Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:27, 28 May 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 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 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

Wikipedia_talk:Find_your_source#RfC:_Bypass_Paywalls_Clean

(Initiated 100 days ago on 17 September 2024) everybody has forgotten about that discussion, but it needs closure. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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: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)

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)

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)

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)

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 69 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 29 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

Community ban proposal for editor Echigo mole

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

Nobody Ent 02:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Fellow Wikipedians, It is time that I now propose a community ban proposal for Echigo mole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since 2011, he's been repeatedly creating sockpuppets as per here to evade his block over a 1 year period, and It appears that he's just egregiously trolling, disrupting lots of Arbcom cases, and to many, he's just another disruptive troll and nuisance on this project. Now I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   01:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Due to the nominator of this ban.
• Support on procedural grounds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but Echigo has been indeffed. As I understand it, an indefinite block is more "effective" than a ban. See WP:BP.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• You are, but that's ok :) Banning doesn't change the fact that he is indef blocked as well. Banning means the person is no longer part of the community (indef blocked people still are). See WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. Unofficially, banning offers more teeth in reverting and dealing with the user. A single admin can't undo a ban, only a block. And there is the statement part of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Just to let you know, this is the seventh time I am reporting an editor on ANI to get them banned. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   01:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: per WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is nuts, these constant ban votes for editors that have been indef blocked forever are 100% pointless. And no, it isn't that I don't understand the difference, it is that banning Echo-whoever, and all the other trolls and puppeteers and vandals, isn't going to change one single thing for anyone. No admin was ever going to unblock him unilaterally. No one was ever going to get nailed for reverting him because he wasn't banned. No one considered him part of the community. We're not making any "statement" whatsoever. The only conceivable benefit is the warm glow in the belly from a good 2 minute hate, and we shouldn't be encouraging that. Khvalamde, I will pay you $5, a barnstar, and one free pass to say a rude word to someone here without getting blocked (or, if you are blocked by someone else, I'll unblock you immediately) if you just promise to never bring another ban discussion to this board. Please, I am begging. Stop this ridiculousness. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, thank you Buick Century Driver, that's an obvious one I forgot to list. There is no chance that the ban is going to convince them to go away. If anything, it might make them want to stick around to prove the ban is toothless. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a somewhat odd statement to make, offering to reward a user with a barnstar to stop making frivolous proposals. While I sympathize with your suffering I question the reasoning of giving community rewards to stop a user from making frivolous proposals. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • Personally I have nothing to gain from this. I surmise that Khvalamde was personally involded and this could be a last resort, but I could care less if Echigo mole comes back and makes good edits. Of course if the activity is vandalisim the best way to stop them is to protect the page they're targeting. Once they know they can't edit the page, they'll probably give up on what they were doing. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
      • To make sure I'm being clear, I'm not saying that we shouldn't ban them because they might become rehabilitated. Semi-protection isn't going to work on serial sockpuppeteers, it would be useless. But so is community banning them. We shouldn't have these votes all the time because they make no difference except to waste time and give a false sense of security. Echo-whatsis (along with the other VFB's here recently) is already defacto banned; there is no benefit to making it a formal ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Though I'm not one to participate in these discussions, I seriously doubt this is going to keep this person away from the site. If efforts were made to steer this person away from his or her disruptive behaviour and they ignored, then there is nothing I can do to avert this person's fate. If not, then I strongly suggest we mitigate the block for 1 year and suggest he or she can return in the future. I also strongly belive that bans should be handled by the arbcom. They're experts in policy and usually wind up giving a fair sanction. Often these bans lead to nothing more than an endless game of cat and mouse with the user and the time it takes to keep them off could have been used to improve articles. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I see absolutley no harm in converting a de facto ban into a concrete one. If there's even a scintilla of a possible benefit in doing so, then it's a good thing. These are people for whom the collective good faith has totally run out, and I see value in the community affirming that -- or, if the proposed ban fails, in the community's realization that there is still some perceived value in keeping the possibility of the editor returning alive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • BMK, what scintilla of a possible benefit would that be? What possible benefit is there? I think it's far more likely that being banned gives them more incentive to mess with us. If anything, there is a scintilla of possible harm. The only benefit this thread will bring is the small joy I get from typing the fun not-used-often-enough word "scintilla" multiple times. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Floquenbeam: One benefit is that the edits of banned editors can be removed on sight, which is not true of the edits of block-evading indef-blocked users. As for incentive, given his record, Echigo mole already has sufficient incentive to mess with us, ignoring him isn't going to change that, nor is banning him. -- I think Mathsci can confirm that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Also, banning isn't a death sentence, things can change, community bans can be removed by the community, should there be a change of heart and a sincere demonstration of having turned over a new leaf. There's no particular reason to avoid an appropriate ban simply because it's a more restrive sanction than an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

An indef blocked editor can't make edits, so what good does the revert on sight protocol do?Nobody Ent 09:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Easier to enforce - editors do not need to spend quite as much time dealing with the disruption caused. As a one-off thing, it's no significant difference, but when it happens often, it can be worthwhile. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – Floquenbeam has a good point. Why have a ban or block when said user can very easily step around that? See User:Grundle2600, User:CentristFiasco, and User:Ryan kirkpatrick for good examples of that. --MuZemike 07:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BANBLOCKDIFF -- user is already banned (defacto) and Floequenbeam's point is spot on. Nobody Ent 10:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, not the ban, but the process of seeking a formal confirmation for it just for form's sake. We have a perfectly adequate policy on this: per WP:BAN, users who get themselves indef-blocked and then continue with a persistent pattern of block-evading sock disruption, already are considered de facto banned. The recent fashion of bringing up all these cases for formal reconfirmation of the ban has the effect of watering down this good old rule and spreading the myth that the old principle of "a banned user is any user who no admin would ever want to unblock" somehow is no longer valid. There is no difference between a formally enacted ban and a de facto ban of this sort, except that theoretically the threshold for an admin to try to override it and unblock a user would be lower for the latter type. But in most cases this possibility is remote and any unblock would quickly be overturned with a massive troutslap, so it doesn't really matter. For this reason I basically agree with Floquenbeam. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Personally, I think the opposes are less than convincing as to the merits of whether or not Echigo is considered banned. I am a little more than appalled at the logic that we shouldn't ban or block an user just because they can find a way around it; why bother having useful edits made to the encyclopedia if all the work are inevitably going to be damaged by vandals, tendentious editors, and other users who should not be editing Misplaced Pages? While I appreciate the frustration regarding why should we necessarily confirm a ban from so long ago just because of some recent socking, that does not really warrant an oppose to this ban because it does nothing more than confuse/complicate matters - an oppose would mean there is some willingness to unblock the user (so a ban is not warranted), while your rationales apparently contradict that as there is no clear support from you regarding the ban itself. If you are getting annoyed with an user unnecessarily bringing up ban discussions on an ongoing basis regarding indef blocked users where official bans are not necessary (in light of the defacto bans), comment on their talk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - when too much editor time is unnecessarily being wasted on cleaning up, I am not going to oppose efforts to cut down on that - purely because some admins fail to appreciate the difference this will have on other editors who do not have the luxury of extra buttons. I also don't agree that this is the appropriate discussion for "watering down our normal practices", so I am changing my comment to clarify my support for the ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I tend to think "what's it going to hurt to have a formal confirmation", but FPaS' point about this watering down our normal practices is convincing — this ban won't have a practical benefit and is part of a pattern that's not going in a good direction. Community ban proposals should be for people who aren't already (1) blocked indefinitely, and (2) obviously blocked permanently. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban due to abusive sockpuppetry. And as sick as some people are of seeing ban discussions I'm equally as sick of seeing them endlessly bitching about it. It's been discussed a million times. A community ban requires the consensus of the community to reverse, not just promises to be good to a single administrator. And the entire "de facto" bollocks is an utter debacle as I knew it would be. Every time there is a ban proposal there is this endless bullshit about "de facto this" and "indef is fine, nothing changes with a ban" that. Clearly it is different or there would be no such thing as a "ban", admins would just block people and leave it at that. The fact that ban proposals repeatedly come up indicates that you're not going to get your way and ban proposals will not stop unless you either eliminate the concept of a community ban or you change the way Misplaced Pages works, namely via discussion and consensus. If you don't want to participate in ban discussions nobody is holding your feet to the fire. But quit derailing every ban discussion with this endless bitching and griping, it is FAR MORE DISRUPTIVE than any ban discussion has ever been. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Floquenbeam. Thanks, Dennis, for the explanation and pointer. Could we make it any more complicated?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose What this section fails to address is why the ban was so merited in the first place to result in further measures. To me this seems a case of Double Jeopardy in wanting to provide additional punishments after the fact. And if that is to occur, then in my opinion there should be at least a token analysis of the original discipline so we can assure ourselves that (a) it was warranted, and (b) all possible measures need to be instituted to stop the user. A glance at the diffs provided shows little more than an affinity for Grunsky Matrices (whatever those are). For me to assume more discipline is required I would need to feel assured the original discipline itself was warranted, let alone that more is necessary. To my mind that proof has yet to be presented and without it this would be a hasty, premature, and careless rush to judgment which I will not support. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Block-evading sockpuppet's comments struck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Break

• Strong support for community ban of Echigo mole/A.K.Nole Echigo mole started out life as A.K.Nole. He has wikihounded me since 2009 first as A.K.Nole and then using the account Quotient group. (On Misplaced Pages Review, he had the account Greg, if I remember rightly.) At that stage he was unwilling to admit to being an alternative account, but Shell Kinney interceded in 2010, corresponding with him by email, and he admitted to being an alternative account of A.K.Nole and agreed to stop wikihounding me. That promise did not last. He subsequently edited as:

• Taciki Wym (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Holding Ray (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Julian Birdbath (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Zarboublian (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

He trolled on arbcom pages using ipsocks in the range 212.183.1.1/16. The edits he made relating to me are catalogued here:

• User:Altmathsci/vodafone

That editing was clarified by the arbitration committee in January 2011, when it was unclear whether these edits were by A.K.Nole or Mikemikev. Elen of the Roads informed me that they were by A.K.Nole and the ip range was blocked for 3 months by Shell Kinney along with the above named sockpuppets. The other sockpuppet accounts can be found on the investigation page and include the following accounts:

• Echigo mole (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Krod Mandoon (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• A.B.C.Hawkes (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Glenbow Goat (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Laura Timmins (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Old Crobuzon (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Reginald Fortune (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tryphaena (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• William Hickey (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ansatz (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Southend sofa (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• The Wozbongulator (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Since December 2011 they switched from vodaphone to the ip ranges 94.196.1.1/16 and 94.197.1.1/16. The diffs of all the edits related to me were described during the current arbcom review. That information was gathered up to 13 April, but there have been about 30 edits since then and several ipsocks blocked by either arbitrators or administrators.

• Edits in the range 94.196.1.1/16 :
• Edits in the range 94.197.1.1/16

This person follows my edits and pretends to have expert mathematical knowledge (they are barely at a second year undergraduate level in mathematics, probably only have done a course in computer science, and are generally clueless about any mathematics that is graduate level or beyond). They troll on arb com pages, arbcom clerk talk pages and arbitrator talk pages. Instead of disrupting wikipedia to prove a point, MuZemike could have attended to the outstanding checkuser case (Krod Mandoon) which Courcelles dealt with by indefinitely blocking the account and removing his trolling edits on the Requests for amendment page. This user has worked out my real life identity and has attempted to out me in various places. Amalthea has suggested that a Long Term Abuse file be prepared for this editor. It would not look very different from the above, but I would be cautious in describing the way in which this wikihounder goes about outing me. I have to be continually vigilant. Having said I would support a community ban, the LTA is more helpful. I do know of one community banned editor who is editing through another account. At the moment it is not worth reporting, since his editing patterns are not disruptive (he has started university in a new location and that I would guess is more suited to his personality). Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Echigo mole/A.K.Nole has now started to troll here (what a surprise). But all his edits repeat themselves ad nauseam, each one claiming to be from a new person. Misplaced Pages does not work like that. The edits are instantly recognizable because of the standard IP ranges used and their dreary repetitive content. WP:DUCK and WP:DENY apply in this case. Mathsci (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly support. The user's record is appalling. We don't need this kind of disruption. Prioryman (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I looked at the diffs and user's edits briefly and couldn't understand what the issue was. Perhaps you could show more clearly which edits they made originally that were so objectionable? All I saw was a potentially unhealthy interest in discussing esoteric mathematical subjects with you. To convince me the original ban itself was warranted, let alone that more discipline is required, I will need to see specifics as to how they acted rudely. I did not even see where you asked them to stop talking to you, which to me would show this was stalking as you claim. This long list of diffs needs to more concisely pinpoint where abuse occurred for me to acknowledge the original ban was even necessary, let alone a more stringent action. Clearly discipline isn't deterring them anyway so we might as well make sure the original decision was correct rather than making a careless judgment which will only encourage them further to oppose it by suggesting careless injustice. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Block-evading sockpuppet's comments struck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Question. This appears to be by DWaterson (talk · contribs), who registered in 2005. Is Mathsci quite sure that this is another sockpuppet User:Echigo mole? Could we see the SPI please? 94.197.77.227 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC) block evading ipsock's edits struck- comment was restored by blocked ipsock 94.197.34.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)Mathsci (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There was a zero missing from the end of the link: . Peter E. James (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as ineffective, and per Floquenbeam. User is already de facto banned. Formalising it as a community ban is a bureaucratic process that provides no additional security or protection and no additional deterrent to the offender. The notion that a community ban would prevent an errant admin from unblocking the user where a de facto ban wouldn't is untested in this instance and is an attempt to protect against a possible outcome that will likely never occur. If an admin unblocks this user unilaterally, then there is a case to discuss a community ban, otherwise this process is needless red-tape time-wasting. I would also suggest Khvalamde refrain from filing these types of requests in future until such time as the distinction between a community and de facto ban becomes necessary (not simply desirable). – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 01:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what I wrote a little more carefully. Checkusers such as Amalthea have already suggested that an entry be prepared for Echigo mole at WP:LTA, as I have written. Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter Mathsci, the current mob trend here is that ban discussions are annoying, so they're voting oppose to prove a WP:POINT. The truly idiotic thing is that the so called "de facto" ban is now void. Since admins here have now voted in opposition to a ban, it can be argued that an admin may potentially be willing to unblock this serial socker/vandal, and a "de facto" ban is only in effect as long as no admins are willing to unblock. Stupid, stupid people. Instead of some community ban discussions you instead have an administrative mess and endless kb of debate. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that, given the above record, any administrator who unblocked any of the indefinitely blocked accounts would risk being desysopped. Mathsci (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Treatment of de-facto-banned users

Block review requested for Historiographer

Historiographer (talk · contribs)

WP:ANI#Personal attack by User: Historiographer

The user has been blocked after a complaint at ANI, I ask for clarification regarding consideration of the phrase "Please, Don't mind too." which has not been referred to by the original complainant or the blocking admin. It appears to have been overlooked, despite it's significance, which changes entirely what appeared as a npa into very wise advice. Penyulap ☏ 16:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever it is you're doing, you're not helping the user; posting unblock-requests on someone else's talkpage knowing full well they will be declined isn't good. Historiographer now has two declined unblock-request on his page, neither of which were even made by him/her. I suggest someone remove these so it won't give the wrong impression when giving just a quick glance. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like someone with limited English skills (thought their English is far better than my Korean or Japanese) attempting to show empathy, by recounting some unfair postings that the individual has learned to ignore, and is giving similar advice. If I'm reading correctly, the proper response isn't a block, but some wikilove.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I highly agree, has the blocking admin been contacted? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot more to this than one comment - heck, just look at his remarks after being mentioned on ANI. Too bad at English to contribute to discussion imo, so even if block removed he should only be doing edits that don't require discussion (whatever they may be). Egg Centric 17:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, the block is for more than just some NPA-slip; this user has a history of edit-warring, attacks and other stuff. So it's not like it's made to look; there's more. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The last edit war block was over a year ago. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

hm. I didn't know you had the right to edit-war once a year. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The point is that it is not relevant to the current case, which appears to not be a case at all and just a mistake on the blocking admin's part. Silverseren 18:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I was going to make the same point, but Silver Seren beat me to it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not a mistake. Why is this split across the two noticeboards? I commented on the thread at WP:ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why it's split between two discussions, you might want to merge them. However, i've read your statement over there and I very much disagree with you. This block is significantly out of proportion. The next logical step, if a block was warranted, would be to go to 1 week, after the last block a year ago of 72 hours. But a block is not warranted here, a warning is. Silverseren 18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is split across two notice boards because a request for a block is viewed as an incident requiring quick action, and belonging on the incident page, while a review of a block is less urgent and belongs on the AN page. That said, the page instruction leave a lot to be desired. I've figured out what goes where mostly by osmosis.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving my earlier response here from WP:ANI:

@Penyulap: I am at a loss to understand why you would think the "Please, Don't mind too" part of Historiographer's edit is relevant to the block reasons. That bit is of course harmless. What's not harmless is the fact that he was calling Japanese users Jjokbaries (a racist slur) and was describing them wholesale as disruptive social misfits who enjoyed damaging Misplaced Pages articles. If that was not the expression of a deeply entrenched battleground attitude, I don't know what is. Moreover, the block was also based on a review of his previous pattern of contributions (although these are mostly some months back; he's been inactive of late except for today's talk page post). Historiographer obviously knows too little English to interact with other editors in a meaningful, constructive way when dealing with complex POV disputes, and that means that his editing has been mostly restricted to blanket reverts of other users accompanied with edit summaries in broken, almost incomprehensible English. Such behaviour, even if done in good faith, is disruptive especially when it happens in a highly charged, contentious topic area such as this. WP:COMPETENCE is required.

This is not to say that other users in the field may not also be deserving of similar blocks, or even more so. Historiographer's outburst against Japanese editors who "feels ecstasy when they bothering Koreans", while unacceptable in the way he expressed it, may partly be a sign of an understandable frustration, because, frankly, we have had a couple of Japanese users in the past to whom this description more or less applied. I don't know how many of them are currently on the loose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

And more responses to the comments above:

• @SPhilbrick and others: I also cannot follow you at all in describing this posting as "attempting to show empathy, by recounting some unfair postings that the individual has learned to ignore, and is giving similar advice". I'll give you my own translation of the original post into proper English, staying as close as possible to what Historiographer apparently meant to say:

  Japanese users such as Kusunose, who restrict themselves to Korea-related articles, have always been annoying like this. I used to confront these troublesome jjokbaris just like you are doing now. However, there is no definite solution to this problem, because anti-Korean Japanese users are otaku hikikomori and get their greatest joy out of annoying Koreans. Please ignore them. Truth will prevail on Misplaced Pages regardless of Japanese lies.

  There is no reasonable way of reading this posting according to which Historiographer isn't:

  1. calling Japanese editors "bastards/scum" ("jjokbari") – this is not within the scope of what he "used to do" but "is no longer doing"; he is clearly saying now that these people actually are scum;
  2. describing Japanese editors as socially impaired (roughly: "obsessed basement-dwelling nerds");
  3. attributing to Japanese editors a fundamental desire to harm Misplaced Pages;
  4. describing the disputes between Korean and Japanese editors as a matter of "truth" versus "lies" ("hoaxes");
  5. reenforcing the other editor's (a newbie's) description of Japanese editors as "vandals" (rather than trying to dissuade him of that mistake, as any reasonable experienced editor should).
• @Silverseren: I don't take kindly to baseless insinuations of "involved" admin misuse; please retract that because I regard it as an insult. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I read it differently.

I read it, using a very generous translation, as saying" "I can sympathize with your feelings. There are some (not all) editors who have been very annoying. So annoying I viewed them as bastards, but I now realize they are simply obsessed, and are just acting like trolls to annoy you. Don't fall for it; ignore them, and you will be better off."

Good advice, if accompanied by stronger language than necessary. Worth a trip to WQA? Probably. Worth a three month block? Not IMO.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are misreading it. This is definitely not what he was saying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the block was much stronger than necessary. There were some racist personal attacks there, but I think anything more than a week is completely unreasonable and I'm not entirely sure a block was absolutely necessary prior to a full ANI discussion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

After seeing this edit I am fully supportive of the block. I still think 3 months becomes punitive rather than preventative. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but you were the one who blocked him twice before. Don't you think that makes you biased in terms of this user, especially when others are pointing out that it seems too much? Silverseren 19:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not too involved, 3rr blocks are fairly cut and dry and don't generally equate to "involvement" Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) No, it doesn't. Since when does being acquainted with a user's disruptive pattern from an administrator's perspective make an administrator automatically biased? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

When a future block of the user seems overdone. A week would have been defensible, not three months. Silverseren 19:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

My only possibly bias in this area is that I am of the opinion we should treat all disruptive editors in the Korea-Japan hotspot areas, on both sides, with extra harshness. Having followed disputes in this domain from a distance for several years, I have come to the opinion that the whole field is so overrun with hopelessly unproductive editors that in order to restore sanity we would have to kick out about 80% of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I thoroughly agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise's interpretation of the above screed, and my only complaint is that this block isn't indef. But I suppose this is a good compromise; if you really, seriously cannot see the problem with referring to Japanese people as jjokbaris (which is sort of like calling them Japs or slant-eyes in English), I can't help you (despite my signature, I can assure you that I'm white and don't have any personal reason to be offended). I don't think we'd tolerate an American editor complaining about wetbacks or a Polish editor complaining about krauts, so I don't see why we should do anything different here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, it is policy itself that the English server is shared amongst all editors with different variants of English. They do not ask any special treatment that you take sufficient care to understand their variant of the english language, it is policy that you must. You describe the editors summaries as "broken, almost incomprehensible English." they may be so to you, however, do you not see that there are people who do have a clear understanding of the editors remarks ? How does this fit in with your mention of WP:COMPETENCE in your ability to cope with judging the editors remarks ? Penyulap ☏ 20:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Broken English is not a "variant" of English. It's just broken. Yes, one can generally figure out what he means, with some effort. That doesn't change the fact that the presence of English at this poor level is disruptive to the smooth working of the project. As, incidentally, can be seen from the fact that in this particular instance some observers here obviously could not figure out what he was saying, even when they tried. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

i are agree to sun, the wonderful at dawn. the english which smashed not understanding the english themselves, who are confused. Egg Centric

(edit conflict)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, I do agree with you about the harshness required for dealing with racial trolling, however there are two separate issues here and as best I can see Future Perfect at Sunrise is unaware of the clear interpretation of the phrase "Please, Don't mind too." which was overlooked and left out of the original complaint. It reverses the statement. It is significant.

Once that mistake is recognised and dealt with, yes of course you deal with the secondary issue of mentioning such things in conversation masked as good advice as inflammatory in itself, and determine if that was the intention. Overt attack is the reasoning behind the block, and an overt attack it is not. Penyulap ☏ 20:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? How does "Please, Don't mind too" "reverse the statement"? It does not. The phrase meant "please ignore what those Japanese editors are doing". What on earth did you think it meant? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel I understood it, and that was that. It was wise advice from one editor to another, it DID NOT name any other editor, was sympathetic and intended to ease tensions rather than inflame them. If we are going to sit and search for a fault with any editor there are more likely candidates than this one. The finer interpretation of hidden dynamics, I feel should not be handled by an admin who describes that editors variant as incomprehensible.

SPhilbrick seems to have translated into a more familiar to you ? variant. So if you want to know what "reverse the statement" means, leave the italicised words out of his translation. "I can sympathize with your feelings. There are some (not all) editors who have been very annoying. So annoying I viewed them as bastards, but I now realize they are simply obsessed, and are just acting like trolls to annoy you. Don't fall for it; ignore them, and you will be better off." although, I think the original editor said it better himself in his own language. "Please, Don't mind too." is not open to ambiguity. Penyulap ☏ 21:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You are misreading this in such an absurd fashion I really have nothing more to say. Except for this: if this guy's English is so poor that he could be misunderstood by a competent speaker of English, like you, in such an utterly absurd way, that's all the more grounds for keeping him blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Righteous block Nobody Ent 21:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly if I were the only person who 'misunderstood' the editors comments I may doubt myself and review several times more until I could see my misinterpretation, however I see that I am not alone. I find that I am endlessly quoting and linking to this policy page in articles, and once before at ANI I posted up the image I will repost here. Whilst I can understand that you find other variants of English disruptive in themselves, I don't think it proper to interpret policy in a way that places your own sub-demographic above all others.

If language is a reason to block, we need to update policy to decide which variant to use. Penyulap ☏ 21:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean we can block all the British editors? Because British English is confusing, imo. Silverseren 21:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Eenie, meenie, minee, MO! which way shall we GO ? I'm sure you know there are like 250 million people in America, but did you know there are 80 million Nigerians who speak English ? Maybe they can run scams on the 125,000,000 people in India who can speak English, you know using the call centres, and there are 90 million English speakers in the phillipines, sweet, so, who do we ban pre-emptively first ? Personally I think it should be the whistleblower, that would be me, I'll return as a sock and help you ban all these variant speakers shall I? Yep, I'm losing it, time for me to get something to eat I guess, or play a computergame. Penyulap ☏ 22:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, the easiest method is to ban everyone who isn't American. Silverseren 22:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going with Blade on this one: resorting to racist slurs should result in an indef. Full stop, no exceptions. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What about Blades similar use of slurs, he said "I don't think we'd tolerate an American editor complaining about wetbacks or a Polish editor complaining about krauts, so I don't see why we should do anything different here." I count two slurs right there, we should indef him, and omg I just repeated them, so indef me as well. And the Americans, Canadians, omg lets go SOPA for a day and block everyone to teach them all a lesson.

But seriously, which interpretation are you going on HandThatFeeds ? the overt one, the covert one, or are you aware there is a difference ? Penyulap ☏ 22:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, quit being so melodramatic. You know damn well what I'm talking about. Your hyperbole and incessant need to go over-the-top is not helping these discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You: 11:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Template use prohibition

Seems like other than the blocked editor posting the unblock template is confusing and disruptive... does this happen frequently enough to make discussion of a formal prohibition worthwhile? Nobody Ent 21:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

certainly it is, looking over the unblock pages and guides it says nothing whatsoever about third parties, I would gladly help with some feedback :) Penyulap ☏ 21:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The documentation for the template says "The following should be placed on your talk page:"Nobody Ent 21:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think of just how funny it would have been if I did it that way, rats! Penyulap ☏ 22:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, well I placed it on my userpage, I have no idea how it looks there, if it is humorous or not, see for yourself now would someone please move this little section or start a suggestion somewhere that the docs for the template are inadequate or something ? way I see it at the moment, if you want to unblock someone, use an unblock template, if there is some other way to do it, lets not keep it a secret any longer, as for me, I'll go on using the template as is, it's good enough for me. Whatever happens, it's not relevant to this discussion, imho, sorry Nobody Ent. Penyulap ☏ 22:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh, Penyulap, it's phrased that way because the template is only supposed to be used by the blocked party. Therefore, it is posted on their talkpage. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That's where I put it. on their talkpage, but it goes on my talkpage doesn't it? Penyulap ☏ 22:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you don't use it at all. The blocked editor may use it if they want to be unblocked. It is not appropriate for another user to request unblocking through those templates. — The Hand That Feeds You: 11:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Of note, this is his response: "Ha Ha Ha, don't be such an ass! Whatever you are saying, I'm not interested"

Obviously not interested in help, and does not care about the block. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad you can join us halfway through, were now going in the same direction, it's just that little bit faster now. Penyulap ☏ 22:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we're going in the same direction at all. The user was offensive and does not care that he was blocked. There's nothing further to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You: 11:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"Ha Ha Ha, don't be such an ass! Whatever you are saying, I'm not interested" actually means "I deeply care about my being blocked and promise I will never engage in such behavior again. Please unblock me." Remember, the user has limited knowledge of the English language. WP:AGF. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(illistration using some sarcasm, basically asking what do you expect?)Hmm I think they should be more like "Omg I am so sorry that I am upset that you have incorrectly blocked me in a biased manner, I so sorry, I not speak enwish, you aways right because wikipwedia is american, please block me some more because I not happy with your mistake" anything less should go indef. Penyulap ☏ 22:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

On a serious note, this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with AGF which is not policy, this has to do with an admin with by his own admission little or no understanding of the editors variant blocking that editor based on his interpretation of that editors English. That IS against policy. (is there a policy along the lines of don't close your eyes and fire a gun randomly?) Penyulap ☏ 22:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I alone in thinking that Penyulap is now simply trolling? This is just getting too bizarre. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if Penyulap realizes that the user called him an ass. In light of the rest of the information that came about here, I wouldn't be opposed to indef block, no talk page access, rather than the 3 month block in existence now (Contrary to my earlier comments). Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You may call me a troll, you may call me an ass, or you may indeed call me a troll's ass for good measure, I do not mind, I prefer the third. I see the same systemic problem that I saw with AndytheGrump recently, where the accused does his best to undermine wikipedia by refocusing the discussion upon his accuser.

I would suggest that, (using your own language and phrasing so you can understand with ease)

• You "obviously know too little English" to place blocks upon other editors in a meaningful, constructive way when dealing with complex language issues. You found an editor upon whom you placed a block as having "broken, almost incomprehensible English." and yet still resisted any advice on the matter from many other editors and admins.
• You've said "I am at a loss to understand why you would think the Please, Don't mind too part of Historiographer's edit is relevant to the block reasons." and resist any attempt by many people to help you understand why it IS relevant.
• You've said "some observers here obviously could not figure out what he was saying, even when they tried." and don't want to take advice from the people who can understand with some ease.
• You've said "Having followed disputes in this domain from a distance for several years, I have come to the opinion that the whole field is so overrun with hopelessly unproductive editors that in order to restore sanity we would have to kick out about 80% of them."
• You suggest that if an editor is capable of being misunderstood by someone else, they should be blocked

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that it is not the block which requires review, but your adminship that requires review. Penyulap ☏ 00:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Drop the stick, please. I'm no particular friend of FPaS, but you're way off base here, and doing yourself harm by continuing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this has become a complete WP:BOOMERANG. Pen, you've made it clear you like to engage in some devil's advocacy and humor, but you never seem to know when to quit. You're really pushing people's patience with this act. — The Hand That Feeds You: 11:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a current issue with Penyulap - inserting themself into situations where they are 100% policy unaware, and thus inflame the situation - often by encouraging the other editor to speak out more loudly and improperly. A couple of months ago we had another editor who got their wrist slapped for posted unblocks "on behalf of" editors - I'm going to have to go back and find out who it was (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, please be kind enough to keep your personal attack 100 % to yourself. Penyulap ☏ 14:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What personal attack? Where? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 14:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see I'm not the only person who finds Penyulap's behaviour peculiar. Somehow the quality of the trolling reminds me of Archtransit (talk · contribs) and socks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

At first it seemed like someone who just won't quit to me, but some statements are so unreasonable that I think trolling could be a fair diagnosis. Egg Centric 15:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It’s a shame I caught this thread so late, as I think I could have prevented some of the fallout if I had seen it earlier. As an ESL teacher I deal with these kind of language issues every day, although admittedly with Japanese speakers and not Korean speakers. It would be easier for me to interpret the comment by Historiographer that started all of this if I spoke Korean in addition to speaking Japanese; however, the two languages still share many features, such as the lack of plurals and the way they use suffixes (particles) to modify words, so I can make a reasonable guess as to what's going on.

I would be grateful if a Korean speaker could check over this, but I think the true meaning of the comment by Historiographer that started this business is somewhere between Fut. Perf.’s strict interpretation and SPhilbrick’s lenient one. Here is what I think was intended:

Japanese users like Kusunose, who diminish the quality of Korea-related articles, always keep doing annoying things like that. In earlier times I also used to do the things you have done (here referring to the actions of 222.101.9.93 (talk)) against these troublesome Jjokbaries. However, there are no definitive answers to this problem due to the fact that (some) Anti-Korean Japanese users, who some people think are otaku (obsessive nerds, probably of the computer variety) with hikikomori (loner) tendencies, feel ecstasy when they bother Koreans. Please, pay no attention to them. The contents of Misplaced Pages are no longer the absolute truth, regardless of what Japanese hoaxes may be perpetrated on the site. See this link. (The link appears to be a site discussing Japanese people with a decidedly anti-Japanese point of view, but the Google translation isn’t too clear.) Nowadays, I just stop responding to the Japanese otaku when I see them. (The Korean bracketed text is an idiom which I can’t translate. The direct translation is something like “don’t throw any lead” – ‘lead’ as in the metal – whatever that means.) If you do this too, it will be a great help to you. Thanks for your passion in editing those articles.

This is subjective of course, so please take my interpretation with a pinch of salt. However, if I am right, then Historiographer looks less like a holy warrior who is out to insert The Truth into Misplaced Pages at all costs, and more like a user tired of edit wars who is giving out good advice to fellow Koreans. However, this does not excuse the racial slur “jjokbari”, and this user obviously has an anti-Japanese point of view that will prevent them from editing neutrally on Japanese topics. Claims of a battleground mentality are fair enough, as Historiographer is plainly seeing the topic area as one of “us versus them”.

In light of this interpretation, I don’t think Penyulap was off base with this AN thread, and I wouldn’t call their subsequent posts trolling. I think that their comments about Fut. Perf. were a bit over the line, however. A claim that someone's "adminship requires review" is a serious matter, and editors who make claims like this should be prepared to back them up with serious evidence. I also think the others in the discussion who criticised Historiographer have very good points. Although we should assume a degree of good faith about Historiographer’s comment due to their low language ability, we can’t just ignore the obvious racial slur and POV, and their subsequent caustic talk page comments. We must also bear in mind that competence is required – although I don't think we can reasonably say that a low English level by itself is disruptive, there is no denying that it makes it harder to contribute usefully here. On balance, I think Historiographer deserved to be blocked, although I think 3 months might be a bit harsh in light of my interpretation of their comment above. And Penyulap, it’s probably best to leave this one alone now, and go and do something relaxing. I suggest a nice long bath and some chocolate. :-) Sorry for the tl;dr everyone. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 06:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't see that your paraphrase differs from mine in any particularly important way, so I can't really see how it would be the basis for a milder assessment of the situation. In particular, all the five points I listed in conclusion to my earlier paraphrase (further up in this thread) still apply under your reading. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Guys, please understand that Penyulap is definitely not a troll, not is his intention to be trolling. Pen and I seem to understand each other pretty well (we have some attributes in common, heh!) Pen cares deeply when he sees something (I'm having real trouble hunting for the right words here, but our Aspie and Autie editors will understand it immediately) being considered from one angle (obvious to neurotypicals) and not being seen from an alternative (or possibly many alternative) angles. For the non-Autie types, it's a bit like a good musician hearing one of those god-awful electronic doorbells which cannot play a single tune in tune; or like an unscratchable itch, or someone scraping their fingernails down a blackboard. Very often we can't "see" something the way other people can see it, but here's the other side of the coin: we "see" things, clearly, which other people miss. That works both ways. But please don't label Pen as a troll; he's very far from being one. Pesky (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you everyone, I apologise Future Perfect at Sunrise, I am not attempting to troll anyone. I do have an insatiable drive to be certain that editors can see just what is going on in situations where I clearly see hidden dynamics, so that the community as a whole can judge a situation for themselves 'without distortion and concealment' :). This has nothing whatsoever to do with you, this is a desire to see that everyone has the same 'level playing field'. I only 'persist' until all significant hidden dynamics have been exposed, or to put it another way, the stick is not to hurt anyone, it's just to uncover everything, once that is done, I do not care one iota for the stick or the discussion, as it is not my decision that has any meaning at all. In this case I have nothing else to add and no opinion on the matter whatsoever as there are experts aplenty. I apologise if our interaction has been painful for you, my intentions had nothing to do with you beyond examining motives of everyone concerned. Penyulap ☏ 19:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I briefly want to make a few points (I'm not a native Korean speaker but I do speak it and Korea is my field of expertise). Firstly, while there's probably a context here that I won't get on a cursory overview (though I have encountered the user's past edits while cleaning up Korea-related articles), the use of "jjokbari" should not be understood in the same light as racist remarks in English. Use of terms like jjokbari is pretty common among Koreans and is much milder than obvious racial slurs in English, and Korea itself is not a particularly "race-sensitive" society. Nationalism is hegemonic in Korea, so Koreans have a very different idea of what constitutes "NPOV". I don't mean this as some sort of relativist clarion call, I just wanted to add this since I think there's a danger of overlooking the cultural context here (I'm responding in particular to Future Perfect's remark about racial insensitivity meriting an indef block). (Stradivarius - I wouldn't get carried away with the Japanese/Korean similarities, sentence structures in Korean are actually very different to those of Japanese -- but in this case I think the meaning is pretty clear with or without grammatical interpolations.) I would be inclined to view his remarks as basically meaning "Don't let the Japanese trolls get you down". The parenthetical remark literally means "Don't throw bait" (don't trust Google Translate for Korean, their algorithms come up with some very bizarre translations for individual terms). --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I like Google translate, but it hates me and calls me a Juggler, blah ! Penyulap ☏ 23:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications, Tyrannus Mundi. Your comment makes a lot of sense. I also wanted to say one more thing about Historiographer's original comment. I think that he is only referring to a subset of Japanese users - i.e. the ones he says are "otaku" with "hikikomori" tendencies - not all Japanese users. I think the intention is easy to mistake here, as the whole comment starts with "Japanese users", and the qualifier "like Kusunose" is relatively far away, after a sub-clause, plus the punctuation is confusing. Two of the three other mentions of Japanese users in the comment are qualified directly, i.e. "Anti-Korean Japanese users" and "Japanese otaku", and I don't think the third, "Japanese hoax", can be assumed to refer to all Japanese users. Not that describing a subset of Japanese users rather than all Japanese users excuses the comment per se, but it does contrast with Fut. Perf.'s five points above. — Mr. Stradivarius 01:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, a "Japanese " noun phrase is offensive enough to support some action, especially in a situation without the user providing his/her own mea culpa. It objectively expresses bias/antipathy based on nationality/ethnicity in the common language of the project, whatever the subjective intent maybe. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

proposed ban duration of 14 days

Discussion of the matter appears to have concluded. Suggested alternatives to the current block include indefinite banning, a week, less than a week, a warning rather than a block, and a trip to WQA, with the most frequently referred to duration being a week.

Propose changing the block duration to 14 days. Penyulap ☏ 19:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirects with non-breaking spaces (or strange accents?)

At Redirects for creation, redirects from the pinyin spellings Bù​liǎo​ qíng and Bù​ liǎo​ qíng to Bu liao qing were requested. The request seemed reasonable to me, but I cannot create them because the titles supposedly contain "a non-breaking space or other unusual space character" (presumably it's the accented "a" that's the problem; for all I can tell the space is just an ordinary space). The error message said I should raise the issue at this noticeboard. Could an admin create the redirects? Huon (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, both of those do contain disallowed characters and should not be created. I can create redirects without the invalid characters for you. 28bytes (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I've moved these redirects to Bùliǎo qíng and Bù liǎo qíng, respectively. These look identical to the ones requested, but do not contain the hidden embedded characters that no one is likely to type. For future reference, if you see %E2%80%8B anyplace in the address bar, that's the blacklisted character; remove that and you should be able to create the redirect without admin assistance. 28bytes (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that and fixing it. I thought it was simply the diacritics that were causing the problem, and didn't notice the hidden characters.  :/ -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I wouldn't have noticed myself if I hadn't stumbled across this list a while back. 28bytes (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Rule of thumb: if the blacklist tells you exactly what's wrong ("an non-breaking space or other unusual space character"), it's usually right. If it's vague or says nothing, it's usually a false positive. --Carnildo (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware we had such a list, and now don't understand why we do. Glancing at it, it is not obvious to me why those characters would be banned. If it's a valid way of spelling something, shouldn't people be able to search for it. Maybe someone comes across the unusual character (in a word or name) in text somewhere, and does a copy-and-paste to our search bar to learn more. Someone please explain to me why they shouldn't get a valid result. LadyofShalott 08:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There is already a redirect at http://en.wikipedia.org/%E2%80%8B. The problem would not be for redirects so much as article forks, that look like the real named article but have a different point of view from the original. You could imagine any number of controversial topics where someone would like their own version of a topic up here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The "unusual spaces" are banned because they are visually indistinguishable from an ordinary space character, but lead to different article titles (note that there are two redlinks in the original post, and two visually-identical bluelinks in 28bytes' reply). The blacklist entries are there to prevent confusion. --Carnildo (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

To expand on what Carnildo said, the problem with allowing these hidden embedded characters is that maintenance becomes a nightmare. Instead of just an Alexander Hamilton article, we could then have an Alex​ander Hamilton article, an Alexander Hamil​ton article, and a practically infinite number of other visually identical articles. The current situation, with the blacklist in place, is that if someone copies Alexander Hamil​ton from a Word document and pastes it in the search bar, they'll get a "Did you mean Alexander Hamilton?" prompt. If we take these characters off the blacklist, they'll get a chance to create Alexander Hamil​ton, which they just might do, since any decent encyclopedia should have an article on the guy. People inadvertently did this a fair amount before the blacklist was in place; I think it's good they no longer can. 28bytes (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the responses. Much of my original question still remains though: if someone happens upon the name somewhere and does a copy-and-paste of it to our search bar, we are preventing them from getting a valid response. None of you have addressed why that is acceptable. The content fork problem could be dealt with using protected redirects. LadyofShalott 22:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I concede. LadyofShalott 22:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

XfD Topic Ban for User:TenPoundHammer

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

User:TenPoundHammer has recently been admonished by an RFC/U for his conduct in AfD's. Today he posted a notification on Sandstein's talk page noting that Sandstein had closed two recent AfD's (both were deleted, as was obvious from the redlinks) seeking the closure of three additional related AfD's. This poses a couple of problems:

• Sandstein had already commented at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/1/0 (web comic) (3rd nomination) before TenPoundHammer posted the comment. Thus, TPH knew or should have known that Sandstein had an opinion on at least one of these three AfDs. Combine this with the explicit reference to two other Webcomics that TPH had AfD'ed and Sandstein had deleted, this is clearly a Biased and/or Partisan message within the scope of WP:CANVASS.
• Given the recently-closed RFC/U, this bodes exceptionally ill, since TPH is still revisiting AfD's where he didn't get his way (that is, deletion) the first time: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/1/0 (web comic), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jack (webcomic).

Overall, it is unfortunately clear to me that TenPoundHammer has not taken the RFC/U's advice under advisement: he clearly appears more interested in winning than conducting the deletion process with integrity.

Note specificially that I am neither contesting the contents or closure of any of the deletion discussions, in which I have not participated, nor accusing Sandstein of any impropriety whatsoever. This is about TenPoundHammer, not Sandstein's closes or conduct.

Thus, I'm proposing that User:TenPoundHammer is topic banned from all XfD processes, broadly construed, for six months in order to preserve the integrity of the process in the face of such abuses. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• We generally don't just propose topic bans at ANI before discussing it first, as there may be other considerations or remedies available should the consensus decide that there is a problem. As that consensus hasn't developed, I find this a bit premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC) As Nobody Ent has moved this to AN, this point is moot. Striking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've notified Sanstein about this ANI. Since he is central to the discussion, I believe this is proper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I think the RFC/U, which was open quite long and quite recently, was enough discussion that I felt comfortable jumping to a concrete proposal for discussion. Others may differ, but at least it's a clear starting point: I'm not asking for a block or a "please don't do that again"; I believe a topic ban is the best way forward. While I disagree that Sandstein is "central" to this discussion, I agree that you're right to notify him that he's been mentioned, and apologize for neglecting to do that myself. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. TPH has, for years, been... unwilling to listen when it comes to XfDs, to slow down, to stop shrieking his head off demanding closures as soon as the clock ticks, etc etc. While his core intentions are probably good, his execution is poor (to say the least), and thus banning him from XfD for a while would probably be good for him, and save other people a lot of recurring headaches. → ROUX ₪ 21:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• I see nothing wrong with at least the Dominic Deegan and 1/0 AFDs. Both were closed as "no consensus" several years ago. I renominated the others because I felt their past AFDs did not address the issues of reliable sources — everyone was all "keep because it won an award", but far more AFDs have proven that said award is not notable. If you're hinging your keep entirely on a flimsy reasoning, does the AFD not require a second look? Ten Pound Hammer • 21:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Unfuckingbelievable Support. Didn't you get it last week? What a senseless waste. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Profanity doesn't help your case. Your comment seems rather tendentious. Ten Pound Hammer • 21:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, it does. It takes a heck of a lot to get me so pissed off that I need to curse, and everybody knows that. I do not believe you're blowing your nose on the community after both the RFC and last week's AN/ANI report. An absolute insult to anyone who supported you last time, and any previous times. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Again. How is "renominate because the last AFD from SEVERAL YEARS AGO had flawed reasoning and/or was closed as no consensus" detrimental? I see nothing wrong with renominating because the AFD had nothing but WP:ITSNOTABLE or "It won an award that 47 other AFDs have proven is not enough to meet WP:WEB". If it were renominations like, 2 days later, I'd understand, but these are two YEARS later. Ten Pound Hammer • 21:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• If I had my pee-pee slapped twice in the last month regarding AFD nominations, I'd be wise enough to have stayed away from AFD nominations voluntarily. The first was a warning to cut it out, the second should have been your introduction to voluntary recusal, this one should have been un-necessary (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see anything in the RFC/U about TPH admin shopping, and I don't see JClemens discussing the issue on TPH talk page before opening an ANI.Nobody Ent 10:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Why would I be banned from all XFDs? What have I done wrong in CFD, TFD, MFD? Hell, how is "renominating after the last AFD was closed due to faulty reasoning or no consensus" a bad thing? Ten Pound Hammer • 21:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hammer, I think this is part of the problem, that you don't see what many have seen, and many more of us have overlooked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• A renomination of something from several years ago — I'm not seeing how that is wrong. Just tell me how THAT is wrong. Ten Pound Hammer • 21:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • A single renomination of something discussed several years ago is not a problem. A pattern of multiple renominations from things YOU nominated years ago is BATTLEGROUND behavior--it gives the impression you never let anything go, and will continue to bring up such things until they get deleted. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• If there were thousands of examples, or evidence of a clear and constant pattern (for example if TPH re-nominated everything he'd ever nominated again every three months), then I'd agree with you. But the leap from 3 re-nominations, 2 of which were no-consensus the first time and all of which are years old, to "you never let anything go" is ridiculous and veering rather closely into a personal attack. You aren't at all coming off well in this discussion, Jclemens. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support; I have to say, looking at the issues and Bwilkins comment above, I must support. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 21:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support and it breaks my heart to have to do it. I really like you Hammer, and I've defended you more than once. I believe you when you say that you don't get it, as your actions seem perfectly fine to you but not to everyone else. Even when taking up for you, I have to wince a little, but I can't this time. You are too aggressive with deletions, period. You need to take the time, reevaluate your methods and develop some new ones here. You come across like a pit bull in regards to deletions, and I would rather see them put you on a leash than put you down, old friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Will you just answer the question I've asked 14 times in this discussion?! Ten Pound Hammer • 21:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You push the limits in every way Hammer. You shouldn't have went to Sandstein's page, you seem obsessed with deleting, and it is disruptive and bad for Misplaced Pages. You need a break, for your own good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, one canvassing is all I need to be burnt at the stake huh? In my book it's not canvassing unless you say "hey, go !vote delete for me here". Which is not the same thing as "You were in this AFD, here's a related one I'd like you to look at". Ten Pound Hammer • 21:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I, and a substantial number of others, disagree. Sandstein deleted the stuff you wanted deleted, voted delete in another AfD, and you wanted him to close more AfDs? Do you not understand how, even if he'd been scrupulously appropriate in handling the rest of the discussions, it would have created the appearance of impropriety? Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see evidence of wrongdoing here. Frankly, there's a LOT of articles that would have passed an AFD in 2008 (or 2007, or 2009, etc.) that wouldn't pass now due to our increased and ever-increasing focus on verifiable information from reliable sources. WP:CCC and all that. Besides, if TPH is punished for renominating an article for AFD after several years, which isn't against any rule that I know of, what about users who keep going back to DRV with the same articles month after month? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• THANK YOU. I said that five times already and no one will listen. WHAT IS WRONG with renominating after a several year gap? Several YEARS, folks, not days. Ten Pound Hammer • 21:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment Neither oppose nor support, because I'm not sufficiently familiar with the situation. I'm disturbed by the proposer's objection to renomination of old AFDs — when it's been years since an AFD (especially when it ended with a no-consensus close), it's not disruptive to renominate it. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Listen to Nyttend, people. Ten Pound Hammer • 22:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose With great respect for everyone involved as I don't see the message TPH left on S's talk page to be a technical violation of WP:CANVASS, as it is neither Mass posting NOR Biased NOR Partisan NOR Secret. I accept that there is a perception of an issue related to the recent RFC/U, and I can offer no comment in that regard. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The nominator makes the point that the message could be described as Partisan. I still oppose, as the issue of renominating old AfDs does not seem to be contrary to policy. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I am honestly at a loss why this campaign against Mr. Hammer is being conducted. There was an RFC on his conduct at AfD, which resulted in no consensus and no action — with those bringing the case having failed miserably to prove disruption, trolling, or a failure to abide by policy. Just as soon as that closed, his opponents had him back at ANI with a similar whine-a-thon — and that ended up scrolling off the page without an administrator even taking the time to close the pointless, directionless rehash of a discussion. But it's not the lack of merit behind their failed efforts to burn Mr. Hammer that matters to his foes, I suppose, it's just keeping that User Name "in the news" so that they can move for the kill. NOW the other shoe drops — having failed not once but twice to prove disruption, they move for a massive six month topic ban based on................ nothing! This is asinine! I have a very different perspective towards where the keep/delete lines should be drawn than Mr. Hammer does, but he is NOT disruptive of the process and he SHOULD have a right to attempt to advance his perspective without being bullied by those who disagree with him. THERE IS NO WRONGDOING PROVEN against Mr. Hammer, how can he "disregard" or "not take seriously" failed bureaucratic actions against him? But the pitchfork-wielding mob needs their dose of adrenaline, I guess.... Nuts. Carrite (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and well said. The first few posts here are downright surreal. It's like the basic concept was "Well, the RFC didn't find any wrongdoing, but I really want him banned, real bad. Maybe if I write up an ANI post that kinda sounds like he did something wrong, nobody will notice that he actually didn't." And the really crazy part is that it actually worked on a few people who really should have known better. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah man, but, dude, you're just another deletionist, man. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Oppose: I see nothing wrong with the renominations listed above BUT the message on Sandstein's talk page is less than neutral and not to be condoned. J04n(talk page) 22:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose/Support blah, blah, blah who gives a f***. Grow up. Let's get back to building an encyclopedia instead of all this diva crap.  Tigerboy1966  22:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Based on the lack of any conclusions from the RFC/U and the ANI on TPH's actions last week, while TPH may be pushing good faith, there needs to be a lot more here to insist on a block as admin action. As Nyytend pointed out, renom'ing at AFD articles after a couple years is completely reasonable, particularly since TPH has argued that something changed (the contribution of awards like Ursa Major towards notability) instead of just restarting a IDONTLIKEIT-type argument. Yes, trout to TPH to work a bit less aggressively towards these ends (such as opening a discussion at web comics project to try to resolve the issue beforehand), but stuff like that is neither required or demanded by any policy/guideline - TPH is using valid processes to challenge articles he believes aren't appropriate. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andrew Lenahan. I object to banning someone when one of the reason is "renominating an article that was nominated years before" and for treating WP:BEFORE as if it is a policy. That said, canvassing is to be avoided, and not all AFDs were well chosen. A trout is more appropriate than a ban. But the RFC/U was not the open and shut case that the OP here states it to have been. . Edison (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I admit I could've phrased my comments to Sandstein a little more neutrally, but I still don't think it's canvassing unless you outright tell someone to !vote a certain way. I was not asking Sandstein to !vote "delete" in the AFDs — just asking him to weigh in since he'd handled AFDs on similar topics. Ten Pound Hammer • 22:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not familiar with TPH and AfDs in general but, in isolation, I don't see the message on Sandstein's page as problematic. I've had editors ask me not to take admin action on particular articles because they think they know which way I'll read consensus (they are usually wrong) and that's just a normal business practice. No admin is obliged to act on a user request. --regentspark (comment) 22:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

if you think of this as normal business practice for an admin, I really wonder. I cannot imagine responding to such as request, and I find it hard to imagine anyone who knew the way we work here would ask me; I don't think anyone ever has. Even given that TPH is a zealot, I wouldn't have expected it of him either. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose- 6 months is far too long. Consider limiting quantity to single nomination or one consolidated definitely related set per listing period through 30 June. Dru of Id (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've seen worse than 'You close discussions about topic X; editor Y is doing Z.' Dru of Id (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I raised the RFC/U/. I'd like to see this topic ban - but not for this reason. This is just nit-picking over the letter of policy, not principles, and we shouldn't work that way. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I cannot endorse such a long topic ban at this time. In this thread I suggested some restrictions that seemed to me to meet most of the concerns raised without being unduly burdensome. Bovlb (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Suggest (noting the substantial opposition to an actual XfD ban) a 3 month strict probation regarding his behaviour at XfDs, including a ban on any solicitication of anyone at all in any regard to any XfDs, as well as a bar on him engaging in any of the behaviours which were rightly noted at the RFC/U. Collect (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me give you a concrete example of why this isn't a desirable outcome. Mr. Hammer and I were recently on opposite sides of an AfD debate — we disagree probably 90% of the time when we're both chiming in on the same thing, it's nothing new. The piece was an unsourced thing on a Portuguese folk dance. I basically used a lot of words to make an IAR defense — which, as AfD regulars know, is effective very infrequently. Mr. Hammer wants to see sources or it should be gone, my perspective: hang loose, sources are out there, WP is better with an unsourced stub about a real thing than without it. Mr. Hammer popped onto my talk page politely calling me out — "so how do you propose we source this out if there are no sources." It got me reengaged in the debate, and it was healthy. I don't recall or care all that much about the ultimate outcome, the point is that for AfD to work properly it needs to be a place where honest debate can happen, where different ideas can contend and where consensus can emerge. If Mr. Hammer was subject to a "strict probation," his calling out my (to him) fuzzy logic would never have happened and the process would have been stilted.

TPH certainly has a way to lessen the stress level of all, in my opinion, which is by being very serious about following WP:BEFORE and when he finds a huge web footprint for a subject — even if they are all so-called "unreliable sources" floating to the top of Google — to stop being quite so fired up to charge on to AfD, but to rather tag the piece for sources without making a deletion challenge. But that's my opinion and he's a principled deletionist. That's life, not everybody agrees about everything always. But here's the point: Mr. Hammer is a dedicated AfD regular, that is a primary form of his volunteer work in support of The Project, and he should not be trashed for doing what he believes is right. Carrite (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This proposal is vastly out of proportion to the outcome of the RfC/U, where there was nothing near a consensus for any ban at all. Renominating AfDs was also covered at the RfC/U, where, again, there was no consensus that there was a problem. As for posting on Sandstein's talk page, that was questionable although I did not see it as canvassing. In any event, proposing a 6 month ban because of that posting is vastly out of proportion to what happened. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Whilst TPH may well be a pitt-bull who requires a leash, this proposal requires a foundation on an incident. An examination of that foundation upon which you have rested your proposal will show those interested that it has insufficient merit at this time. Better to be patient waiting for something satisfactory to come along, rather than a false start like this proposal, which will fail. Penyulap ☏ 23:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The talk page message is rather minor, and isn't worth a topic ban. The AfD's linked in the complaint don't seem inappropriate to me (enough time had elapsed since the previous AfD in each case, or the previous AfD was speedily withdrawn by TPH and therefore doesn't count). I'm not seeing any problem serious enough to warrant a topic ban, particularly not a topic ban which spans all XfD's (as no problem has even been discussed outside of AfD). -Scottywong| express _ 23:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose but only on the ground that one such incident isn't enough. I think we as admins need to issue a very strong warning that this sort of administrator shopping is not acceptable. I think it's pretty outrageous to ask a particular admin to close an AfD in any case, or to ask a particular admin to close any other discussion. One can invite a person --even an admin--to look at an AfD, if there's a good neutral reason for doing so, such as involvement in very similar AfDs, but to suggest any particular action such as closing, is unacceptable. It is particularly wrong to suggest closing, rather than comment: what one comments will be judged by a third person entirely in the context of other comments; if one closes one is doing an individual final action. It can be fine to ask a particular admin whom one happens to know to do something obvious, like deal with a vandal, but not something that is already before the community. (it's not Canvassing and shouldn't be confused with it; it's worse than canvassing, especially as TPH brought the AfD nominations in these articles himself. I consider it not a reason for topic ban, but for blocking; an attempt to pervert community process.) Sandstein, as we would all expect, responded just as he should have. I don't think we need a specific policy against it--it's covered by the general policy on disruption. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a warning about administrator shopping would be appropriate. I'm sure TPH knows he fucked up in that regard. The basic problem is that such shopping (especially by a nominator) makes for an "involved" rather than neutral judge of the debate and fuels a battleground mentality. A warning that a week in the sin bin will occur for a repeat performance, with escalating blocks thereafter for the identical offense, would seem appropriate. Carrite (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess I was looking that the totality of problems since the RFC/U, and the canvassing was the icing on the cake. I'm still shocked that he wouldn't just voluntarily pull back on XfD for a while and review his actions more. I genuinely like Hammer, and I'm afraid he is going to be in for a rougher time down the road if the brakes aren't applied here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Not for this. Although it would probably be best for everyone if TPH decided to take a voluntary n month break from XfD. —Ruud 00:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose TPH concerns me, but this concerns me more. If the community comes to the consensus that something needs to be done, I'd be willing to act as a gatekeeper, approving TPH's nominations before they go live. I don't think anyone would be concerned that I would stand in the way of valid nominations, and I don't have a reputation for frivolous nominations, either.—Kww(talk) 00:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that TPH should take a voluntary break from AfDs for a while, but this doesn't justify a ban from them. Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Logical Cowboy's comment. It seems out of proportion and overdone. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as out of proportion, which strikes me as a good term to use. DGG's comment, though, is worth taking in. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support TPH has in my experience a tendency to stretch policies and ignore certain aspects that he finds inconvenient. In this discussion he has been arguing that if his message is worded neutrally it isn't canvassing, which rather ignores the issue that a neutral message to a partisan audience is canvassing. Suggesting that a particular admin who has closed similar close AFDs in a way TPH approved of should close particular AFDs is canvassing, and the neutrality of the phrasing is irrelevant, as is the issue of whether that admin would actually have agreed with TPH, the issue is that TPH was trying to pick an admin who was likely to close the AFD in a particular way. I'm sure that if one of my fellow Article Rescue Squadron members had asked me to close those AFDs TPH would consider it canvassing regardless of the neutrality of the phrasing. A 6 month or even a three month break from the deletion process would give TPH time to get more involved in other aspects of the project, and hopefully get a little more perspective on the situation. ϢereSpielChequers 06:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - per much of the above. (My personal experience, going back years, is that TPH treats AFD like gambling: "Let's see who shows up for this nom, maybe we'll get this one deleted. If not, I can always say I was just looking for a discussion." )(And yes, please tell me I'm not presuming good faith so I can point to a clear section of that page.) I also hope that whoever closes this takes into account those opposers who claim to agree with the sanction, but only differ in what the duration of the sanction should be. We can always say the sanction starts immediately, and then have a follow up RfC to determine how long the sanction should be. - jc37 08:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. While I might have supported a ban of short duration against initiating a deletion discussion, an all encompassing ban is unsupportable by me. My76Strat (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Ridiculous molehill Are admins Misplaced Pages stormtroopers whose will can be so easily bent? These are the articles you seek said Obi-Wan-Hammer... Nobody Ent 10:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-English articles

Hi. Whilst on new article patrol I've come across articles written in languages other than English several times, but I'm never sure what to do with them. Can anyone enlighten me as to what the proper course of action is? Take this article as an example (likely to be deleted under A10 soon, but I guess you guys can see it anyway). Thanks Basalisk ⁄_berate 17:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NPP#Dealing with foreign language new pages. JohnCD (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Tag them with {{notenglish}}, follow the instructions in the template to list it at WP:PNT, and if you can make sense of the google translation then tag it for speedy deletion/prod/afd or redirect it if it meets a criteria--Jac16888 19:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

And if it was copied from another language wiki, tag it A2 (I've only had occasion to do it once, it was a town article copied and pasted from pt.wiki, so it doesn't happen often). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright question (large blockquotes)

On the page section 69_(sex_position)#History, the entire text is apparently just quoting from a source, Legman 1969, pp. 289-301. I would think that this would be an inappropriate use of the text since the source is presumably still under copyright and rewording to only reference the source is possible. I would greatly appreciate if someone could look at this and determine if copyright problems exist. OSborn _contribs. 21:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That is unacceptable. It's not even info that couldn't be paraphrased. Secretlondon (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we need another notice board?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Penyulap (talk • contribs) 04:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal for editor Sju hav

To all Wikipedians, I am now proposing a siteban on editor Sju hav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After his indefinitely block in 2010, he has, to date, created over 48 sock puppets within the period of three years, and is believed to have created/used 38 more accounts. He continually creates additional accounts to evade his block, perform 3RR violations on articles of his interest, even after his editing privileges have been revoked. He has also participates in denying having any sockpuppets, when clearly he is just doing so. I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him.

Support: Due to the nominator of the site ban on this editor. Mr. Wikipediania 06:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:BLOCKBANDIFF. I don't see the point of these repeated calls for bans. See also another section above, by the same nominator, and ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_banned_users#Treatment_of_de-facto-banned_users. Drmies (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support in this case. There might not be a technical difference, but this guy needs a hard slap. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this deletable?

File:Schliemann mansion 1900.png appears to be a recreation of an image deleted after discussion on commons, see . I note that in the deletion discussion the uploader has said "Secondly, I am not in the slightest bit interested in US copyright law. The applicable law here is Greek, which clearly you do not know, and I assert my own copyright under Greek law." I'm not raising this as a copyvio issue here, just asking if we can delete here with the grounds that it was deleted after discussion on Commons (and if we can't, that won't be a surprise). I do think I can delete on the copyvio issue though. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If these are postcards made c.1900, and, as such, can be safely assumed to have been published around the same time too, then they are fair game under {{PD-US-1923}}. Commons may have been right about deleting them, based on the principle that on Commons they need to be PD both in the country of origin and in the US, but here on en-wp it's only US law that counts. I think the uploader has gotten the legal argument the wrong way round if he is arguing he can use them under Greek but not under US law. It's actually US law that allows us to keep them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(Adding to this, I'd be skeptical about the uploader's claim that his modifications (colouring etc.) constitute a new copyright of his own, so I'd prefer tagging them as PD-US-1923 rather than cc-by-sa under his own authorship, but the basic fact that the original postcards are PD remains the same. If his argument holds that there is no retroactive copyright for that period under local Greek law either, that's fine, but it doesn't really matter much either way.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this is wrong. The images published by me are not PD images: they are my own copyright and published as CC-by-SA on flickr. I know far more about copyright law than anyone here so please just accept this. I am in accordance with the law of the EU and Greece. US law has nothing to say on this, since it is outside of its jurisdiction. Please do not make this into a legal challenge; you will lose and waste everyone's time and money. But you cannot appropriate my personal copyright, nor make into PD things that are not. 85.72.192.70 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, I have followed both law and the rules of WP to the letter. If you should arbitrarily countermand my actions -- in breach of both WP rules and European law -- this is legally actionable. The only reason that these things continue with illegal actions on wikimedia and elsewhere is that it costs money to sue. If people start doing this, you will have good reason to worry. Law is not simple, and copyright law in particular is very very complex. As things currently stand, the only person against whom any legal action could be taken is me -- for publishing significantly altered uncopyrighted images as my own copyright. If you change anything, you and wikipedia are open to legal action -- by me or by unknown persons. 85.72.192.70 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The analysis given above are correct. We consider both the US nature of the work (due to en.wiki being hosted on US soil) and the originating country of the work. An image may be copyrighted in one country but be considered PD in the other. To that end, en.wiki will still call them non-free images since they cannot be free reused by any reader. But we can mark them as PD within the United States only as long as the date qualifies it correctly. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The Wikimedia and Misplaced Pages servers are in the United States, so that jurisdiction is indeed relevant to this question. For what it's worth, colourization would indeed be grounds for an additional copyright under US law. The colourized images should not be tagged as public domain. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked 85.72.192.70 for making legal threats. The block is initially for 24 hours to allow reconsideration of this policy infringement Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me try to understand this correctly. You have tried to ban me from speaking here, because I did the following: (1) outline the legal situation concerning non-copyrighted (they are not PD) images that have been substantially altered in an EU country; (2) defend my own copyright rights; (3) explain that certain actions would be illegal and lay WP open to litigation. By your criteria, every lawyer in the world should be arrested for "making threats" and anyone who asserts his rights should be too. Some people might describe this way of thinking as authoritarian or fascist -- but it is certainly neither democratic nor lawful. 85.74.231.186 (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is your item (3). See WP:NLT: "If you have a dispute with the community or its members, use dispute resolution. If you do choose to use legal action or threats of legal action to resolve disputes, you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved and your user account or IP address may be blocked. ". JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Item (3) explains to you that WP would be open to legal action by other persons, as well as by me. It is not a threat. I thought it was very clear that I was making a rational and legal argument. 85.74.231.186 (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Also see WP:EVADE: " User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may also be blocked". JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Time to block the actual account, User:Xenos2008 I think. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, per this edit . JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as well for legal threats. Note that although the IP block was 24 hours (which is ok for an IP address which he seems able to change), a legal threat block is normally indefinite (and of course can be lifted in minutes). Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh-oh. I could have predicted that Xenos wouldn't react well to being reminded of the NLT policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not made any legal threats. I have pointed out what the law is. There is a big difference. There is not even any subtle use of language implying threats: this is just abuse of power by people on WP. 85.74.231.186 (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

All an unblock needs is a statement on your account page that you will not take legal action or suggest that others do so. I'm blocking this IP now. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh come on, Xenos. I respect you; you're a knowledgable contributor and those images are great. It's just that with your irate tone you're not going to get your way in this project. Just be the bigger person, say that you don't intend to sue anybody, and then we can figure out those details over Greek vs. US law or public domain vs CC-BY. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have never said that I would sue anyone: I was talking about the legal position of these images. I see no reason to retract something that I did not say! 85.74.224.205 (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• On a somewhat related note, I believe that image is more trouble than it's worth. Can someone please IAR delete it? Salvio 16:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be a pity. I rather like those pics, and they are potentially valuable for any article on the history of Athens. Since the only disagreement is whether they are PD-old or CC-BY, I don't really see grounds for deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  Indeed, I don't see any grounds for deletion. Snowolf 16:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Is there no way of getting the original ones? Those we are sure are PD, I mean. Salvio 16:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  Apparently they are collector's items in Xenos' personal possession. Unlikely that good online copies should exist elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I find it absolutely outrageous that I should have to keep changing my IP address to have a polite discussion about the legal status of images that I posted onto WP. Do you not see that this is abuse of power? Specifically, let me clarify what has happened (also on wikimedia). I have been collecting rare antiques (books, map and postcards/photos) on the history of Greece and especially Athens over several years. Some of these images are posted on the web as scanned (not high quality remastered) and they cannot be used on wikimedia. So I decided to scan some antiques in my possession, work on the image quality to re-present the historical image better, and post them on wikimedia. Over there, some Germans started crap about copyright law and they were not PD images that I had scanned, so they could not be left there at all.

This obliged me to research on Greek copyright law more carefully. There was no copyright on anything before 1920, and the 1993 and later laws are not retroactive. These are therefore not public domain images that I scanned, so much as uncopyrighted (and open to legal challenge, unlikely as that is). Any competent copyright lawyer will explain that there is ambiguity, but in all probability the scanned images could be tolerated as PD and the altered images as my own copyright. As I mentioned above, WP takes no legal risk in allowing my images on WP: the risk is all mine. If you try to claim that my copyrighted images are PD, then this amounts to copyright theft.

If, on the other hand, you ask me if I would consider making my images PD, then the answer is that I have tended to do that in the past, also for my own photos. The only reason I did not do so, is because (a) wikimedia claims that the originals and not PD; (b) it would be nice to have some recognition of my name for the hours of work in improving the images, not to mention the fact that I have spent money on the original items (many of which are rare and expensive). I still do not see why they have to be PD on wikipedia, since you allow CC-by-SA images which these are. 85.74.224.205 (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, I think you've really jumped the gun here with the block. I don't see any legal threats from this user, nor do I see any evidence that he was acting disruptively prior to the block. He was trying to resolve a licensing dispute in a civil manner. I hope you will consider unblocking him so that he can continue the conversation here without having to circumvent the block. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Quoting: " If you change anything, you and wikipedia are open to legal action -- by me or by unknown persons." Pretty clear cut case. And the approach was far from civil, putting those challenging the images immediately as the "bad guys". --MASEM (t) 17:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A statement of law is not a threat, especially when the law itself may be unclear to you so I was setting it out. My approach was (I think) civil and irritable, since I have gone through weeks of arguing with wikimedia on points of law with these same images. Enough is enough. If you cannot accept the rule of law, then simply state it outright and do as you like. I will certainly keep away from WP (and presumably others would too). 85.74.224.205 (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't a threat—not even a thinly veiled one. It was a statement that removing legitimate copyright notices from images—which is precisely what you proposed doing—is illegal and exposes Wikimedia to civil action, not just in this specific case, but generally. Anyone who would knowingly do this is indeed a "bad guy", as evidenced by the routine blocks and bans for this behaviour. I'm sure you would be just as taken aback if someone proposed changing or removing the licenses to the images or text you have contributed here. The uploader comes across as quite arrogant about his knowledge of copyright law, and about others' lack thereof, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Block review

Moved here from WP:ANI to keep things together. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to review the block of Xenos2008 (and associated IPs) issued following Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Is_this_deletable.3F. The situation can be summarized as follows:

1. Xenos2008 uploads some images to which he has asserted a copyright claim. He tags them as "CC-BY-SA".
2. Future Perfect at Sunrise and Masem dispute the copyright claim and propose changing the tags to "public domain".
3. Xenos2008 inform the two that removing the valid copyright notice and license would be illegal and expose Misplaced Pages to legal liability.
4. Jimfbleak and Dougweller block Xenos2008 for making legal threats, and tell him that he can be unblocked only if he promises not to sue.

This demand is entirely unfair. For one thing, Xenos2008 never threatened to sue to begin with. Jimfbleak and Dougweller's interpretation of his statements as a legal threat is inconsistent with past practice at WP:AN and WP:ANI; previously administrators have declined to issue blocks for similarly worded statements. HighInBC summed it up quite well in one case in 2007: "Explaining that certain actions may expose Misplaced Pages to legal problems is not a legal threat, even if that claim is incorrect." The blocking administrators also failed to comply with WP:LEGAL: "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved." As far as I can tell, no such attempt at clarification was made before the block.

For what it's worth, Xenos2008 has categorically denied that the statement was meant to be a threat, though for some reason this avowal isn't good enough.

More importantly, what if Xenos2008 does issue the promise not to sue, only to have some editors end up removing the copyright tags from his images? If his original claim to copyright on the images was correct (and I believe it is), he has now lost (or at least jeopardized) his only legal recourse against a bona fide copyright violation. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm off to bed, and don'd mind what happens to the block, but this isn't quite right. His images were deleted at Commons after a discussion.. He then uploaded them again here. I wasn't sure whether they should be deleted or not and asked at WP:AN. Through an IP address he wrote at WP:AN "As things currently stand, the only person against whom any legal action could be taken is me -- for publishing significantly altered uncopyrighted images as my own copyright. If you change anything, you and wikipedia are open to legal action -- by me or by unknown persons." That sort of wording has been considered a legal threat before and accounts blocked. The IP was blocked, he responded from another IP. I blocked his account and made it clear he had to post there clarifying that he meant no legal threat. He hasn't done this. Using other IPs he has said that it was not a threat, but he has never said that he does not intent to take any legal action or suggest that others do so. People should read the discussion at WP:AN to see the exact wording. And please note the block evasion and failure to ask for an unblock on his account page. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I should add that I would have happily unblocked immediately if he'd simply made it clear he wasn't going to take legal action. At AN he said he wasn't going to retract something he hadn't said, but in fact he was being asked to clarify it, which is not the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The block was in keeping with normal practices and justified at the time it was made. However, I'm satisfied with the retraction/clarification/call-it-whatever-you-want, and I've known Xenos (and his irate temper) for long enough to know he's a potentially valuable contributor despite all harsh words, so I'm personally fine with an unblock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Let me share one thing that I'm pretty sure I understand about US copyright law. If you take something that is PD, modify it, you can copyright it. That doesn't take away the fact that the original is PD. PD isn't a license that can be violated, it is a lack of license. PD isn't the GPL, it does not force modifications to be released under the same license, or in this case, without a license. Greek law isn't needed to establish his right to release under copyright, and isn't needed or particularly relevant here, so I won't bother with it. As for legal threat, it does appear that he was simply asserting his legal right to copyright, but I can see how that can be interpreted either way. It would make sense if he just would indicate that he will not sue anyone. It doesn't require a retraction, it requires an affirmative statement. That seems the shortest distance between these two points. I would be happy to argue his right to claim a copyright as I am convinced he is correct, even if for different reasons than he thinks applies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with Dennis Brown. To my regards, it is fine, even necessary to describe the legal status of a derivative work. The moment that discussion begins to name litigants, it becomes a block-worthy threat. This happened and the block is justified. My76Strat (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, in the meantime the images have been relabelled as PD in the USA, which is not correct. They require attribution under CC-by-SA, even if the original scans (which I have not provided) are PD-old. In fact, the original scans are clearly PD in both the USA and the EU, but wikimedia refuse to accept that. (They have also relabelled images over there as PD when they are not.) As far as making a statement that I do not intend to take legal action is concerned, what is the point? It would not stop me from taking legal action later! However, I have no intention of wasting time and money going to court over some images that I have no commercial involvement with. Nor have I ever threatened to do so. 85.74.224.205 (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You can log back in - you've been unblocked. Just sort out the copyright tags Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dennis, I think your missing an important element in your copyright analysis, to have a copyright in the modification of a PD work, the modification must be substantial, and involve significant creativity. Many types of modifications, such as touching up, croping, or adjusting the image are not sufficient to create a copyright in the derivative. Monty₈₄₅ 21:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was thinking when I made my initial suggestion of PD status. Not that I have a strong opinion on it either way – if he had simply said "no, I think my modifications are original enough to warrant my own copyright claim, so I'd prefer for it to be listed under my authorship", I'd have been inclined to just leave it at that, and we could have avoided a lot of the drama. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That is in the eye of the beholder, and since it is modified, he has the right to claim copyright, and we are forced to accept this here as we are not a court of law. If someone independent of Misplaced Pages wants to contest this, use it as PD, forcing him to exert his right to copyright, that is a matter for the courts, not us. Here, we can only give the benefit of the doubt since it is modified and err on the side of using the most restrictive form of protection, copyright, since it is at the minimum, a legitimate claim. If for no reason other than to protect Misplaced Pages from potential liability as enabling infringement, this makes sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely correct statement of law, Dennis. One further point: there is no provision on flickr for labelling images as PD, so I am having to state this (for some simple scans of maps) in the text. These I would not assert any copyright over, since they are mere scans. The whole thing is tendentious anyway: doubtless people everywhere will treat images on WP as PD anyway, and whatever I do the guys on wikimedia refuse to accept the scans as PD. So there is no point changing anything, at least as far as the postcard views are concerned. My main objective is to allow people to see and use these important historical images, which I have gone to much trouble and expense to collect. Thank you. Xenos2008 (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Monty845 writes, "Many types of modifications, such as touching up, cropping, or adjusting the image are not sufficient to create a copyright in the derivative." However, that colourization of an existing work can be considered a "minimum amount of individual creative human authorship" to produce "an original work of authorship" is already a settled matter in US copyright law. The issue has arisen often enough with motion pictures that the Copyright Office has drawn up a set of criteria for determining whether a given colourization is registerable as an original work (quoted and discussed in, for example, "Update on the Film Colorization Debate Copyright Office Issues Registration Decision and Congress Considers Proposed Legislation"). I don't know whether there's a similar published list for still images, but one would imagine that the criteria would be similar. Psychonaut (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The adjustments made vary widely across the different images, but the time taken ranges from about 90 minutes to 9 hours per image. The techniques I have used are intended to recreate as near to a modern photo as possible, in some cases quite far removed from the published image if there are serious errors in printing. Typically, this involves resetting colours by pixel groups, altering the total colour balance, removing horrible printing mistakes (smudges and overlaps) as well as damage from handling over time, resolution management, etc. I think the results speak for themselves, and you can find a few of these images online and merely scanned. The River Ilissos one has been put on quite a few blogs, but wikimedia refuse to allow the images as PD. Xenos2008 (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The US does not adhere to the sweat of the brow doctrine, so the amount of time you invested in colourizing the images is irrelevant. All that matters is the creativity involved. Psychonaut (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is true for the US. However, I am asserting the copyright under Greek/EU law, which the USA is obliged to respect in principle -- even if the US courts would not reach the same conclusions as Greek courts. Only litigation would resolve that, and it is pointless to discuss it. 85.74.224.205 (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

@Psychonaut: the decision you link to speaks of processes of entirely new coloration of previously black-and-white works, which is not what happened here. It also mentions that "mere variations of coloring" are not copyrightable. With all respect towards Xenos' work in fixing up these images, that wording would seem to suggest non-copyrightability in a case like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read the entire article. It discusses at some length the Copyright Office's attitude to colourization in general, not just to the new process. Psychonaut (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Psychonaut: I did read it. "registration will not be made for the enhancement of color in a previously colored film prohibition on copyright registration based on mere variations of color" seemed pretty clear to me. But whatever, as I said earlier, it's not as if I cared a great deal. If Xenos insists on his copyright claim, I for one have no problem with letting it pass, and in fact I have in the meantime adapted the image tags accordingly. (Btw, Xenos, you said you didn't find an option on Flickr to mark something as PD. I believe the "cc-zero" option is essentially that.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I understand, there is a tag CC-zero and no way to insert it! A lot of grumbles over there on forums about it. 85.74.224.205 (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

FP: the legal test of copyright, in both the USA and Europe, hinges on the degree of originality, nature and extent of any alteration to a previous version. This can only be determined by a court, although in US law precedent can be used (as opposed to continental legal systems). Given that there is a very great difference between the scanned images and those I have produced, sometimes taking a great deal of time and learned skills as well as sophisticated software, I am confident that most courts would accept the new copyright. In cases where I have made little contribution other than high-quality scanning, I tag images as PD. Moreover, potentially a Greek court could award copyright and the US refuse to do so; the situation is so complex that there is no point arguing. 85.74.224.205 (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What matters most is what we do at Misplaced Pages, and again, we are forced to take the most restrictive view for our own protection, which is to allow the claim of copyright when the author has made the claim and it can not be clearly proven otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Strat)He's emailed BASC - assertingt a claim of copyright should never fall under WP:LEGAL and he should never have been blocked, although I understand that his choice of phrasing may not have assisted in clearing the matter up earlier. I have unblocked him - hopefully more dialogue can sort out the correct tags for the uploaded images. Dennis appears to have hit the heart of the matter here.. Elen of the Roads (talk)

As I said at ANI, I don't mind the unblock, although he could have been unblocked much faster (and I would never have blocked the account), had he simply made it clear that he had no intent of taking legal action. Glad that's resolved. Dougweller (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why this wasn't raised directly with me, rather than brought straight here. Still, I've finally been invited to the party (: I don't have any further comment since a consensus seems to have been reached here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I did raise it with you upthread, but as I didn't receive a response after three hours, I thought it best to request a review from an uninvolved party. Normally I wouldn't have done so after waiting so short a time, but Xenos2008 was continuing to dig a hole for himself by evading the block, and as he had a legitimate concern (despite the illegitimate way of expressing it) I felt it important that it be heard. I didn't mean to imply that your block was malicious, only that it was erroneous. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

On the issue of copyright licences, is there now some agreement that these are simply CC-by-SA? They are certainly not PD-US as currently tagged (because they were not published in the USA) and I do not think they should be tagged as PD-OLD either, although the original simple scans should be that. If the agreement is to accept the asserted copyright status, then perhaps someone could remove the PD-USA tags from various images I uploaded. Thanks. Xenos2008 (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The files aren't tagged as PD-US. They are tagged as CC-BY-SA. However, I mentioned in the file description that the original postcards are PD-US. That is quite true: Things published abroad before 1923 are in the public domain according to US law . US law assigns a copyright status (either copyrighted or public domain) to things even when they have not been published in the US. This status may differ from that in the country of origin, and for our considerations under Misplaced Pages practice, it's always the US status and not the local status in the country of origin that counts. This is just standard stuff in our treatment of images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(Addition): If what you object to is the {{Do not move to Commons}} tag: I know the language of that tag doesn't fit these cases precisely. The tag is just a practical matter: as long as the files have a "free" license descriptor on them (CC or PD or whatever), somebody will eventually try to move them to Commons. However, for better or worse, Commons has made the decision they don't want them, so if they were moved there now, they'd be subject to deletion again. The tag is just there to avoid the silly trouble of moving them back and forth all the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi: Still community banned?

• Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs)
  • Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive10#Tobias Conradi
  • Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi#Log of blocks and bans
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive82#Tobias Conradi
• TZ master (talk · contribs)
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive724#Help with numerous new pages being created by copy/paste from another
  • "Massive attack by User:RobertMfromLI"
  • "Attacks by random users and bots"
  • "Fastily should be de-admined."
• Royaume du Maroc (talk · contribs)
  • "Note to user:bazonka: LISTEN! Even Arabs can speak English!"

Is Tobias Conradi still community banned? I ask because of the AFD discussions of Time in Illinois (AfD discussion) and Daylight saving time in Germany (AfD discussion). It's been confirmed by CheckUser that Tobias Conradi was still extensively sockpuppetting up to August 2011 and that Time in Russia (talk · contribs) is one of many Tobias Conradi sockpuppets. The article histories of Time in the Czech Republic, America/Indiana/Knox, America/Cuiaba, America/Kentucky/Louisville, and some others make it fairly clear that there's a little walled garden of articles that only Tobias Conradi is interested in as anything other than redirects, and strongly indicate that the pattern of creating multiple new accounts has continued since August 2011 and that Royaume du Maroc is one of several more Tobias Conradi accounts.

Which brings me back to the question:

• Does the community consider the Tobias Conradi ban from five years ago to be still in force?
• If so, what does the community want to do with the walled garden of TZ-database-related articles that only these accounts have ever edited (other than as redirects to the actual articles for the cities and countries indicated) at all?

Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Tobias Conradi is still banned, yes; that's been reaffirmed in several discussions over the last couple of years. As to what to do with the articles, I'll notify the users who are usually chasing after him, they'll probably have some ideas. But leaving them be is almost certainly not what to do, given the mess that some of his socks (especially TigreTiger) created. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)
• There was a tremendous amount of disruption he caused between June-August on India geo articles, last thing we need is for him to return now! —SpacemanSpiff 19:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "Return"? From the sockpuppet investigations page, it appears that xe never left. You do know that Royaume du Maroc has been active within the past 12 hours, yes? Uncle G (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I haven't exactly followed Tobias' career here, I was only briefly involved when he started working on India geo articles. Quite honestly, I don't know enough about his editing interests to make a judgment call on the above. But I have experienced enough of his disruptive nature to know that he's a net negative. —SpacemanSpiff 08:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yeah, I think it would probably be pretty obvious if Tobias's ban were lifted. I really doubt such behavior as indicated above is at all likely to change that situation, either. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • So what's your view on what to do with the walled garden? Uncle G (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • They won't stand as individual articles (what is notable about a time zone anyway?) so just merge them into a "Time in the <country/region>" sort of omnibus article. Blackmane (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Two new requests for comment regarding the Arbitration Committee

I've started two new requests for comment regarding the Arbitration Committee:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Expansion of Ban Appeals Subcommittee
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Effect of arbitration processes on editor retention

The intent of these requests is to solicit community feedback regarding potential improvements to the arbitration process. Input from anyone with an interest in arbitration or the Committee's work would be very appreciated! Kirill  20:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad RfC Close

After closely examining the arguments put forth in each section, we have concluded that the status quo of the Muhammad article should largely be retained. For proposal 1, we found there to be no consensus to put any type of hatnote in the article. In the discussion of question 2, we found that there was the strongest consensus to put a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox. With regards to the placement of other figurative images, we found that the current status quo -- of using figurative images of the highest encyclopedic value to illustrate important events in the subject’s life -- had the most support. This was accompanied by a general sentiment that figurative images were not necessary before the “Life” section, but would certainly be necessary after that point. However, editors should remember that calligraphic representations are the most common, and should not add images, especially figurative ones, without a clear encyclopedic reason to do so. Furthermore, there was a clear consensus to avoid any quota of figurative or calligraphic image, and to let the text of the article dictate the images used. There was no consensus for how the principle of least astonishment should apply to Muhammad.

Thank you all for your participation and your patience.

Respectfully, Black Kite (talk), Keilana (talk), and Someguy1221 (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

General comment

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough

Resolved by motion that:

FoF 8 (Unblocking of SmackBot) changed to:

Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot).

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

XfD Topic Ban for User:TenPoundHammer (Again)

Last week there was a proposal at WP:ANI XfD_Topic_Ban_for_User:TenPoundHammer It was rejected - I was one of those that opposed it. However given edits today, I'm re-submitting this.

A thoroughly trivial template replacement is taking place {{TLS-H2}} is to replace {{TLS-H}}. However the templates aren't backward compatible and can't simply be exchanged. No problem, we'll get there eventually. Nothing is even broken in the meantime.

However that's not enough for Hammer. So today, mere days after the ANI thread closes, he's out finding stuff to delete again. Anything will do - even trivial little header templates from a project he shows no previous interest in. No problem though - a quick replacement of the old with the new and nominate the old template for deletion. No need to preview the end results - that's just a content matter, and content isn't important, only the irresistible compulsion to delete something. It might help if the two templates were compatible, and if swapping one for the other didn't break the table headers. It would be even better if Hammer had actually replaced all the uses of this template, rather than still missing one. But that's just the small stuff, and the little people can worry about that. Actually it's not that easy - swapping table columns (as the template replacement needs) is a big time-consuming edit to carry out and check afterwards. It's so much more fun just pressing that XfD button.

For most editors this would just be a goof. Most would even have the grace to be embarrassed about it afterwards. Couple of days after discussion of an XfD topic ban though, this is just too keen to get that deletion fix, and hang the paperwork of checking whether things still work afterwards. An editor this careless should not be left with XfD access. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Last time I supported, which was painful as I really like Hammer. (Times before, I opposed) What I wish Hammer would do is instead voluntarily take a 3 month break from XfD, and make all these AN reports unneeded. Right now, he is under the microscope in a way that isn't healthy for himself or Misplaced Pages, and I think the self-imposed break would be the better solution if he would agree to it. Hammer probably isn't liking me too much since the last AN, but I'm suggesting this as a friend and as someone who really respects him, but thinks he needs a break. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• You haven't realized yet that Dingley is the only person putting me "under the microscope"? He clearly has a hate-on for me. Ten Pound Hammer • 19:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• "he is under the microscope"

Agreed. And then he still pulls stunts like this. If everyone is watching you, if you can't stop doing it, at least be careful when doing it. Hammer can't even manage that much. Even if he'd realised the pages broke afterwards, then reverted, it wouldn't be a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not "everyone" is watching me. You seem to be the only one crying foul most of the time — you are the one who started most of the discussion on me of late. If only one editor seems to have enough of a beef with me to bother making AN threads, then maybe the problem isn't on my end. And again, I was doing other things, so by the time I realized my change to the template had b0rked the format of the page, someone had already reverted me. Ten Pound Hammer • 20:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• This seems like a simple enough mistake to make. Template X is deprecated and tells you to use Template Y. I see that four pages are still using Template X and as a result, they have big orange boxes on them saying "DON'T USE TEMPLATE X, IT'S DEPRECATED", so I replace it with Template Y, and think that all is well. This seems like a logical chain of thought, though I admit I should've checked my work a little better. Ten Pound Hammer • 19:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• ETA: I think it's outright ABSURD that anyone would extrapolate that I'm XFDing stuff just because I want to "get that deletion fix". I found that template through navigating a "deprecated templates" category from another TFD. Ten Pound Hammer • 19:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

ECx3 What is being asked here ? TPH is under Zero restrictions by the community, so what part of "mere days after the ANI thread closes, he's out finding stuff to delete again." is the problem, do you need a rest, should he slow down for you ? Penyulap ☏ 19:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note  Penyulap both participated in and closed the previous discussion, , .  Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• So? Nobody Ent 19:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's the same thing as last time. Dingley has it in his head that I XFD because it gives me power or I have a deletion fetish or something, and cherry-picks any time that I make even the slightest mistake to make me look like I'm a derp and should not edit Misplaced Pages without supervision. Ten Pound Hammer • 19:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I have a deletion fetish or something
2. look like I'm a derp
3. should not edit Misplaced Pages without supervision.

I'd go with all 3 of those.

Actually I thought last week was a witch hunt, trying to nail you like Al Capone, and I don't hold with that. However if you can't hold it together to make XfD's that don't "look like a derp" just days after you were at ANI, then you either fail WP:COMPETENCE or you give so little of a damn about what ANI thinks of you that you don't even start taking a bit more care when you're under the microscope. I don't know which, but neither are the mark of a careful editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither is your tendentious habit of chasing after me and screaming at ANI every time I stray from your image of what makes me a perfect editor. Of course if you only focus on my mistakes, I'm going to seem like a derp, but how many more good edits have I made than bad? Ten Pound Hammer • 20:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Simple editing screw-up, not worth a fuss. (I stuck a note on {{TLS-H}} to make it clear an editor can simply replace it). Nobody Ent 19:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Once again, people confusing bad edits and edits they don't like. pbp 19:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• This was a bad edit - it broke stuff, and he walked away from the mess.

As an edit, I actually like it. It needed doing (manyana), it's just that it's a long and tiresome job to do it correctly and neatly. Hammer shows no inclination towards either "correct" or "neat". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• The only reason I seem to have "walked away" is because by the time I noticed it farked things up, someone had already fixed it for me. I would've fixed it myself, you know. Ten Pound Hammer • 20:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• You "could have" done a whole pile of things. In this case you edited four pages to change the template and didn't notice that you'd broken a single one. You hadn't noticed this, not hadn't fixed it, and it's most unlikely you'd have noticed any time afterwards. WDGraham commented at the AfD about an hour later and noted that you'd missed one before tagging the template for deletion. Two hours after this he reverted the changes, as the change was too big to make quickly to use the new template. You didn't edit again for another four hours, here at WP:AN. If you even hadn't noticed the AfD comments, you weren't going to fix these, you weren't even going to look at them again. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is it really that big a deal though? The damage was really really really really really minor all things considered. Name one thing I've done that has been ZOMG RED ALERT EVACUATE detrimental to the project. Ten Pound Hammer • 20:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Do I think it would be less disruptive to Misplaced Pages if TPH was banned from nominating anything for XfD? Sure. Do I think this discussion will result in that? Very little chance. So until someone else naively decides to start another seemingly toothless RfC let's just move along, and skip the drama. - jc37 19:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 3)Comment  Rather than an XfD ban, I'd rather that TPH show community leadership in using WP:BEFORE.  I'd suggest eight weeks, a limit of 2 XfD noms per week, and that the XfDs exhibit good practice as regards WP:BEFORE, where "good practice" is tbd, but subject to review here.  This is deliberately loose, but any improvement could lead to long-term good.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW, the problems are not just with XfD. I see that he still will edit war (this was just two days ago) to restore a speedy deletion tag, even though he has been warned about that behaviour multiple times in the past. Paul Erik 20:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• No one thinks Dingley might be the problem? He seems to be the only one starting threads to bitch at me. It's clear that Dingley has an obsession with trying to run me off the project, and won't stop until his little witch hunt here is successful. Ten Pound Hammer • 20:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Dennis, I dislike as much as anyone's TPH's remarkably careless and provocative practices with deletion, but so far he has managed to operate just within the community tolerance. There is not going to be support for forcing him to stop working at deletion unless he does something drastically wrong, and this particular instance isn't that example. There is good reason to criticize individual nominations, but the effect of proposals such as this one is to reinforce his ability to continue, by making the opposition to him seem to be overly and unfairly insistent. Longer experience will show you the inadvisability of repeated accusing someone when the incidents are relatively trivial individually. We have a culture which encourage individual eccentricity, and, on balance, we probably gain from it. In the balance between order and anarchy, Misplaced Pages is rather far towards the side of anarchy--and I think this is not accidental. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So, if I'm reading everything right, a new TLS-H2 template was created December 2008 and TLS-H stuck with an ugly "deprecated" nag tag in Jan 09 and has been appearing on articles where used until 9:31 today. So for three and a half years wiki-readers have been looking at this baffling tag. I suggest the OP's statement A thoroughly trivial template replacement is taking place is an exaggeration -- it appears a template replacement was not taking place. So today, TPH tries to actually edit the encyclopedia and make it better, and, because he missed something about a 3.5 year old template, is baaaacck in the AN saddle again???Nobody Ent 20:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly. Yeah, God forbid I should do anything in good faith. It's not like I accidentally the Main Page or something; I just created a minor table error that was just as easy to fix. Good God, Dingley, are you ever making a mountain out of a molehill. Ten Pound Hammer • 20:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• There is no "try", there is only make it better or make it worse. This isn't about his intentions in removing a template, it's about his ability (which in this case seems to mean lacking the patience to check whether he hasn't broken anything afterwards). If he can't either do things without breaking them, or at least take the time to see he's broken them and either fix or revert afterwards, then he just shouldn't be doing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding submission of evidence in arbitration cases

Resolved by motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

Submissions of evidence are expected to be succinct and to the point. By default, submissions are limited to about 1000 words and about 100 difference links for named parties, and to about 500 words and about 50 difference links for all other editors. Editors wishing to submit evidence longer than the default limits are expected to obtain the approval of the drafting arbitrator(s) via a request on the /Evidence talk page prior to posting it.

Submissions must be posted on the case /Evidence pages; submission of evidence via sub-pages in userspace is prohibited. Unapproved over-length submissions, and submissions of inappropriate material and/or links, may be removed, refactored, or redacted at the discretion of the clerks and/or the Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon 19:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

1 revert proposal for circumcision

I would like to propose a 1 revert rule limit on the circumcision article. This article has had more edit wars than many other articles which are currently on a 1rr restriction. This edit warring has also been a long term problem stretching back to the early days of wikipedia. The talk page is full of disputes and theres no sign of concurrence anywhere on the horizon. This dispute has carried over to multiple noticeboards and over the past year alone possibly two dozen editors have been involved in some form of dispute about various issues.

What makes this situation more urgent is the endless debates and RfC's have mostly led nowhere and most editors to the article are completely polarized in their opinions. Some disccusions go on for for weeks and months and at the end there is not an agreement in the slightest.

A 1rr would be helpful because the page protection will expire in 9 days and the most aggressive editors will no longer gain a foothold over the article. I think a 1RR restriction is way overdue. Pass a Method talk 20:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog