... anyhoo, I figured I could move it to an interim page, then just move it back with the correct spelling. I didn't realize that the redirect page would block the move back, so now it's stuck at a wayyyy wrong title that I intended to only be for 2 seconds while I moved it back. Oh man. Can someone move this back for me? 4-Acetoxy-DiPT 0101 -> 4-Acetoxy-DiPT. :( -Kai445 (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's fixed. Thank you :). -Kai445 (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The usual...

Selective deletion please.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There's more to do now.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo's straw poll on SOPA

Please help me publicize this widely. I'm interested in getting a feeling from the broad community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

How about watchlist banners? →Στc. 07:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep

Would an admin close Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep? The discussion has been open 10 days.

I ask that the closer not be an arbitrator or arbitrator candidate as NWA.Rep (talk · contribs) is an arbitrator candidate.

I further ask that the closer not be a writer of an arbitrator voter guide because the user has said: "the lynch mob (namely the arbcom voters guide writers) wants me out of this project and are disgracefully trying to sneak this Mfd through when all the people who support it are the 'arbcom voter guide' writers". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If that guy manages to get elected to the ArbCom, it should be a cinch for me the next time I run for admin. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog