Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:22, 20 January 2012

• 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 3 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 12 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 79 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 70 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)

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

(Initiated 59 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 46 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 42 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)

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

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

(Initiated 42 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:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC Indian numbering conventions

(Initiated 39 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 17 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)

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 40 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)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 33 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)

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

Deletion discussions

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 92 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 71 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 68 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 58 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 50 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 29 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 28 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)

 Doing... BusterD (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

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

WP:OWN issues

I am not reporting anyone (just yet) but I've been accused of WP:OWN on Selena and have since left the article so I can be mature about editing on Misplaced Pages. Now, I have took interest in helping out with Bad Girls Club-related articles. One in particularly Bad Girls Club (season 8) has so many issues with a user, its not even a joke. I'm not sure if its me or him/her but can someone please investigate this and/or tell me where should I go or do about the situation (note: user has been warned by previous admins and myself for several months). If its me who has OWN issues, then I'll gladly back out, just need some helpful advise. Thanks in advance, Jonayo! 23:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

HELLO?????? Anyone here who can help? The user has now reverted back the citation needed tags and yet no one here can help? Jonayo! 01:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I imagine this hasn't been replied to because it is not an "issue affecting administrators generally"; this would be considered an "incident" so probably belongs at AN/I. (But it would have been nice if someone would have told you that right away....) Looking at the accused user's talk page, am I missing something or were their first messages they received warnings and a block? I see no welcome template or (hardly) any other personal notes -- most everything is a warning template. That's disappointing.

I see they have opened discussion on the talk page, but really that should have been your first action. No comment on the {{cn}} tags, but the {{pbneutral}} template goes on the talk page, not the article. And the {{Advert}} template? The article is three sentences, I don't see any weasley wording, so I must be missing some history between you two on that. What I see here is two editors vested passionately in the same article but have different opinions and an utter communications disconnect. To answer your question: This will be best handled at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Rgrds. --64.85.216.193 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. Also, an RFC can be filed on this issue if WP:DRN doesn't work. Hope these links help. As for the issue itself, Junebea1 (talk · contribs), the user in question involved in the dispute with AJona1992 has been warned numerous times in the past for violating WP:BLP and WP:DE. The discussions at ANI, which can be found here and here, are examples of the discussions and issues involving the said users in question. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The advert tag is for the "episode" summaries which displays it as such. Thanks for replying, Jonayo! 20:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No hard feelings. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Reporting Wingard (again)

Once again, he is edit warring. He said he will no longer edit war, but he wilfully continues to do so. 24 hours was not enough of a block. He should get an indefinite block or something. This needs to stop.  MegastarLV  (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC).

Yes. They need to be blocked from these pages. They are disrupting others and are being ignorant to guidelines and want the pages to be updated to their liking/their fitting. Its wrong. SoapJar 20:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Bocked 1 week for continued edit warring. --MuZemike 20:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This behavior has been ongoing since 2009. Wingard only purpose on Misplaced Pages is to slavishly update the episode counts for soap operas, and will revert anyone who tries to do it before him. I'll agree with the one week block, but think if the behavior is continued after the block and indefinite block should be placed on the account. AniMate 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, this would better be suited to WP:AN3 if a three-revert violation occurred, or to WP:ANI if the edit warring were somewhat slower than 4+ per day. Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice around proposed blackout re SOPA — from the closing administrators

To note that Risker (talk · contribs), NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) and myself have closed and summarised the discussion around the proposed site blackout, all revealed at Misplaced Pages:SOPA initiative/Action#Summary and conclusion. Please note our request that all administrative actions that have a time period for consideration be extended past the normal time period for the period of the blackout (24 hours). — billinghurst sDrewth 23:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A life?

Anyone know where I can get one? Apparently I'll need one tomorrow. Seriously, what are we all going to get up to? I intend to spend some time over at Commons doing some cat checking etc. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll grab an offline copy and spend some time trying to work out how WP:SYSTEMIC may have affected the consensus for this outcome :) - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have to do this on a work day? How am I going to slack off now?--Atlan (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'll finally be able to shower, shovel the driveway, dust my knick-knacks ... all those things I've been putting off since Misplaced Pages started (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Random projects. DMacks (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sister projects should still be running. Perhaps you want to come help edit Wikinews or build up Wiktionary... —Tom Morris (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In all seriousness, a day off for everyone should help damp down the explosion of drama which has been taking place over the last month or so. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, you can also concentrate more on your paid activity or field of study :) --MuZemike 12:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's supposing that particular editors either have one or go to one, which doesn't apply to all editors. Mjroots (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There's always pRon ... which is what the internet is really for (note: this is not an advocation of pRon, nor an invitation for those who are not of legal age in their jurisdiction) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the perfect chance to work on article-related stuff that's not articles! Maps! Pictures! Cannolis! OH GOD WHAT AM I GOING TO DO --Golbez (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Or if you really want to work on articles, you can always copy the wikitext today, then modify it locally with your text editor of choice (or for the truly hardcore, in your local copy of MediaWiki). Titoxd 18:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'll add some mangled edits to 'pedias in other languages I halfway understand. Edison (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll probably read. Question is, do I grab a good fantasy novel, or do I read up on the Halifax Explosion so I can back to working on that article afterward? Either way, I am going to enjoy not watching for vandalism for a day. Resolute 01:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm. I was briefly interested with the Halifax Explosion & then realised that it has nothing to do with Halifax. So, my secret shall remain just that. FWIW, I've done my research, will be working with a text editor and doubtless will be one of those conributing to the NPP deluge in ca. 28 hours' time. You shoulda just granted me the AP permissions. ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this deserves a wider audience . Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout preparations: RfA, AfD, PROD

So, like it or not, we're on strike tomorrow. One question to consider is what about our time-bound processes? That's basically RfA, PROD and AfD. The RfA that is currently ongoing, MikeLynch, there is consensus to extend it by a day, so it'll close on Sunday rather than Saturday. I'm going to suggest that we do the same thing for deletion: let's just extend all ongoing PROD and AfD periods by a day. Admins should just slow down and not close AfDs or delete PRODs started before the blackout for an extra day. That seem like a reasonable solution?

Any other things we need to tidy up before the blackout starts? —Tom Morris (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually prefer to ignore the lost day on AfD and PROD. It's just one day, I think our processes can survive being visible one day shorter once in 10 years. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We should at least not close any time-bound process for 24 hours after the blackout ends. -- Donald Albury 11:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence of the administrator's closing note at Misplaced Pages:SOPA initiative/Action says "Internal Misplaced Pages processes that are dependent upon time-specific discussions, such as Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion discussion should be considered suspended during the course of the blackout, and their scheduled duration extended 24 hours." - SudoGhost 11:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

@Albury: Apart, obviously, those that are already a day late. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll be able to get around the blackout relatively easily (if the implementations I have seen are what is going to happen). So we can still close AFD's and block vandals etc. --Errant 11:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you won't be able to edit even if you can read. The write API is going down too. There'll be no edits, no blocking people... and no WP:ANI! —Tom Morris (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, only stewards and sysadmins will be able to edit English Misplaced Pages during that time. vvv 11:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Martijn Hoekstra, we should just carry on as normal here, if a discussion is close then extended it by a day (in the case of AfD, just move it to the next days listing, the one RfA has been sorted already, as for PROD's more offten or not they don't get deleted on the dot of 7 days so use discretion with deleting them. The more we get hung up on the internal policies of this this the less effective it becomes. Mtking 01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Our community and social processes will be delayed by a day, but the technical processes won't as far as I understand; for instance, blocks and protections set to expire during the blackout should still have expired by the time we are back online, i.e. they cannot be extended by a day like our deletion processes can be. Needless to say, we'll have a few more PRODs and AFDs to handle when are get back online. --MuZemike 12:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Guess that means I'll be adding 24 hours to any blocks I issue today. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Does it, though? If the purpose of the block is to give them a chance to reevaluate things, the reason why they can't edit should be immaterial. Having said that, it would depend on the reasoning behind the block, I suppose. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This climbing-the-Capitol-Dome political stunt feels like a 24 hour block for every Misplaced Pages volunteer and user. Edison (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We need to make sure that the bots we depend on don't crash when the site gets locked. --Rschen7754 19:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears the bot owners are already discussing those issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You guys realise that SOPA's been shit-canned right? So all you're gonna accomplish here is pissing off a lot of people... HalfShadow —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC).

Reasons for concern Nobody Ent 00:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not cancelled and it never was . It still poses the same existential threat to Misplaced Pages as it always did. 87.115.118.8 (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA isn't dead, and the US Senate still intends to vote on PIPA. The issue is not dead, unfortunately. Resolute 01:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

If blocks are extended due to the SOPA blackout please include a note to that effect in the block log summary. Nobody Ent 00:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't bother extending any blocks myself. It seems more punitive than anything to do so. Resolute 01:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, anonymous editing has been disabled for last-minute cleanup. Titoxd 04:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Vandalized

http://en.wikipedia.org/Holographic_data_storage

Some dork vandalized this article. Can someone restore this article to it's pre-vandalized condition, because i don't know how? kthanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.130.121.48 (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed at 10:55 by Shadowjams (talk · contribs) -- Luk 11:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Suicide threat

]. Possibly trolling, but needs prompt attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've emailed the foundation. In the future, per WP:SUICIDE, we should always just forward on the claims to them and let them figure out what to do (unless we have some reason to believe the threat is very serious, than a brave and committed person might also contact local authorities). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I've already done that. Posted here and the e-mailed immediately - I think the instructions suggest doing both... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Reality TV "stars"

I am having quite a few problems at Daniel Grady Faires that ultimately appear to relate to COI issues/possible sock/meatpuppetry and, more generally, as to where we draw the line regarding notability for the self-promotional bleurgh that is reality television. I am stumped right now - can someone please provide me with a policy/guideline discussion that covers what seems (to me) to me a problem that is likely to grow, bearing in mind the egotism and money surrounding reality TV. Is there anything in WP:GNG that specifically covers this stuff? I know the basics but, really, is our bar this low? - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: this one is frustrating me but Wiki is going on a Sickie shortly - the break might do me good but the general point remains. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I've previously had experience with a self-promotional reality TV star, namely Sam Pepper, whose article we deleted a while back under WP:BLP1E. BLP1E, plus sources (often the only people who cover reality TV are crappy tabloids, which should really fail reliable sources). Also, be aware that (a) if you nominate them for deletion, they'll use their Twitter/Facebook hordes to come after you, and (b) there's a high chance the pictures that get put up with the article are copyvios. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout preparations for excluded articles

See Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative#Note_on_excluded_pages. If we exclude pages from the blackout, we'll need to protect them in a clean state before the beginning of the blackout. Cenarium (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout article needs semi

• 2012 Misplaced Pages blackout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is highly visible and it's attracting some vandals at the moment. RPP is too slow in view of the upcoming blackout.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I got it for 3 days; it may well need further protection after the blackout it over, which should be able to be handled throuhg normal channels. And this shall be my last post before we go dark. Good luck everyone, in that weird, wild place we call the real world! Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

We go dark in 91 minutes as of this post. Good luck!Jasper Deng (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Diffs of edits in violation of consensus on en., with explanations and outcomes

Carefully watching Recent Changes during the blackout while editing was locked, I noted these diffs as problematic, and approached the editors with superior editing rights via their meta.wikimedia talk pages (and in one case by user email).

Tentative analysis: three minor incompetence errors with a probable fourth (and we're all incompetent sometimes), plus one error of judgement in editorialising at an inappropriate moment. This is a fairly good outcome for a "picket line." All other edits so far appear to be essential maintenance, appropriate WMF blackout connected, or user space tinkering. More over, all of these edits would otherwise be "legitimate," if the encyclopaedia were open to general editing. None were problematic edits by themselves, but only became problematic due to the context of the blackout and site lock. Numerous other Steward edits occurred within the ambit of Steward edits that would be appropriate at any time (copyright, legal, etc.)

I'm concerned with Nyttend's editorialising while editing while other users do not have the right of reply, and would appreciate other users discussion about this. I've mentioned this being here to Nyttend.

I'd like to emphasise none of these edits would be controversial if the encyclopaedia had been unlocked. All of these edits improved the encyclopaedia. And I firmly and strongly believe Nyttend's comment lies within productive dissent in terms of consensus. I think it problematic that he made it while there was no right of reply; but, feel that now that there is a right of reply there is no longer a problem. (Just to be especially clear.) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(And to further clarify, this isn't a request for administrator action, this is a note indicating that with a fine toothed comb, these were the only five edits I would consider problematic to be made while normal users cannot edit the encyclopaedia. Users with superior technical privileges made a variety of other edits during the blackout and edit lock, all of which were appropriate (such as Nyttend's work on copyright violating material itself, or BLP, etc.) or directly connected with the community's instructions to WMF as established by a consensus process that had been independently closed by the community.) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I was never presented with any policy pages prohibiting me from performing actions that were (1) possible and (2) permissible at other times. See my comment at Filfelfoo's talk for further comments. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

As I noted at meta, I also took the time to restore an edit I've been meaning to for a while (it was incorrectly deleted under RD1), so if you want to add that to the table you can do that. Not exactly essential, but certainly done to be constructive, and not in an attempt to go against the protest in any way (I figured I wouldn't have the Orange Bar of Doom to distract me like it had when I've meant to do it before). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the RD1 principle; if it connects to policy that Stewards, Staff or other such users to fundamentally maintain function, like copyright, reported BLP, legal, etc. then the undelete would fall into the same category to my mind. If not, then if you could point out the log, I'll add it to the table. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RD1. It was another admin trying to remove a copyvio who accidentally deleted two revisions in the process. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, criteria 1 relates to critical encyclopaedia maintenance and would be covered by the need to maintain the encyclopaedia even during critical incidents. Reversing a failed RD1 action to my mind has precisely the same need to occur, even when the community has decided that "emergency access," only should prevail. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Good. Just want to make sure we're all on the same terms. This was the restoration, for the link. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, also a bit of a faux-pas staff and stewards doing anything not related directly to the SOPA event... But let it go, and hope people learn. Rich Farmbrough, 05:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC).

On the other hand all such super-users responded with extreme collegiality and with turn around times on responses that I consider to be "very rapid." While one item is under discussion, and I don't want to misrepresent that; most of the others were "oh really?" type mistakes, the mistakes we forgive each other for collegially all the time. I'm surprised that there were only five such edits I picked out, that's a very very high degree of compliance with the consensus. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A whole bunch of admins futzed with their user rights. Withdrawal symptoms I suppose. Rich Farmbrough, 05:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC).

I also noted that, but didn't consider it breaking the consensus. (It was silly though). Fifelfoo (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This all falls into the "who cares" category. If someone was edit warring or causing problems, that's something to be dealt with, but doing non-controversial things falls into the "who cares" category. --B (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is there seriously a discussion about edits and administrative actions occurring during the blackout? Yes, we had consensus for the blackout, and yes, the database was locked to prevent editing. However, the actions would be perfectly fine under non-blackout circumstances. No action will be taken here, so this discussion is pointless. Alpha_Quadrant 05:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Whichever way this is seen, my apologies in advance for deleting pages during the blackout. I guess I was the only one who managed to delete pages during the blackout. I didn't intend it to be seen negatively. Kind regards. Wifione 06:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted to see if I could delete the main page while no-one would notice ;) No damage whatsoever was done here, and it was a 'blackout' not a 'strike' so I don't see the reason for generating drama over it. It's not like Civilopedia was busing scab admins into En-Wiki ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Far out, this isn't an attempt to generate drama, its a presentation of a proof of a null hypothesis: Stewards, Staff and other Super-Super–Users did not act inappropriately. Any actions that could be construed to be inappropriate were accidental, or matters of reasonable disagreement. When this was brought to the user's attention, they all responded rapidly, and took onboard the issues collegially. Nobody authored terrific articles online in circumstances where people were expected not to contribute content. It is an indication that our editing largely works. An administrative system was subjected to close scrutiny during a "crisis" and it functioned. This is, in its own weird way, an attempt at "wiki-love". Everyone, pat yourselves on the damn back. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm taking this the wrong way, but Stewards who aren't aware of their powers? If they have steward access, they should know that they have superuser rights to Misplaced Pages. And going by concensus they should not have been editing full stop. A slap on the wrist of abusing powers is unacceptable. Mrlittleirish 09:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the people who made a change, in response to an OTRS complaint that OTRS agents were not able to address themselves. So far as I know, what I did (reverting a particularly nasty bit of vandalism) was technically possible for any administrator and was not a steward action. I took action expecting absolutely no controversy, particularly as the nasty bit of vandalism was still fully visible to our mobile users. :) If we ever find ourselves in position to do another blackout, I think we need to make clear in advance what expectations are with respect to this kind of thing. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Admins did not have edit access - only stewards and staff did. As for your actions, I think they were perfectly fine and this discussion is silly. If a steward were using the blackout to gain an advantage in a content dispute, that's a problem. Deleting vandalism is not. --B (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been interesting watching this. I must admit that when I first discovered that stewards and staff were editing the wiki during the blackout, I was pretty angry. 130,116 active registered users, included me, had just had our ability to work on writing and editing articles involuntarily removed, and here were other editors carrying on as before. I wasn't happy about that. It felt like an abuse of privilege. I think having administrators, and stewards, and WMF staff with additional powers is a good thing. Their contributions make a difference to the encyclopedia. But those powers are there for a reason - and its not to allow them to dodge a "lock out" on the site during a protest.

Having thought on it a bit, I feel a bit calmer. "Assume good faith" is a good mantra. I think Fifelfoo has done a good job of presenting the material above, and answering some of my grouchier responses earlier today (thanks!). I doubt that Maggie or any of the others were trying to make the rest of us angry or feel excluded when they edited articles during the blackout. I doubt that they thought it was an "emergency" that needed fixing either though, and I still think that there were some poor judgement calls going on above. I think that waiting a few hours and making a non-emergency edit as a regular editor would have been a better way to deal with the situation and show leadership. This sort of thing does cause "damage" in terms of a loss of trust and confidence, at least in my case.

I'd agree with those above that suggest we should now be getting on and building a (still) better encyclopedia. The last few days has been pretty unpleasant for many of us - things can only get better! Hchc2009 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice?

Should I just quit? Please see the bottom of my talk page. I've worked for years at being a good admin and a good Wikipedian, and above all tried to treat others as I'd like to be treated. I've had my failings, and Baseball Bugs will be happy to trot out his prize examples of one or two out of the six or eight times in the last decade I blew my top. (I'll give you the whole list, if you want it; I'm acutely aware of my failings.) Now I've just done it again, and this time really feels like the end of the line. I already tried taking a break, but I just come back to the same crap happening at RM that I tried to get away from.

I know I'm not the only one he's wearing down. Does anyone care? I don't try to excuse my behavior, except to say that every man has his limits, and if you cut me, yes, I bleed. You like blood? I know there are vampires here who do: go on, enjoy it!

I cry out for sympathy from what I know can be a cold, cold community. I've given my best to you, for years. Please Misplaced Pages, how do I suffer this? Or if this is it, then let this be an announcement to the vultures: these bones are ready for picking. Oh, cruel Misplaced Pages... I don't want to leave; I've poured so much love into this project... :'( -GTBacchus 05:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC) is this how it ends? please, someone help me. I'm ready to hand in the mop, if that'll make it better...

Yeah, that'll sure show 'im, huh? HalfShadow 06:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

How do I go about requesting a self-desysop? You're right, HalfShadow, asking for sympathy is inappropriate here. Where's the form I fill out to quit? Sorry for the histrionics. Please carry on, and someone delete this section, and me. -GTBacchus 06:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

GTBacchus, we've all had days like that. Your error was in hitting "save". It's your talk page, and you can remove that right now. (Indeed, I urge you to do so, it will make you feel better.) In fact....to heck with archiving. Just wipe that entire discussion out. Then, take a couple of days off from this place and think about what you have done here that you've really enjoyed. When you come back, go do those things. But please come back. Risker (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Already tried that. What I really enjoyed is fucked up. I want the kind of break where I'm not an admin anymore. -GTBacchus 06:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

GT, I agree 100% with Risker above. There are lots of unfeeling people (for many reasons) that only derive pleasure in dragging other people into the depths of despair - BUT, there are also a lot of very good and kind folks here too. I'm only leaving the link because you asked, and I'd rather you chose to delete the thread, get a good nights sleep, and come back and find an area away from those that frustrate you. You can request the de-mop at WP:BN, but if you do - I hope you'll still find a place to edit here, as your work is greatly appreciated by many. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  06:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I've already made the request. Sleep didn't work for the last six months; I don't see why another night should help. It's likely I'll still correct grammar, and maybe sort stubs or something. See ya around. -GTBacchus 06:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point in doing anything rash. Just stay away from it for a few days. It's only a website. Notice we all got along without it for a day. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Not rash. Long simmer. Cooked. Cheers. -GTBacchus 06:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There's absolutely no shame in setting down the mop for a while. Some of our best admins have done it, and have come back refreshed and ready to go. GTBacchus, just remember your work is valued here, even if we don't say it often enough (which we don't). Enjoy your time away from the mop. We'll welcome you back the moment you're ready to dive back in, however long it takes. 28bytes (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and goodnight. -GTBacchus 06:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Try a week of not editing wikipedia, not reading wikipedia at all, and not thinking about wikipedia at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Whoever does this desysopping self-request procedure: is there some way we could slow it down for a cooling-off period so GTBacchus can be persuaded to reverse his decision? We can't afford to lose him. Tony (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • See the relevant bureaucrat's noticeboard thread; the 'crats have done exactly that. Graham87 08:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban from moves proposal

So this episode was sparked by yet another case of Born2cycle (talk · contribs) obsessing about a requested move and pestering closing admins about decisions he disagreed with? This really needs to stop. It's a disruptive pattern, and that guy needs a topic ban from move discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support! Disruption should not need days of discussion (is it disruptive enough yet?). Just do the topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • How nice of you to notify the user you were discussing implementing disciplinary procedures against Fifelfoo (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support, WP:POINTy section below nicely illustrates B2C's tendentiousness. The unpleasantness B2C brings to discussions frequently outweighs the good of their points -- especially since it's so difficult to find the points in the wallso'text. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  Switching to neutral, some of the objections mentioned below seem to be sinking in.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  Defending yourself against accusations is now regarded as tendentious??--Kotniski (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  No, but titling it can't-i-defend-myself-against-the-evil-admin-cabal sure as heck is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)So defending myself against an accusation of tendentious, in 7 paragraphs, is now an example of tendentiousness? Wow, there are a lot of violations of that on this page. If you're going to accuse me of tendentiousness, please indicate which of the specific characteristics of a tendentious editor you believe I demonstrate. I also request that admins potentially biased from having disagreements with me in the past identify themselves accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  WP:REHASH is a good example -- see WT:D for a recent example. "Sure, let's have endless discussions about whether each of countless titles should be disambiguated even when it's not necessary for disambiguation..." "Not overturning this bad decision sets a bad precedent..." "saying there is "no consensus" on the questions of ambiguity and primary topic (which is the basis for the "no consensus" close) is nosensical..." "This dab page seems pointy and a violation of WP:DPAGES..." "'lack of consensus' alone is not a good reason to revert..." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  You believe those are an example of WP:REHASH? The first -- "Sure, let's..." (sarcastically) addresses Station1 (talk · contribs)'s "nothing to resolve" argument. The second ("Not overturning this sets a bad precedent...") addresses his "not worth the effort" argument. The third, "saying there is..." was part of any FYI to Powers. The fourth, "This dab ..." was about a dab page that JHunterJ had just created. Not only are these not the same arguments, but Station1 and JHJ seem to have been persuaded by at least some of what I said, and REHASH is all about repeating the same arguments without persuading anyone. I suppose if you just skim the words without actually reading the discussion, it might look like a violation of REHASH, but really I don't see how it can apply in that discussion at all. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not 100% sure if only admins (which I am not) are allowed to participate in this "vote", but it seems ridiculous to me that someone should receive such a restriction, and allegations of POINTyness, for arguing an issue on which so many people have expressed agreement with him (and where the responses from those who disagree have been, frankly, so unsatisfactory in length and clarity). In full disclosure, I'm one of those people who agrees with him about how this matter has been mishandled, and I've appreciated him taking the lead in fighting it. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Discussions here definitely aren't restricted to admins.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• In the area of article titles, B2C is one of relatively few who are able to think things through intelligently and see the errors in the well-meaning but mistaken arguments put forward by others. He gets frustrated when those others stick obstinately to their positions in spite of those errors having been pointed out, I suppose. But just as we wouldn't want to lose GTB, we also wouldn't want to lose B2C from this "topic" area.--Kotniski (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support I've actually sided with B2C in the past (Yogurt and Catholic Memorial), but I must say his style is appalling. this thread which related to the yogurt probably says it best. Hot Stop 18:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's a bit confusing, but I think that thread demonstrates how I respect and follow consensus. At 15:07 on December 7 Greg L decided to archive it, inviting a revert if someone disagreed. I initially disagreed with closing that thread, and so re-opened at 15:10. But within 20 minutes I saw that others wanted it closed, so I closed it at 15:27. Perhaps unaware of all that, you re-opened it at 15:32, and I got blamed for it not being closed by by Kai445 (at 16:03) and Greg L (at 16:18). So then I tried archiving it again at 16:35 . That one stuck. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • It has nothing to do with who opened or closed the thread. It's comments like "at best, he was really pushing the envelope, and he clearly knew he was on thin ice", "I suggest that it would be helpful that he admit changing the spelling, as surreptitiously as reasonably possible, to be more in accordance with that used in his own region of the world, was not entirely innocent", and This particular section, started by Derek Ross, is about whether his motives for the original move that precipitated eight years of angst on the project were as "innocent" as he proclaims they were above...If you don't agree this is important enough to discuss, then find something you do think is important" why I chose to illustrate that section. You were told multiple times by editors on both sides of the issue that your edits weren't helpful, but you continued nonetheless. Hot Stop 20:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support While I am sure he has good intentions, what I have seen of his discussion style when I have seen him in move discussions tends to sway closer to incivility and definitely tendentiousness as opposed to civil even tempered discussion. Any good points he brings up are far outweighed by the baggage he also brings with him. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as a target of B2C’s questioning of RM closes, I actually don’t mind being challenged. However, when those challenges become adversarial or admins are essentially being demanded to Justify their actions, they become tedious. But there’s a simple solution. There is no requirement to provide any rationale for an RM or AfD close. So, not providing rationale just disarms those who disagree with the close. It’s pretty much a truth that no matter what the close is, someone will disagree with it. And they have a right to express that disagreement. Since as far as I can tell, admins are not obligated by guideline or policy to provide rationales or justify their RM or AfD decisions to other editors, editors who want to disagree with the actions of an admin should be cognizant of that fact. Admins should be collaborative and communicate civilly with editors to answer their questions, but I don't think we (admins) are obligated to justify our actions until everyone who disagrees is happy. B2C pushes the limits in this area, but if he understands the above, he can still productively disagree.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken; per WP:ADMINACCT unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Nobody Ent 18:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Two points: RM and AfD close instructions do not require any additional comment or rationale in the close language. WP:ADMINACCT does indeed require admins to explain their actions when asked and I think in this case both involved admins did that. But I find nothing in that paragraph that requires admins to justify themselves to the point that everyone who disagrees with a decision is happy. It is perfectly acceptable for an editor to say I don't agree with your explanation, but I do believe it is disruptive for an editor to continue to say I don't and won't accept your explanation and am going to keep pestering you and challenging your competency until you change your mind.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree there is no requirement for admins to justify themselves to the point that everyone who disagrees with a decision is happy, but that's not the issue. Not at all. I addressed this in the section below. But WP:ADMINACCT does say that administrators are expected ... to justify when needed, and that's all I request, once in a while, and usually only when others agree with me, as was the case here. If you have the impression that I challenge every decision with which I disagree, or even any but the most confounding ones, you're simply mistaken. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

B2C, you must admit you push the limits sometimes. But do you see what my position above is? I oppose the suggested topic ban. I am supporting you in this discussion. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Much appreciated. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A more reasonable interpretation of adminacct is the admin make a succinct explanatory remark at the time of the action. In some cases this can be as simple as "per wp:snow," but more contentious discussions would require slightly more. Concur that this is no requirement to make editors happy. Nobody Ent 19:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Repeated long-winded tendentious editing. Nobody Ent 18:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support To Mike's point above, he doesn't understand he is pushing the limit and has declineed to pull back, instead throwing up walls of text that would fatigue even the most patient person. I agree this ban is needed, specifically in light of characteristics 4 and 9 on WP:TE, which are fairly obvious from the linked to Yogurt discussion above and his own responses so far in this thread. MBisanz 18:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I suppose some might see this as another example of being tendentious, but this is the first time anyone has identified specific characteristics of ] that they believe apply to my behavior, and so my first opportunity to respond to such. 4 has to do with not being given the benefit of the doubt. For the most part most people do give me the doubt all of the time, so far as I can tell, but there are some people who don't sometimes. I recognize that's a sign there's room for improvement in what I'm doing, but it's hardly a clear violation of WP:TE. 9 is about repeating the same argument without convincing others. To the contrary, if I'm not convincing anyone, I back off. In this latest Catholic Memorial School instance, many others agreed with, if not were convinced by, my arguments. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah...I see it as a clear violation. MBisanz 18:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think you do back off if you aren't convincing anyone someone. I think that is the major problem people are having with you. You just keep going with the same arguments over and over with overly long comments that say a lot without actually saying much and refuse to either change your own mind or to let it go when people disagree with you. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I realize many have that impression, and so there must be something to it, and I'm responsible for that. Perhaps I take Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_discussion too far? What I try to do is what it says: "... editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". Perhaps citing a specific case where you think I went beyond that would help. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Read the whole page. "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
          • And I agree with that and believe I naturally abide by it. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
            • How many people have to tell you differently before you change your belief?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

      When has B2C embarked on one of these adventures when nobody else agreed with it? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

      Rarely, if ever. However, as with edit warring, being right isn't an excuse for being disruptive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

      Yes, of course. But how is trying to find consensus through discussion, which includes trying to persuade those who disagree, and asking questions like this, disruptive? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

      SoV—there is an accusation just above, by DJSasso, that B2C doesn't back off when nobody is convinced. That is what I am trying to clarify. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

      I meant it more in the sense of the person(s) he is repeatedly aiming the comments at is not agreeing with him. Have adjusted my comment accordingly. -DJSasso (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

      Wouldn't trying to persuade someone who already agrees be the disruptive and pointless behavior? In fact, identifying someone who disagrees, or "The Most Interested Person" ("Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person") and working with them one-in-one in discussion lies at the heart of what WP:BRD recommends. What am I missing?

      I mean, I certainly agree that repeating the same argument with someone who disagrees is problematic, and obviously some people are under the impression that I do that, but I know there is no evidence of it, because that's something I avoid because I know it's pointless and problematic. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose any admin-area topic ban of any editor. If otherwise warranted, block or ban the editor as needed, but don't wall off the admins. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support – an editor who digs in and opines ceaselessly until everyone else gives up. Oculi (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Just reading some of these arguments that are being linked to is giving me a headache. I can't imagine how bad it would have been to be a participant in those discussions. Born2cycle seems to be acting as an obstacle to the RM process so it's in Misplaced Pages's best interest to keep him away from that area. -- Atama頭 19:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - If there are only problems with B2Cs editing in this area, we should remove the editor from this area. The other alternative is to remove B2C from the English Misplaced Pages entirely. If B2C wants that, I'm sure we can facilitate it. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I understand there is some frustration with B2C's persistence, it just so happens that in many cases he's absolutely right. Powers 19:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Powers. We probably disagree about as often as we agree, don't we? For the record, I just want to say that I recognize and appreciate that being "absolutely right" does not justify being tendentious or disruptive. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• oppose—I don't see compelling evidence here for a ban. B2C is overly-confrontational sometimes, and I wish that would stop, but I don't see anything rising to the level of a ban. RMs don't have any formal official appeal venue, so what can you do when you think one was closed poorly? Talk to the closer, see if there is any support for a "rerun", etc. Often, though, this kind of thing leads to a lot of static, but we should closely examine who is responsible for that static. Consider the Corvette fiasco—if you concede going in that questioning the closure and seeing if there is any consensus for a re-run is ok to do, did B2C do anything wrong here? Is B2C responsible for the character of the ensuing discussion? I'll reconsider if new evidence is brought to light here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a good example of his problematic behavior. "But at least you seem to admit that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has to be ignored in order to have opposed this move" - B2C. "I 'admit' nothing of the sort."-Pablo --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • And that exemplifies a problem how? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per JHunterJ. Admins should expect that their actions will come under greater scrutiny than those of regular editors but they don't need to be specially cotton-wooled with targeted topic bans like this. If there's harassment or hounding it should be dealt with at an individual level first using policies that apply to everyone, which from what I can see doesn't seem to have been attempted. Specifically limiting interaction with admins would set a dangerous precedent and seriously impact an editor's ability to raise concerns he believes are legitimate. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  The proposal as far as I can see doesn't call for limiting his interaction with admins. It just limits him from move discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  The ban -- which I presume includes questioning admin's RM closing decisions -- is allegedly justified because of my "pestering closing admins ", in direct contradiction to WP:ADMINACCT. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  No, there's nothing in ADMINACCT that allows pestering admins. Just look at your recent interaction with Aervanath. The title of the section was "does local consensus trump community consensus". You opened with "I'm perplexed by your 'no consensus' decision. Perhaps there was an oversight here?" After some discussion, you proceeded with "Based on the replies there, would you consider reversing your decision, explaining it better, or at least reverting it and letting someone else close it?" Shortly afterward: "Saying that this term is ambiguous and requires disambiguation, in the face of no dab page and a long-standing redirect from this term to this article, makes no sense.... Please address these serious fundamental problems with your explanation that multiple people have noted, or reverse the decision." Shortly after that, "You give equal weight to a pure WP:JDLI argument based entirely on personal preference as you do to one solidly steeped in policy, guidelines and convention." After that, you have "By the way, if you're making your decisions solely on LOCALCONSENSUS interpretations of policy and guidelines, that explains much." That easily passes the questioning line into badgering, and that's not even counting the discussion on the actual talk page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  Okay, that helps. But I was very frustrated, and it's unclear what an editor is supposed to do in this situation. While you believe this constitutes badgering, and I'll admit it's getting close to the line, others say this about it: "He may well have acted differently elsewhere, but this subsection seems to be about a particular RM that, even if he had been abrasive, in my view (and others) he'd certainly been correct." I mean, it's not like I do this in any situation where I happen to disagree... in the vast majority of such cases I accept the decision and move on. This is an exceptional case, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  Problem is, you do so many RM discussions that your exceptional cases show up more often than most peoples' routine cases. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  That may be part of the reason it came to a requested ban yes. But I think the major reason its here is the part that talks about you obsessing about another requested move. Most of the comments in the discussion are talking about your actions in the move discussions themselves. Secondly there is a huge difference between asking once nicely for some clarification and then continually asking them for another explanation when you don't like the one they gave. A admin only needs to give you an explanation once, whether you like the explanation or not is not their problem. -DJSasso (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  Okay. Is there any room for a compromise here? Like my agreeing to only questioning admins once? And maybe limiting my participation in any RM discussion to, say, five comments (which might seem like a lot, but it's not for me, which is probably the main problem - so this could solve it). --Born2cycle (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  I'd say there's definite room for compromise, but not in the direction you're going. Until you drop the "I'm doing what policy says, and none of the rest of you know what you're talking about" attitude, you're going to keep having trouble. Restricting the number of comments is not the point here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  Well then what do you suggest? I also think you misunderstand me. When I quote policy in defending my behavior, I'm trying to explain why I believe my behavior is consistent with community expectations. That doesn't mean I'm right or that I'm not missing something; I'm just trying to explain my point of view. Above you said it comes down to REHASH, but your example of four statements were all parts of separate arguments to 3 different people. I'm not saying there isn't a problem, I'm just saying that that particular example is not a violation of REHASH, and not any characteristic of TE, as far as I can tell. I've suggested that it's simply too many posts/comments that's the problem, but you've just rejected that. Okay, then what is it? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  I didn't say it came down to REHASH, I said that was a good example of your tendentiousness. Another good example, as shown here and elsewhere in the thread, is you reading statements too narrowly, to the point of inaccuracy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  My mistake. I'm sorry. You did not say it came down to REHASH. I said you did because that's how I understood the essence of what you were saying. I asked which criteria of WP:TE applied, and REHASH was the only one you mentioned. So in my mind you were implying that it came down to that. I'm sure I'm not the only who misreads on occasion. Again, my apologies. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  My mistake, I read it as a ban from challenging RMs. In this case my rationale is that the proposed topic area ban is far too broad and the evidence too narrow to justify a ban of this scope. Why would we ban him from 'all RMs' when the problem area is exclusively described as 'challenging RMs'? That's excessive. Deal with the issue at the individual level first, THEN try a topic ban on challenging RMs, and only THEN try a topic ban on participating in RMs altogether. Jumping to the last step is inappropriate. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  The proposer has been criticized by B2C in the past for unwillingness to explain an RM close, and from the way this proposal is worded it seems like it is that aspect in particular driving this ban proposal, which is bothering me, too. If I wasn't willing to have this on my talk page I wouldn't close RMs. Or be an admin. Admins do arbitrary, bizarre things, and to ban people when they question them is really disturbing. I think if this ban goes through, it needs to be made really clear that despite the proposal's wording, it is ok to question admin actions. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is nothing wrong with bringing solid and well-substantiated reasoning to the RM process the way B2C does it. If anything, RMs could use more folks like him. If someone is getting a headache reading his replies, fixing it is as easy as clicking away from the page and contributing to something unrelated. That said, apart from providing the titling insight, B2C himself could try contributing more to other areas every now and then. We are creating an encyclopedia, after all, not an Ultimate Guide to Titling Everything the Right Way.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 19, 2012; 20:51 (UTC)

Question. I'm currently involved in a couple of ongoing WP:RM discussions, including Talk:Fixed-wing_aircraft#Clarification_of_article_scope.2Frequested_move and Talk:Taiwan_(disambiguation)#Move_request. Does anyone think my behavior there is problematic?

I believe I have the most contribute to WP in the area of RM discussions, because that's where my interests and expertise lie. But because these discussion are often contentious, by arguing strongly one way or the other I seem to sometimes engender animosity in others. Over the years, their numbers grow. Let's just say most of the names involved here are familiar... Is that a reason to justify banning me from these discussions? I repeat Eraserhead1's question from below: "Is there any solid evidence of misbehaviour from Born2Cycle that stands up to scrutiny or do some people just not like him? " Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I do think you fall for the trap of saying rather too much, and replying to people too quickly, allowing discussions to take place at a slower pace is probably more sensible. If you're replying within a couple of days that should be fast enough - and not so fast that people think you're obsessed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's starting to head in the wrong direction. "The current title, Fixed-wing aircraft, is an exception/compromise for no good reason", assuming bad faith from the people who made the original decision, and everyone who's !voted to keep it for that reason since then. "the only objective/non-JDLI way to decide this" - iow "I understand policy perfectly, so the rest of you just shut up". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see now how you might interpret it that way, but that's certainly not how I meant it. What I meant was that everyone agrees if it wasn't for the inability to pick either "Airplane" or "Aeroplane", the title wouldn't be "Fixed-wing aircraft". In retrospect, I realize I might be wrong about that (we might need both articles), but that's beside the point, which is that I meant no disrespect to anyone. I agree I should be more careful how I word things so that they won't be misinterpreted like this. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral - a topic ban here would be an effective ban altogether. Moves is, after all, what Born2Cycle does. A RFC/U however, would perhaps have merit, although that too may end up being wikilawyered into stalemate. pablo 21:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Is there anything to justify an RFC/U? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Take a look and decide for yourself. I can't do everything around here. pablo 21:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
      • We shouldn't be taking an editor to RFC/U unless diffs are easy to find showing actual bad behaviour - you don't necessarily have to do it, but someone should. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Eraserhead has hit the nail on the head. Editors should question an admin's actions when it needs clarification but it's B2C's lamprey like approach that is causing any number of people to grind their teeth in frustration. I've had a read through the yogurt RM discussion and B2C, your responses there verge on histrionics and dramatic arm waving, to describe in less than flattering terms. Even after the participants repeatedly ask you to drop it, you just went on and on and on. I've also read GTBacchus's talk page, which sparked this whole discussion as well as yours,and GregL's. The one thing that leaps out at me the most is your near-obsessive need to have the last word. That I believe is why this topic ban has been proposed. Blackmane (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That's why I suggested a compromise of limiting me to how many comments I make per RM discussion, but Sarek said that wasn't the problem --Born2cycle (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's the issue really. Lets take a look at Catholic Memorial School. From my reading of the discussion you look to have presented a strong case. However that's kinda beside the point. Its not a WP:VITAL article, nor is it a particularly well read article, like say iPad (getting about 400k hits a month), only getting about 1000 views a month.

In an ideal world the admin would have changed their mind when you questioned the move. However they didn't, maybe they don't agree, or maybe they felt they will lose face if they change their mind. Given its a minor article of little importance when they didn't change their mind you should have stopped and moved on to discuss something else. The project isn't damaged if a 1000 views a month article is at the wrong title.

If you really think the article is at the wrong title the right way to go about it is to do another move request in 6 months and get that discussion closed by someone else, then the original closing admin doesn't have to lose face and so there is much less WP:DRAMA. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, yeah, except my concern was not so much that title per se, but that title being used as a precedent for more "unnecessary disambiguation" on similar even-longstanding-redirect-does-not-establish-primary-topic reasoning. Still, what I'm hearing is that even poor justifications for bad decisions should be accepted for the sake of harmony, because harmony is more important than any title. Or something like that, yes? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that's life.

It took until September 2011 for us to use the common name for the world's largest country. America still isn't a redirect to United States, even though I've never heard anyone use it to refer to the Americas.

I think harmony is more important than such a move request, yes. People make bad decisions sometimes <shrug>. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - B2C has been disruptive regarding page moves for years now, it's well past the time that it was stopped for good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Born2cycle's manner of arguing over article naming has a negative effect on other editors. I personally found it so grating that I took a month-long break from editing and a more patient editor than I, GTBacchus, is abandoning his admin bit in frustration. I'm sure we aren't the only ones who've been moved to avoid discussions over article titles due to Bon2cycle's participation.   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Is there any evidence of poor behaviour that shows these issues? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. You've gotten my attention. I promise to change in the following ways: 1) Comment less and less often on RM discussions in which I'm involved (I presume the number of RM discussions in which I'm involved is not the problem), especially when engaged in a dispute. 2) I will be more agreeable and less disagreeable. 3) If I must disagree, I'll try to find something positive to say first, or at least be apologetic about disagreeing. 4) I'll be more careful how I word things to make it less likely for me to be misinterpreted, which I know occurs often. For example, when I refer to policy I'll be more careful about presenting it in a way that is conveyed as being positive and productive rather than combative. 5) I'll look for signs from others, especially those who have taken the time to commented here, to let me know how I'm doing. 6) I will continue to welcome, and will encourage even more, specific suggestions on what I could do to improve my disposition in all discussions in which I'm involved. 7) I will not think, believe, convey or say that just because I'm not violating the letter of any policy or guideline does not mean there is no problem to address. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Should editors be discouraged from asking admins to justify their actions?

Yes, I challenged the closing of Talk:Catholic_Memorial_School_(West_Roxbury,_Massachusetts)#Requested_move at Talk:Catholic_Memorial_School_(West_Roxbury,_Massachusetts)#Close_challenged, and notified the closing admin, Aervanath (talk · contribs), at User_talk:Aervanath#does_local_consensus_trump_community_consensus accordingly. Others, including JHunterJ (talk · contribs), TechnoSymbiosis (talk · contribs), LtPowers (talk · contribs), and Bkonrad (talk · contribs), shared my concerns and puzzlement about the closing, even after Aervanath tried to explain further.

Aervanath also started a section about this at Wikipedia_talk:RM#Review_move_decision, where Mike Cline (talk · contribs) concurred with the decision, for an equally puzzling reason. Mike's reason was also questioned not only by me, but by JHunterJ (talk · contribs), Kotniski (talk · contribs) and Theoldsparkle (talk · contribs). Peterkingiron (talk · contribs) weighed in effectively favoring reversing Aervanath's decision. It was that discussion that GTB found so off-putting.

Yes, I question RM decisions once in a while. I question decisions not whenever I disagree, or "didn't get my way", as has been suggested elsewhere, but when I have a question about the decision. Most times when I disagree, I recognize that the other arguments are reasonable, and closing in their favor, or "no consensus", is also reasonable. But in a few cases, like this one, the closing decision seems to make no sense at all. In this case Aervanath's decision rested on the assertion that there was "no consensus" on the questions of ambiguity and primary topic, even though the term in question had been a redirect to the article for years, and that was not even challenged. Because of the lack of competing uses on WP for this name, this case is more definitive than even Paris, Michael Jackson and Harvard with respect to ambiguity and primary topic (because of Paris (disambiguation), Michael Jackson (disambiguation) and Harvard (disambiguation); there is no Catholic Memorial School (disambiguation)).

I think I've questioned perhaps a handful of RM decisions of the hundreds I've been involved in. Even if I'm off and it's as many ten, or twenty, I believe I violated no policy or guideline in doing so, and in fact was simply expecting admins to meet their responsibilities, especially WP:ADMINACCT which states:

"Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

I'm getting the impression that some admins don't appreciate having to explain and justify their actions, and others don't like it when I try to get other admins to do so. I'm sorry having to justify decisions occasionally is not "fun", but I suggest it's necessary (frankly, I think WP would improve with more of it).

GTB and others claim my behavior amounts to a violation of WP:TE - but I've reviewed it and I don't see which aspect applies here, and no one has explained that either. If I'm blocked for this, I will have been punished for trying to hold admins responsible for justifying their decisions when they make questionable ones (and questioned not only by me, but a number of other editors). I know WP cannot be improved by discouraging editors from asking admins to justify their questionable decisions. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There are five Misplaced Pages pillars; three apply here. When a (1) consensus of editors is telling you that you're being (2) incivil, repetitive demanding of "policy" justifications for actions is (3) bureaucratic. Snippy comments like this add up and using many words while saying little wears folks down after time. Nobody Ent 18:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Incivility aside, insisting on justifications is not bureaucratic. If a regular editor were to close a discussion without explanation it would be a simple matter for other regular editors in the discussion to simply revert his action. When an admin closes a discussion it's a different matter and when an admin leaves a weak or confusing justification behind it undermines the community's faith in that admin's ability to read consensus. As in the Catholic Memorial School RM mentioned above, other editors agreed that the close rationale was insufficient and I don't see any problematic behaviour from B2C in explaining his view and seeking clarification. He may well have acted differently elsewhere, but this subsection seems to be about a particular RM that, even if he had been abrasive, in my view (and others) he'd certainly been correct. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be perfectly legitimate to ask an admin for an explanation.

With regards to the discussion as a whole is there really a justification for having it? Is there any solid evidence of misbehaviour from Born2Cycle that stands up to scrutiny or do some people just not like him? In the real world, and on Misplaced Pages there are certain people I don't like - its not worth wasting too much energy over, and trying to remove them from the project because you don't like them is something that just creates WP:DRAMA - which is obviously bad.

The big tip I have is to be prepared to admit when your wrong - it makes you a better person, and be prepared to agree to disagree with people, if people were happier to do that we'd all get along better. And remember - only one day until the weekend! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

i world like to make the page called SO R@n:D0ᴟ!

i world like to make the page called SO R@n:D0ᴟ! so i can make a reject <span style="color:red">user:jake.edu|jake.edu]]<span style="color:red"> (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a valid title by any definition of the phrase. Per all common sense and various guidelines, such a page would have to exist at "So Random!", which it already does.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I believe you mean WP:Redirect. Making a redirect at SO R@n:D0ᴟ! would be a feasible request, even though it is not a proper page title or redirect choice. —Ryulong (竜龙) 11:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a very implausible misspelling, considering that neither "0" nor "ᴟ" exist in the show's logo. The former is actually a pair of parentheses "()" and the latter is a sideways "M". Honestly, I don't think that anyone would ever type that into Misplaced Pages's search box. This is just my opinion on the usefulness of filling out this request. -- Atama頭 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

On a second viewing, maybe that is a "0" done in a stenciled font, but I still find it extremely unlikely given that last character. -- Atama頭 19:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Checking the Disney website, I see it rendered more-or-less as above on the home page. It's a hard call between "O" and "0", though, and it only appears in graphic form that I could see, not in selectable text. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Conversion of sysop.js to gadgets

Please review MediaWiki talk:Sysop.js#Conversion to gadgets and share your thoughts there. — Edokter (talk) — 13:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean MediaWiki talk:Sysop.js#Conversion to gadgets :) -- Luk 14:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed... — Edokter (talk) — 14:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2012)

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Misplaced Pages, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 31 January 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno 18:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog