Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:26, 28 June 2012 editRaymond C. Watson, Jr. (talk \| contribs)463 edits →Nelson M. Cooke: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:55, 28 June 2012 edit undoDennis Brown (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →Courtesy blanking: reNext edit →
Line 301:		Line 301:
	=== Courtesy blanking ===		=== Courtesy blanking ===
	I've courtesy-blanked some of the pages linking the ScienceApologist account to its owner's real-life identity. I don't think the "unvanishing" was really necessary; it feels a bit vindictive, but I don't oppose it since it will make it easier to address further sockpuppetry if it occurs. But we need to courtesy-blank the pages that link this account to its real-life owner. We've done this for editors far more abusive than SA. Our basic ethical principles include (or at least used to include) the idea that we don't use Misplaced Pages's online prominence to "punish" editors by damaging their real-life reputations, no matter how abusive their on-wiki behavior.<p>I feel strongly about this - strongly enough to protect the pages in question if there's edit-warring over the courtesy-blanking. This should not impact our ability to identify additional sockpuppets of SA, since the relevant details will be preserved in pages histories under the account's original name. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)		I've courtesy-blanked some of the pages linking the ScienceApologist account to its owner's real-life identity. I don't think the "unvanishing" was really necessary; it feels a bit vindictive, but I don't oppose it since it will make it easier to address further sockpuppetry if it occurs. But we need to courtesy-blank the pages that link this account to its real-life owner. We've done this for editors far more abusive than SA. Our basic ethical principles include (or at least used to include) the idea that we don't use Misplaced Pages's online prominence to "punish" editors by damaging their real-life reputations, no matter how abusive their on-wiki behavior.<p>I feel strongly about this - strongly enough to protect the pages in question if there's edit-warring over the courtesy-blanking. This should not impact our ability to identify additional sockpuppets of SA, since the relevant details will be preserved in pages histories under the account's original name. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
			*I'm certainly not going to edit war with you MastCell, not my style after all. I can honestly say I have never have reverted an admin action, ever, without discussing and consent, which is more than was done here. Not sure why you would even bring that up. I didn't unblank them until '''after''' this AN discussion, after all. The goal wasn't because of being vindictive or trying to punish anyone, it was exactly as stated and within a process that isn't technically required but was done for the sake of being open about it. Since I am the one that unblanked them, you could have just asked me about it on my talk page. There is really no need for posturing here. ] - ] ] 17:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

	== Import/histmerge ==		== Import/histmerge ==

Revision as of 17:55, 28 June 2012

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

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)

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources, Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction. "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Assume no clue.

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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.

Shortcuts

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.

Technical instructions for closers

Technical instructions for closers
Please append `{{Doing}}` to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with `{{Close}}` or `{{Done}}` and an optional note, and consider sending a `{{Ping}}` to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with `{{Not done}}`. After addressing a request, please mark the `{{Initiated}}` template with `\|done=yes`. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with `{{Already done}}`, `{{Close}}`, `{{Done}}` `{{Not done}}`, and `{{Resolved}}`.

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

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

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive367#RfC_closure_review_request_at_Talk:Rajiv_Dixit#RFC_can_we_say_he_peddaled_false_hoods_in_the_lede

(Initiated 20 days ago on 5 December 2024) - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Done voorts (talk/contributions) 19:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process

(Initiated 224 days ago on 15 May 2024) Discussion died down quite a long time ago. I do not believe anything is actionable but a formal closure will help. Soni (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Not done I don't think that a formal closure will be helpful given that there are several sub-discussions here on various issues. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:50, 25 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)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 78 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: Not sure if anyone is looking into this, but might be a good idea to wait for a few weeks since there is ongoing discussion. Bogazicili (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Done voorts (talk/contributions) 00:31, 26 December 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 58 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

(Initiated 46 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

(Initiated 42 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 42 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 17 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 40 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead

(Initiated 9 days ago on 16 December 2024) RFC is only 5 days old as of time of this posting, but overwhelming consensus approves of status quo, except for a single COI editor. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The CoI editor has now accepted that consensus is for the status quo, but I think a formal close from an uninvolved editor, summarizing the consensus would be helpful, since the issue has been coming up for a while and many editors were involved. — penultimate_supper 🚀 16:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

yes, despite multiple posts to WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:3O, several talk page discussions, and now an RFC, I doubt the pressure to remove word oligarch from the lede of that page will stop. An appropriate close could be a useful thing to point at in the future though. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Done by Nomoskedasticity. —Compassionate727 13:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox country#Request for comment on greenhouse emissions

(Initiated 89 days ago on 27 September 2024) Lots of considered debate with good points made. See the nom's closing statement. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Done —Compassionate727 13:29, 25 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)

Talk:Chloe Melas#RFC on allegation of making a false allegation (resubmission)

(Initiated 31 days ago on 24 November 2024) The bot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an independent close. TarnishedPath 23:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Done —Compassionate727 13:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	16	16
TfD	0	8	8
MfD	2	2	4
FfD	1	6	7
RfD	9	70	79
AfD	0	1	1

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (A)

(Initiated 25 days ago on 30 November 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has now been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Done voorts (talk/contributions) 00:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 92 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT history in Georgia#Proposed merge of LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT history in Georgia

(Initiated 80 days ago on 7 October 2024) A merge + move request with RM banners that needs closure. No new comments in 20 days. —CX Zoom 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Done —Compassionate727 14:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 70 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 68 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk: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:JTG Daugherty Racing#Requested move 22 November 2024

(Initiated 33 days ago on 22 November 2024) Pretty simple RM that just needs an uninvolved editor to close. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Done —Compassionate727 14:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 28 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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

Call for 3 admins to close upcoming verifiability RfC

Hello everyone. I'm currently mediating a MedCab case about the lede of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, where we are in the process of drafting an RfC to submit for community comment. We are very nearly done, and we are making the last few finishing tweaks to the RfC page before it is ready to go up live. One of the things that the participants have been discussing is how it should be closed, and who should close it. There is a consensus in the mediation that the RfC should be closed by a panel of three uninvolved administrators, and there is also a rough consensus that we should name them before the RfC starts, to help avoid any drama when it is time to close it. Also, to make sure things remain impartial, we want to avoid choosing admins ourselves, hence this noticeboard post.

So, would any admins be willing to volunteer to close the upcoming verifiability RfC? Ideally, you should:

Have no previous involvement in any of the debates over the lede of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability
Be available around the last week of July, which is when the RfC will likely finish
Be willing to take the time to sift through the hundreds of comments that we will likely get, and weigh the different arguments

If anyone fits this description and would like to take this on, just leave a message below.

Also, if anyone has any comments or questions about asking three uninvolved admins to close the RfC, or about naming them before the RfC starts, then the feedback would be very welcome. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless there are objections, I'm available to help closing the RfC. I can't remember having expressed an opinion about the issue before. Sandstein 17:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll let the mediation participants know that you're willing to volunteer. So that just leaves two more admins to find. :) — Mr. Stradivarius 01:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

--Melburnian (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem - I just assumed that was a mistake. I think we've all done a fat-fingered rollback or two in our wiki-careers. :) — Mr. Stradivarius 16:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like we are be all out of admins - though there must be a few out there that haven't expressed an opinion on the verifiability issue yet. I think I'll wait for another day or so, and then I might have to talk to the mediation participants about contingency plans. Again, if you're willing to take this on, just leave a message below. — Mr. Stradivarius 16:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not entirely comfortable with announcing the closing trio in advance of the RfC. I think you should allow admins to respond via email, make your selections but withhold any announcement until such time as the request is ready to close. IMO - My76Strat (talk)

I'm not entirely 100% certain I've never opined on the matter, but I certainly did not participate extensively in the discussion nor did I get into any sort of dispute over it. If you still need admins, wave at me. — Coren 23:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to help. However, if you already have three, let them : ) - jc37 23:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to Sandstein, Coren, and jc37, for indicating that you are willing to be one of the three closers. It looks like the mediation participants are happy to accept your kind offer, and so it seems that there are no objections on this side of things. I will keep you updated on the progress of the discussion, and of any other matters that may affect the closing of the RfC.
To My76Strat - I'm a little bit unsure as to what you mean by "make your selections", but if you are talking about mediation participants choosing particular admins, then this was already rejected on the mediation talk page. The consensus was that we should only specify the admins in advance if those admins were self-selected. The argument goes that this way, the participants can avoid any allegations that they are selecting admins based on personal preference, while still getting the benefits that would come from choosing the closing admins in advance (i.e. minimizing the risk that a close might be disputed).

I'm not saying that this is necessarily correct, just that it is the consensus that the mediation participants agreed on. If there is any objection to this, then I think probably the best place to discuss it would be the RfC talk page, after the RfC has been made live. We will have plenty of time to discuss it, after all. Or, if you meant something else with your comment and I've missed the point completely, please let me know. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please provide me a copy of a (non-notable) deleted article

Hello. Please provide me a copy (for example create it under my userpage) of Warpigs (band) which was deleted as non-notable. Apart from my disagreement (it's quite notable in Hungary, but that's not up to me to decide anymore) the author put definite amount of work in it and would like to post it somewhere else. Would be even better to undelete and move it under my userpage, so I'll have its history. Thanks in advance. --grin ✎ 08:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Normally one requests that at WP:REFUND. The question of course becomes "where else would you post it?" ... I don't think Misplaced Pages (or the contributors) have approved you taking it somewhere else (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be reusable under the same terms as any other material from Misplaced Pages?—Kww(talk) 11:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to get approval to post stuff from Misplaced Pages elsewhere. That's kind of the point. :) --Conti|✉ 11:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, but if we provide a copy of the article to someone then we're also obliged to provide a list of the article's authors. That happens automatically if a page is undeleted and moved with its full history, but would be lost if an admin were to just copy and paste the text of the deleted article into an email. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Done It's now here for now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI topic ban closure

Could someone uninvolved please make a nice easy close at Misplaced Pages:ANI#Proposed_restrictions_for_User:Crzyclarks, since consensus is clear (even the subject of the ban appears to accept it's appropriate) and the conversation is beginning to descend into bickering. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously - could someone sort this out? The editor is now being disruptive on the articles they're about to be banned from. Black Kite (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

FFS... I have indeffed him. To go from mere 1RR and a topic ban to indef. Utter and shameful cluelessless ✉→ BWilkins ←✎ 18:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but an uninvolved admin still needs to make a decision ASAP, just now with a wider/longer scope :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WT:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012#The next closers

With four short months allotted before we have to close whatever community discussion happens, we can't afford a month to choose closers. So far, The Blade and I have stepped up. Beginning a week after the announcement here at WP:AN (so, 03:16 UTC June 30), if there are no objections here or on the linked page, I'm going to proceed with soliciting discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Kent W. Colton

I am attempting to create a page titled "Kent W. Colton" and have been advised that it is okay to create the page, however, it is on the local or global blacklist and has been restricted to administrators. Can an administrator create this page? I have the content formatted and ready to post if it necessary for me to send it to you for review.Dinman01 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Done (Kent W. Colton). Remove the template I placed on the article when it has some content. Hut 8.5 15:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Kent W. Colton Talk Page

Upon attempting to create a talk page for the Kent W. Colton article, only administrators are able to do so. Since an article page has been created, a talk page also needs to be created that all users can access. Here's the link: Talk:Kent W. Colton. It appears that the following WikiProject template should be added to the page: {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes}}. Northamerica1000 19:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Done A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Northamerica1000 22:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

FIFA Soccer 13

Hello. Please delete FIFA 13 for move FIFA Soccer 13 to this name. Thanks-- Alireza 16:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please use WP:RM on the article talk page to establish community consensus on the correct name. Giant Snowman 16:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

1RR at Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Shooting of Trayvon Martin was under 1RR first to resolve a wheel war and then to resolve edit waring from March 27 to June 15. After it expired, there has been a moderate amount of edit warring, see . I think reinstating 1RR might encourage greater discussion, but before reinstating it, I wanted to get consensus here. MBisanz 23:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe MBisanz is overstating any problems. Our general policy is 3RR and unless specific issues can be brought along with the request here (not vague generalizations), it seems reasonable that the 3RR policy, should be the standing policy on this article, like the rest of Misplaced Pages. -- Avanu (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was suffering major problems not that long ago. I'd be willing to let it slip back to normal, unless/until the problems recur. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I need to notify any editors about my posting here, but a problem on the page IMO is that removing things that have been there awhile is in a way like reverting, and to take something out that's been in there awhile because it doesn't seem important is a very low bar versus the high bars to add something. It's also quite subjective when it's removing things that are properly sourced, relevant, etc. I really haven't seen any guidelines or rules about it, but removing things for the reason that they seem unimportant maybe should be subject to a rule like 1RR or 3RR, as if they are reverts, not just straightforward edits. Removing 5 things in a day really isn't the same thing as adding 5 things in a day even though both are edits. Removing things became an issue on this page after an editor who hadn't been working on it checked the length and said it was too long. That editor hasn't been back to the page, so isn't involved in this matter, but since then there's been a push to reduce things, but I've been suggesting discussing whether splitting it at least once or reducing it would be the better option. But taking things out that were acceptable can cause at least as many controversies as putting things in, especially when it isn't about relevance, sourcing, etc., but more like opinion about what seems important to different people. Psalm84 (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I also want to add that I did notify another editor, Minor, who has been involved in this matter. Psalm84 (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

support reinstating 1RR if current editing behavior continues. There have been constant reverts since 1RR expired. There are a couple of editors who are extremely protective of the article. I'm ok with giving it a bit of time to see if things don't improve, but if it doesn't then I think 1RR should be reinstated. Minor4th 02:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think both Minor4th and Psalm84 have been very collegial and positive editors with regard to the article. I simply don't think special cases need to exist for articles unless a particular need has been clearly identified. People are not discouraged from making reverts, its simply a part of editing. The problem is only when they begin to 'edit war' and for Misplaced Pages's purposes, this is usually (but not always) defined as when it hits 3 reverts (could be fewer). But honest mistakes and honest improvements get reverted all the time, and I would say unless there are editors who are simply intransigent (those people can get a trout), then we're doing fine on that article. -- Avanu (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

3RR is the general guideline and should be applied to this article as well. The example given above by MBisanz is just a small slice and not representative of the overall editing behavior of this article. The above example was resolved through discussion and we will continue to work towards improving this article through discussion and consensus.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
3RR should be fine. Yes I've seen a few edit wars, but in the end it's been worked out. I belive the editors of this article can work together without administrator intervention. Richard-of-Earth (talk)

Possible spammer?

Wandie benson (talk · contribs) has been creating promotional articles repeatedly with no references. There are several CSD warnings on his talk page. --Eastlaw ⁄ _contribs 06:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the fact that the user created numerous articles pertaining to the same or related topics (going so far as to reverse his first and last names in titling articles when his initial article was deleted), the account has been blocked for spamming. Michael (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Block review: Sceptre and AndyTheGrump

Sceptre unblocked, AndyTheGrump remains blocked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Background

Will (2012-05-05). "On Misplaced Pages and Breanna Manning". Liberal Will. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
- 2012-06-18: "As the writer of that blog post and someone who would rather refer to Manning as 'she', " — Sceptre
2012-05-05: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40#Breanna Manning
2012-05-05: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive151#Breanna Manning
2012-05-05: User talk:Sceptre#Manning
2012-05-05: "If you're trying to suggest he's male, despite all that, then you're either dense or bigoted." — Sceptre
2012-05-06: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 95#Fundamental problems with MOS:IDENTITY
2012-05-07: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#AndyTheGrump
2012-06-21: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#AndyTheGrump
2012-06-21: "This topic is closed. I will not allow Sceptre to violate Wikipedoa WP:BLP policy on my talk page in pursuit of his deranged and obnoxious campaign to 're-gender' Bradley Manning against his own express wishes. Sceptre, fuck of and troll elsewhere, you repulsive little lying bigot." — AndyTheGrump
2012-06-21: "allow me to apologise for any indirectness there Sceptre, allow me to say, from me to you, fuck off and troll elsewhere. Am I being clear and direct ?" — Penyulap
2012-06-25: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log#Current sanctions
2012-06-25: User talk:Sceptre#BLP Ban imposed
2012-06-27: User talk:Sceptre#June 2012

The links above were added by someone else. Arcandam (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Request

Please unblock users Sceptre and AndyTheGrump. Unblocking both is the fairest (least unfair) solution at this moment in space and time. Arcandam (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock requests are to be made by the editor, not by proxy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Why? Do you have a link? Arcandam (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC) p.s. Sceptre's unblock must go via the ban appeals subcommittee BTW.

Block reviews can be requested by any user, not just the one who was blocked. See this subsection of the blocking policy page. That said, it also says that appeals typically should be made at AN, not AN/I. Might I suggest moving the thread? elektrik SHOOS (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected! Thanks for pointing that out. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe Sceptre is blocked, just banned. And I think a topic probation, as suggested in the discussion, would have been a more fair 'punishment' than the ban that was enacted. -- Avanu (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You may want to double-check that. He is both blocked and banned. Arcandam (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow.... just unbelievably shitty of SarekofVulcan to do that. Seriously, that kind of cocky ass-hat stuff is why he has no business being an admin. He simply amps up the conflict instead of working to resolve problems. Sceptre didn't need to be kicked while down. I didn't agree with Sceptre's previous conduct, but really, this is just BS. -- Avanu (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, Avanu -- start the recall, or STOP the personal attacks. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, my language above was strong, but hardly comparable I think to blocking a guy in the manner you just had. You've had numerous run-ins with people over the years and a large contingent of people who dislike your tactics. I suggest that you simply resign or, even better, just avoid using the tools for a while; the process you refer to on your page seems overly convoluted. My personal feeling is that you lack self-control when your emotions are running high, and you make snap decisions that even you would question later. If you were forced to act like a normal user for a while, even by your own choice, I think you might realize that for most of us, the only option is patience. I'll reduce the level of derision in my comments, for your sake, but if I see your actions stepping over the line, I will let you know in plain and unambiguous language. Fair enough? -- Avanu (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you'll "reduce the level of derision" BECAUSE THAT IS WIKIPEDIA POLICY. If you don't like working the same way everyone else does, try Citizendium. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, and as for the other 99% of my comment....? I was actually trying to communicate why I am unhappy with your actions. (And please don't lecture me about WP:Civility, Mr. Pot. Thanks, Mr. Kettle.) -- Avanu (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sceptre's previous conduct was troutworthy (and in my opinion also worthy of a topic ban), but we were having a productive conversation on his talkpage. He was not refusing to get the point and there were no IDHT problems. The goal of the topic ban was not to prevent us from having a productive conversation on Sceptre's talkpage. Arcandam (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Support unblock of Sceptre. While the reference to the issue on his talkpage was technically a violation of the ban, it was a first such violation; failing to realize that the ban applies to one's own talkpage too is a frequent mistake and one easy to make, and we should also take into account that it was during a discussion that was explicitly brought to Scepter's talkpage by an editor from the opposite side of the debate. In these circumstances, a simple reminder would have been far more appropriate than an immediate block, especially a block of this length and without warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Nota bene: In our discussion on Sceptre's talkpage none of the problems that caused the topicban (IDHT, refusal to get the point) occured. We were having a productive discussion, if we are unable or not allowed to do that then it is impossible to improve this encyclopedia. I voted for a topic ban on articles related to Manning, this is not an article. I won't hesitate to request a block if Sceptre deserves it, I am not a Sceptre fanboy and I disagree with Sceptre about a couple of things, but for now the most reasonable solution is to unblock Sceptre so we can continue the conversation on Sceptre's talkpage. Arcandam (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment – How the Bradley Manning article got to GA status, despite that it woefully fails criterion #5 of Misplaced Pages:Good article criteria, is beyond me. It should be delisted. --MuZemike 05:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I agree. Arcandam (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Support unblock of Sceptre per Fut.Perf., although I didn't realize that a topic ban of this sort was applicable to one's own talkpage. - Jorgath (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment I didn't know this either. I have notified Sarek about this thread. -- Dianna (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment - When Sarek does address this, I believe he needs to agree to fully explain the BLPBAN in plain and clear language, and be willing to warn and explain when necessary if Sceptre happens to step close to the line again, alternately, Sarek could simply explain his ban fully, plainly, and clearly, and allow other administrators to do the actual enforcement, rather than biting someone who I believe actually wants to follow the community consensus. -- Avanu (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment It seems to me that the biggest issue was that a number of people in the community thought the topic ban we were establishing meant editing BLP articles and their talk pages, especially Manning, not mentioning any of those on Sceptre's own talk page. We may need to clarify that ban as a community. - Jorgath (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Unblock Sceptre and trout all responsible for this ridiculous farce. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Support unblock of Sceptre; it's likely he didn't fully understand the ban. Cardamon (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Question: I'm not sure I follow the logic of the original ban closing, and don't really know the process. Are blocks/bans typically implemented by a vote, or only for sensitive areas? Does the "weight of the arguments" system used on other parts of the wiki not apply, and how are sensitive areas defined? Thanks, Sazea (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Support unblock, 100%. I didn't know that the topic ban stretched as far as a civil conversation on Sceptre's own talk page, and many above me also didn't know that, so no doubt Sceptre was also unaware. A warning would've been a much better way to handle this. Far, far too trigger-happy. Bunnies! Leave a message 10:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment - FYI, I was going to make this unblock, but it appears Sceptre has not yet recognized that he is prohibited from making such speech even on his talk page. This worries me: I don't want to see some of the IDHT behavior extended here, and then have this issue come up again in a month or so, which I think it might. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, this attempt to involuntarily 'request an unblock on my behalf'. I have not requested an unblock, have accepted that my behaviour merited a block, and intended to accept the block without appeal. To use an involuntary unblock as 'fairness' to justify unblocking someone else seems to me to be highly questionable - and more so when the block has little time left to run, and this is supposed to 'balance' an unblock for a continuing refusal on Sceptre's part to conform to WP:BLP policy, and to cease using Misplaced Pages as a platform for a campaign to 'regender' Bradley Manning against Manning's own express wishes. Sceptre's continuing IDHT behaviour should be looked at on its own merits. copied by request AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose both The blocks were subject to significant discussion at ANI. Andy opposes the request, and Sceptre's CANNOT be unblocked here. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Uhm, where was Sceptre's block discussed previously? Also, I disagree a valid unblock consensus cannot be reached here. AN has always been a valid forum for that sort of thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment In this diff and this one, I made it clear to Spectre that the topic ban included discussion of Manning's gender identity, not just article edits.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree that those diffs make anything clear at all. They make clear that AN/I, and presumably the rest of WP space, is also in the topic ban. They do not make clear that Sceptre's own talk page is in the topic ban. I think this is actually the nexus of the problem - you think you've explained something succinctly and clearly, but to Sceptre and a number of others, it was as clear as mud. - Jorgath (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The question of whether Arcandam could make this request at all has come up, as the policy document no longer states that a third party request may be made at this noticeboard. So, the request is inappropriate.
Discussion of a clarification to the policy page is here. on the policy talkpage. Penyulap ☏ 14:09, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Given the amount of support (akin to 'seconds' in parliamentary procedure), I think it can be safely assumed that this request is something the community supports discussion on. Additionally, given the fact that "Any user may request a block", it seems reasonable that the converse is reasonable as well, i.e. 'Any user may request a unblock'. -- Avanu (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

As I have written on the talkpage of the policy page, 14 minutes before you used the word 'assumed', "I think it warrants a mention as there are differing assumptions on the matter." per it's removal from the page, indicating that you are mistaken. Penyulap ☏ 14:40, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

That's a moot point. Sceptre obviusly did make an unblock request himself. Given that fact, it doesn't matter who brought it here and in what form. Let's keep irrelevant process bureaucracy out of this thread here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So you're assuming it's fine, Andy is suggesting it's not, on the policy page it's not, so how does this not support the question of clarifying the issue ? Penyulap ☏ 14:54, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, this should go forward anyway, and WP:IAR that policy because it doesn't make sense. - Jorgath (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

with the division of editors on either side, it seems common-sense to fix the darn policy. Penyulap ☏ 15:28, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is discussion-worthy -- while the topic ban was clearly validly imposed in my view, I acknowledge that this enforcement action wasn't as clearly supportable. Otoh, I haven't seen anything that's made me change my mind yet. "banned from edits relating to Manning" is about as clear as you get -- I'm quite confused by the editors above claiming it isn't.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem, Sarek. People in the discussion were !voting, but you had TWO concurrent discussions and people weighing in at different levels. For example, the two editors who led a call for bans said:

Anyone willing to brandish WP:BLPBAN and topic ban Sceptre from making edits relating to Manning? Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

How do people feel about a topic ban for Sceptre from articles related to Bradley Manning, broadly construed? I'd support such a ban. – NULL ‹talk›‹edits› 23:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice in the original post, the differing levels of each post... the latter one isn't indented, and Nobody Ent claims to be refactoring the two requests under one section. In addition, the various comments of people later show that they weren't (for most of them) specifically picking one or the other, just saying "Support" or "Support topic ban". Finally, when you closed it at AN/I, you simply said "BLPBAN imposed", but didn't make a summation of exactly what the ban was going to be or how it was to be enforced (even the WP:BLPBAN page says "articles", it doesn't say everything). Even the template on Sceptre's page that said "topic-banned from edits relating to Bradley Manning, broadly construed", since that contains a link to an article, it can easily be seen to be meant to apply to the linked article only. In short, it is about communication first and clear *and* helpful warnings later. -- Avanu (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, the notification template informing Sceptre of his ban (placed by Sarek) says "Further violations of the BLP policy will result in you being banned from editing" (notice it does not say 'Blocked'). Another good cause to warn first, before acting with tools. -- Avanu (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue to be wikilawyering over the wording of standard warning templates. Take it up at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log (redir from Template talk:BLP Spec Sanction) if you think it's unclear.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Avanu beat me to it, but that was what I was going to say, more or less. Especially the part about the link to the Bradley Manning article. - Jorgath (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Support unblock because I don't see evidence that Sceptre was willing to violate his topic ban and, as such, I believe he should just have been issued a warning. As a side note, to avoid these problems, when I impose a topic ban, I always point out that the editor in question is prohibited from making any edits relating to X across all namespaces (i.e. everywhere on Misplaced Pages). It helps to avoid confusion, in my opinion. Salvio 17:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Support unblock - largely per Salvio above. Sceptre overstepped his topic ban by posting to his talk page and he may not have been aware that it also came under the topic ban. Having said that, he seriously needs to back away from the Manning article and its related articles, and just move onto something else - Alison 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Support unblock on account of some confusion about scope and assuming good faith, with the understanding that, going forward, the topic ban includes all namespaces, and further violations will result in extended blocks. —Torchiest _edits 17:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

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

A request for comment has been opened at Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy#Proposal: third party request for unblock

Should the proposed change, "A third party may request the review of a block at the Administrators' noticeboard," or some variation of that change, be added to the unblocking policy. Penyulap ☏ 22:52, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Procedural discussion

as it is not related to any editor, I figure I can ask the question, should block review requests be combined, or considered separately Penyulap ☏ 12:58, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

which means the question doesn't belong here, except where it relates to these two editors, oops ! Penyulap ☏ 13:00, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I'll have no part or opinion on either matter as I am involved clearly on one side, also, as a disclaimer, I edited (created) the policy section that has been linked to. I simply wish for everyone else to have their say here with as little confusion as possible, so I have separated the issues. all of which can sill be discussed, but with more clarity. Penyulap ☏ 12:49, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Naturally, anyone is free to revert if they feel up to the challenge of tallying both sides, counting single 'oppose' or 'support' with 'both' !votes and so on, good luck guys and girls ! Penyulap ☏ 12:54, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no offense, but I've collapsed them again. I find it far more confusing to have a new section started in the middle of an ongoing discussion. Also, the part about AndyTheGrump was obviously a non-starter anyway, given his own statement, so I believe it will neither make for much confusion in the original format, nor would an extra section about him be useful at this stage. I'm also not fond of having the sections subdivided into "support" and "oppose" vote sections. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No offence taken, I'll just suggest that combining an unblock request for the two editors will be every bit as satisfying to the community, and editors involved, as the combined discussion of their original block. Penyulap ☏ 14:44, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Combining a unblock request for two editors blocked several days apart for different reasons doesn't strike me as terribly satisfying... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Confused the hell out of me. Keilana| 18:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

I've unblocked Sceptre as there seems to be a consensus that Sarek overstepped and Sceptre should be unblocked. I don't see much discussion related to Andy's block, so I've left that in place for the time being. I hope this helps to resolve things, but if it doesn't, another admin can of course revert me. I'm not perfect. Keilana| 18:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the review! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It'd probably be best to unblock Andy as well now. I think everyone is clear where they stand. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, don't unblock Andy. Andy has requested that he not be unblocked until he serves his term. The double unblock was proposed out of a misguided sense of fairness, believing that the blocks were for the same thing. They weren't. Sceptre's topic ban and Andy's block were for the same issue, but Sceptre's block was for a mistaken understanding of the scope of the topic ban. - Jorgath (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Jorgath, it seemed like Andy was just blocked for fairness purposes so I've unblocked for the same. I've left messages for both. Again, if there's a clear consensus to re-block, then I will self-revert or another admin is welcome to revert. Keilana| 18:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Fairness? Looks to me from the diffs above like it was persistent incivility. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The timeline was as follows: Sceptre reported Andy for persistent incivility. Andy was found to have been persistently uncivil, and was blocked. A boomerang then hit Sceptre with a topic ban from an area in which they have a bad history, for provoking Andy. The block being reviewed was SarekOfVulcan's block of Sceptre for violating that topic ban in a way that Sceptre was unaware was a violation. The initial proposal suggested unblocking Andy too, out of fairness. Andy responded on his talk page with a request that was copied here, saying that he did not wish to be unblocked, mostly because he felt that he deserved it. - Jorgath (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I misread that portion of the situation. I'll restore Andy's block but I will leave my unblock of Sceptre; I think it should stand. Keilana| 18:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it should as well. The "fairness" equivalent of Andy's block is Sceptre's topic ban, which still stands, although it needs clarifying. - Jorgath (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

- Three posts to Andy's block log for no effect - well done Keliana - in future take your time and stand by your decisions a bit more - I support Andy's unblock as you made it - both users unblocked - to unblock one is unfair - what Andy actually said in relation to this was, "Oppose, this attempt to involuntarily 'request an unblock on my behalf'. I have not requested an unblock, have accepted that my behaviour merited a block, and intended to accept the block without appeal. To use an involuntary unblock as 'fairness' to justify unblocking someone else seems to me to be highly questionable - and more so when the block has little time left to run, and this is supposed to 'balance' an unblock for a continuing refusal on Sceptre's part to conform to WP:BLP policy, and to cease using Misplaced Pages as a platform for a campaign to 'regender' Bradley Manning against Manning's own express wishes. Sceptre's continuing IDHT behaviour should be looked at on its own merits." - User:Sceptre is the primary problem here and he is unblocked. - Youreallycan 18:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- I find that a highly disingenuous interpretation of the situation, Youreallycan. Andy was blocked for persistent incivility to Sceptre. Sceptre was topic-banned for various reasons, including the one that provoked Andy's incivility to Sceptre. Sceptre was then blocked for violating that ban in a way that they didn't realize was a violation: a highly civil conversation on Sceptre's own talk page in which Sceptre was showing signs of overcoming their previous IDHT problems. That topic ban still stands, even though Sceptre is unblocked. If Andy requests an unblock on his talk page, I have no problem with that, but he shouldn't have been unblocked based on this discussion. - Jorgath (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Change to topic ban

Hey, I'd like, for specificity, to request that the topic ban be limited to "edits to articles and talk pages relating to Bradley Manning's gender identity"; there's a whole bunch of questions here where the topic ban is vague:

Would I get blocked for editing Wikileaks or Julian Assange?
Would I get blocked again for replying to Arcadanum on my talk page?
Would I get blocked for referring to the content dispute? There are genuine issues with editor culture completely separate from the issue of Manning's gender identity, but which came up in the content dispute.

I would also ask kindly that an eye be kept on AndyTheGrump; obviously good faith BLP protection warrants a little leeway, but I am concerned that he's unable to contribute without living up to his username, which isn't conducive to improvement of the encyclopedia at all. Sceptre 19:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

In answer to your topic ban specificity question, no, I wouldn't support that. In answer to the three specific examples: 1) Yes. 2) The proper response is "I can't talk about that, I'm topic-banned." 3) Broadly construed, yes; if you want to talk about GID and LGBT in a way that in no way references Manning...maybe. In answer to the AndyTheGrump thing, he's serving out his block with dignity and class. If he says he can be civil from here on, we WP:AGF that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgath (talk • contribs) 19:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Really? How is this difficult to grasp? Avoid discussing the content dispute, as that's inherently tied to Manning. And I'd suggest avoiding Wikileaks and Julian Assange to prevent any appearance of impropriety. Tread lightly if you want to continue editing LGBT & GID issues, as those are subjects you appear to have strong feelings about. Essentially, don't go near this subject at all, and you won't risk anything. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Yeah, this. I'd advise that you go be a good editor in some completely unrelated area for a while (I mean like a year, not a week), and show that you can work well, on a regular basis, with people who disagree with you. Then maybe you might be able to request the topic ban be lifted. - Jorgath (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Re #3 -- if the part of "editor culture" you're referring to is "only editors who know transgendered people should be editing in this area", then the answer is "Yes". Otherwise, Jorgath's "maybe" holds.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not "editors who know transgender people", it's "editors who are aware of how transgender issues should be handled". Would you want a young earth creationist making edits to Evolution? Sceptre 19:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sceptre, I strongly reccommend that you not pursue that question, or you will be repeating previously sanctioned behavior. Just - if it's in question at all whether it's under your ban, assume it is. Okay? - Jorgath (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So long as that YEC adheres to our policies on verifiability and NPOV, without constantly trying to push a YEC opinion on various talk pages, sure. Further, it's highly presumptuous of you to assume your criteria of "how transgender issues should be handled" is the correct one. That is the source of this whole fracas. I'd suggest now is the time to drop the stick.— The Hand That Feeds You: 21:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd still think it'd be unwise for YECs to edit that page, because without an understanding of the topic, you can't really contribute to a topic. This applies everywhere, really. I think it's a no-brainer that, for such a sensitive topic as LGBT issues, you do need a quick 101: MOS:IDENTITY favouring a person's self-identity to others' perceptions of the identity is no accident, it reflects medical, academic, and journalistic manuals of style (even if journalists don't follow it that much). Sceptre 21:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose loosening topic ban at this point, given that Spectre's agreement to the topic ban promptly violated it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

When? -- Avanu (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Here. we're disregarding the sources by pretending that Manning never had issues with their gender identity.... specifically the quote "We do know Manning had not asked people to refer to him with a female pronoun". It's not the same as "We do know Manning had asked people not to refer to him with a female pronoun".... the discussion should be "Manning identified as female before being arrested, how should we treat that?" instead of "Does Manning identify as male or female?". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Yea - User:Sceptre - you are banned from anything related on any article and any talkpage related to Manning - if you discus the subject anywhere on wiki you will be blocked immediately - is that clear enough for you ? - I Support - topic banning you from any WP:BLP transgender edit/comment/discussion - as per you edit history /off wiki activism COI - Youreallycan 19:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't issue superinjunctions around here; people are always allowed to say something like Jorgath's suggestion, "I can't talk about that, I'm topic-banned." when someone asks them about banned topics, and we permit people to come to noticeboards and ask for their bans to be loosened or removed. Nyttend (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed - User:Sceptre should email the banning admin or the highest committee if he has any questions regarding his topic ban - Youreallycan 20:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Actually I think at least ArbCom has issued at least one superinjunction, on User:PCPP. I'm not saying sure that regular admins should do the same, however. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - since SarekOfVulcan implemented the ban on Sceptre, he needs to be the one (and only one) making the clear statement of the scope and duration of the ban, as well as instructions or a link on appealing it at some future date if desired without violating the ban. I suggest that the specifics be posted here, on Sceptre's Talk page, and on the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log page so that all editors are 100% clear on the scope and duration of the ban. -- Avanu (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Its indefinite- a lifetime ban - appeal only to the highest committee - Youreallycan 19:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a matter for Sarek, not for anyone else, since he implemented it. The Ban was implemented as an exercise of Sarek's power as an Admin, and the particulars of it are governed by his will and interpretation of the consensus. -- Avanu (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, any time you'd like to read up on policy and figure out how things actually work around here, feel free. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"figure out how things actually work around here"... isn't it clear? I mean its obvious, right? Nothing left to discuss, we just go on and on because things are so clear. :) OK, I get the joke......... -- Avanu (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Question is this request to find which articles and subjects are ok to edit, like flower arrangement is ok, but Mardi gras is a worry, or is it a specific attempt to ask how to WP:GAME the community by asking the rules ? Penyulap ☏ 20:20, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
The former. The problem with "broadly construed" is that, someone may see the article List of transgender people as under the ban even if I'm not even thinking of anything related to Manning. Sceptre 21:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd not consider that a violation, personally. And it would be harsh for an admin to block you for it. However; given that the problem at hand was specifically Manning, but generally topics of gender, you would probably be well advised to avoid that topic area. You committed some gross BLP violations in this case, for which we have had to limit you, and I still see a risk of you trying it again on another poor individual. --Errant 22:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment The gag order should be loosened. It's excessively officious and punitive. A user engaging in discussion on their own talk page, for example, about topics on which they're clearly well-informed, is hardly harmful to Misplaced Pages. Writegeist (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

What benefit is there to article content to allow a policy violating topic banned user to continue to freely discuss the issue on his talkpage? Youreallycan 20:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Youreallycan on this point. Users easily could turn their own talk page into a form of "hate blog" about things they don't like, and it would be possible to misrepresent that page as a "wikipedia page" so that some less-than-well informed persons might think that it actually is the equivalent of an article. Me, for instance. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I see it like an escape valve. People who are emotionally invested in an issue, want to discuss that issue. A broad topic ban invites chipping at the edges, and wikilawyering on article pages. Better to make the ban broad wrt article and article talk, while allowing some discussion in an area that will only be seen by those looking for it.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 11:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose loosening of ban at this time, based on the comments of others of similar views above, particularly taking into account the speed with which the ban was apparently violated. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The topic ban is not overly restrictive. Also throwing in a dig at another editor from the request is in bad taste. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - The restriction was clear. Wikilawyering it is bull. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Partial Support I support allowing discussion on user talk page. If that becomes a "hate blog" that permission can be revisited, but I think user should have broad leeway on the talk pages associated with their user name. However, I still support the "broadly construed" aspects of the topic ban in article and article talk pages.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 11:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I oppose a weakening of the restriction (i.e. I don't see a reason for relaxing it on non-article pages), but I don't think there's a reason for interpreting it as covering topics such as "Wikileaks or Julian Assange" too. The problems that occurred were rather narrowly restricted to a biographical detail regarding the personality of B. M., and as such were quite unrelated to the political affair in which that person happened to be involved. Under this perspective, I don't see any problems with Sceptre editing Wikileaks or related stuff, and I don't believe the current wording of the restriction covers that. On the other hand, I would caution against turning to anything that might be seen as agenda editing on other transgender-related pages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Request to create new page for "Santhakumar(Director"

Hi All,

Need help to create new page for "Santhakumar(Director".

He is Indian Film director and directed Tamil language movie Mouna Guru

Below are the few reference for "Santhakumar"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXRb2VbUeHw
http://www.pixmonk.com/2011/12/25/silent-monk/
http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/nxg/article2735004.ece
http://www.moviecrow.com/movie/546/mounaguru-tamil-movie-review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvijilio (talk • contribs) 11:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see articles for creation. Ensure that notability is met (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Unvanishing ScienceApologist

Resolved – Per WP:SNOW, unvanishing performed by 'crat WilliamH, leaving unarchived for now in case any comments are yet to come. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist, which shows the first instance (that we know of) of sockpuppetry on 10 December 2011, EdJohnston logged it as 128.59.171.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Since then, numerous SPI cases have come up, including an active one now at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist.

User:ScienceApologist (aka: User:VanishedUser314159) seems to have been granted a right to vanish around 2008, then it was taken away two days later, then there was a lot of redactions and gnashing of teeth, with a final WP:RTV granted around March 2011. Jpgordon indef blocked the vanished user on 4 March 2011.

It is clear that this user is not going to vanish. This means that all their past SPI cases and other edits are under a Vanisheduser name, courtesy blanked, which is inconvenient, at the very least. At this stage, after so many socks and opportunities, it appears that the courtesy vanishing should be taken back, and the full account restored, as the editor is clearly not acting in good faith and is continuing to be a disruption.

As a courtesy, I will be notifing those who may have been involved at an administrative level previously, including User:John Vandenberg, User:Steve Smith, User:EdJohnston and User:Nihonjoe. Feel free to notify anyone else that may have been involved previously.

Proposal that ScienceApologist be unvanished and the account be fully restored

Support - SA still has the option of requesting unblock if he wants to return to normal editing. Apparenly he declines to do so. He should know that he can *either* edit or stay vanished but not both. More background on the recent socking can be found in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist/Archive. At present he uses a series of IPs (and probably one registered account, Hudn12 (talk · contribs)) to putter around with WP:FRINGE topics. His activity includes some edit warring on articles; he charges other people with socking, with apparently no sense of irony. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Support - and also for any other users with similar failed vanishing issues - like User:ChrisO . Good to see user User:Rlevse has done the correct thing - respect for that. Youreallycan 17:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Support. The last time I had to look into this never-ending story I got RSI from all the clicking around. Ed, I don't think Joshua can understand irony; all the socking and the attendant split personality disorders take that out of a person. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Support - Wow, I didn't know he was still trolling about with IPs. That's clear breach of RtV. Sad thing is, I agreed with most of his points, but his methods were not tolerable in a collegial environment. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Support - per EdJohnston point that the user can either be vanished or sock, but not both, and can request an unblock if he'd like to return to legiitmacy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Support. Best way forward for all. Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Support per above, and likewise for similar vanished editors like ChrisO Minor4th 20:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Support - Oh, and I won't hold my breath for an apology from people accusing me of gravedancing with this . Actually, come to think of it, just unblock him and let him edit since he seems to be able to do so anyway and people like Courcelles are determined to protect the userpages of abusive and unrepentant puppeteers. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh. That diff has certainly improved my opinion of Courcelles. Bishonen | talk 22:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC).

^^ Agree 100% with what the honorable "Bish" said ^^ Chedzilla (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Editor appears to have no intention of disappearing. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Support. The vanished user provision does not provide impunity for unrepentant puppetmasters, especially those who have an ax to grind (see some of the above diffs, which indicate that SA/JWS/whatever his current name he is using will attack other sockmasters from new accounts. Pot, meet kettle, indeed Horologium (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

What do you mean by "unvanished"? Changing VanishedUser314159's username to ScienceApologist? Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the short of it. Basically, re-establish his name, undo courtesy-blanking of pages relating to him, and adjust ArbCom pages to clearly reflect whom they are referring to (rather than the VanishedUser name). — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. As if he had never vanished. Requires a 'crat to accomplish. I don't think it requires a discussion at WP:AN, but I think that is the best way to handle these: one at a time, in full public view. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Completed

In light of the snowy nature of the above discussion, and the fact that the user's activity is well out of the scope of RTV, the user "VanishedUser314159" has been renamed to "ScienceApologist", and all the pages in the userspace have been moved over accordingly. WilliamH (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Bless your heart. SA is at least the third person to blatantly violate the vanishing policy that I know of, and the first one to have their vanishing properly undone for it. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, only four hours has elapsed since this request has been initiated at ANI, making it very hard for large segments of the world to comment, and no comment from the accused. There is only one SPI allegation at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist/Archive which didnt have a Checkuser result, but was basically determined to be WP:DUCK, and only one request at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist, which was pending a checkuser result when you 'unvanished'. Why the urgency?? It doesnt appear that he has been editing a lot and causing lots of problems. arb user:AGK has now done the checkuser and concluded there is no technical data to support the socking allegation, but asserts WP:DUCK. user:Hudn12 has now been blocked as a sock by admin user:Dennis Brown, the same person who initiated the SPI and this unvanish request. John Vandenberg 01:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- The accused couldn't have commented anyway, as SA was indef blocked in March of 2011 for block evasion, which raises the question of why the vanishing was allowed to begin with. Yes, I filed the SPI and made the call to block based on duck evidence, after another editor, AGK confirmed my suspicions. Technically, I didn't have to go to SPI and could have just blocked him as a duck, but chose to stay in process and get a second opinion for good measure. CU was run during the change over, which was bad timing as everything hadn't updated so the results couldn't possibly be obtained properly, but a look at the IP addresses compared to previous, plus the contribs evidence, was clear enough to at least two of us. I didn't ask for the CU to prove the case, I asked to establish a record and find sleepers. As for bringing the case here, of course it would be someone like me who actually had to deal with vanished user cases at SPI more than once. No one who had never heard of the case would stumble across this otherwise. You're welcome to check my work if you think I've made a mistake, I don't have a problem with that at all. As to the amount of time spent here, that wasn't my call, so I can't really speak to that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- I forgot to add: technically, there doesn't seem to be a requirement that I come to WP:AN to get a vote anyway. WP:RTV appears to be intentionally vague about this, indicating that whatever method that is appropriate, is appropriate. I chose to come here instead of asking a 'crat directly, to keep everything in full daylight, and notified you and others who were involved previously. This might have been quick (not my call), but everything has been in full daylight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  - If I may insert my $0.02 here, I feel you were quite right in keeping it in full daylight. It was quick, but that's because it was such overwhelming WP:SNOW. While I had no opinion on the unvanish request itself - I didn't feel I knew enough - the discussion and consensus seem clear enough to me. - Jorgath (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking

I've courtesy-blanked some of the pages linking the ScienceApologist account to its owner's real-life identity. I don't think the "unvanishing" was really necessary; it feels a bit vindictive, but I don't oppose it since it will make it easier to address further sockpuppetry if it occurs. But we need to courtesy-blank the pages that link this account to its real-life owner. We've done this for editors far more abusive than SA. Our basic ethical principles include (or at least used to include) the idea that we don't use Misplaced Pages's online prominence to "punish" editors by damaging their real-life reputations, no matter how abusive their on-wiki behavior.

I feel strongly about this - strongly enough to protect the pages in question if there's edit-warring over the courtesy-blanking. This should not impact our ability to identify additional sockpuppets of SA, since the relevant details will be preserved in pages histories under the account's original name. MastCell 17:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to edit war with you MastCell, not my style after all. I can honestly say I have never have reverted an admin action, ever, without discussing and consent, which is more than was done here. Not sure why you would even bring that up. I didn't unblank them until after this AN discussion, after all. The goal wasn't because of being vindictive or trying to punish anyone, it was exactly as stated and within a process that isn't technically required but was done for the sake of being open about it. Since I am the one that unblanked them, you could have just asked me about it on my talk page. There is really no need for posturing here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Import/histmerge

Sorry to come here; I was an admin for so long (just resigned temporarily) that I don't remember where I used to go to ask for more specific help.

The earliest edit to MathematicsAndStatistics (one of WP's first pages) had the text "see Mathematics and Statistics". However, that page's history begins in 2011, while nost: has a revision (nost:Mathematics and Statistics) from 2001. Could someone please import it and do the necessary bits required for a histmerge? Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I should have

Done it. Hope I didn't break anything... Salvio 21:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The original history was permanently deleted in June 2002 per the Old deletion log. The deletion discussion is buried in this diff]. Graham87 06:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the correct page for requests like this is Misplaced Pages:Requests for page importation. Graham87 06:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on unblocking policy

A request has been opened at Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy#Proposal: third party request for unblock

Question on process

In a couple of recent discussions at AN/I, I made the comment that I felt that SarekOfVulcan is not a great administrator on some issues. Specifically, my complaints revolve mostly around the WP:Civility pillar. His response was that I should pursue a recall of his adminship or keep my complaints off Misplaced Pages. While I feel that administrators as a matter of public good should be willing to accept critical commentary, I recognize the reasoning for his statement.

However, in the vein of responding to his request, I would like to ask for a temporary ban for Sarek on using tools for any purpose whatsoever, to essentially live the life of the common man for a consensus-directed length of time. After doing some checking, I don't see an obvious route or process for this sort of thing, so I'm here asking how it would be formally requested and done in a manner consistent with community consensus and fairness.

My basis for this request simply goes back to the civility pillar, and the admonishment on the WP:Admin page that administrators "are never required to use their tools and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved". In essence, to reinforce civility, I would like Sarek to live by the restrictions of a normal user for a time, so that he can gain the perspective that I feel he has lost.

Your thoughtful assistance in directing me through the next step to make this request is appreciated. -- Avanu (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about your concerns - though I've seen the name (Star trek reference, so the name at least is memorable), but I don't recall ever actually interacting with SoV.

Anyway, with the disclaimer out of the way. I'll say that I think I remember more than once that the community has, through discussion, approved desysop in the long past. though in the cases i can think of, it was "approved" by Jimbo Wales (back then he was a bit more "hands on", and so did the de-sysopping himslf following the community discussion.

So I dunno. Arbcom, definitely. AN/I discussion, "maybe". but I think that it's been a long enough time, you'd probably need to run an RfC on it first, unless IAR applies somehow. And if this is going to be a "reverse rfA" (a call of no trust), then a bureaucrat would probably need to "close" the discussion as well. - jc37 04:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

After I had some time to consider what Sarek had said and time to re-think my statements, I wouldn't be asking for a 'de-sysop' really. Just a 'ban' in the manner of a typical WP:BAN, except that the ban would apply to the use of tools. In other words, he would still fully have the rights and opportunity to use his additional powers, but would have to refrain from the use of them for the specified length of time. More the idea of a 'sanction' than an all-out destructo implosion thing. My goal is not to 'make Sarek pay', but to encourage him to see the side of things that so-called normal editors see, for a while, in order to gain insight and improve as a part of the community. -- Avanu (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll have my own disclaimer: this is a process comment only, and not a recommendation on what you should do. Administrators have historically only been desysopped by Jimbo or at the direction of ArbCom. All deviations from this were emergencies related to compromised accounts and a couple of special cases where editors were granted the bit for technical reasons. However, administrators can be blocked or banned as much as anyone else can, so that route is certain possible through ANI. As for actual recommendations: if you think there are serious, actionable behavioral issues, then file an RfC. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I understand, Avanu, you don't want to de-sysop Sarek, but you do wish to seek lesser sanctions against him for a time. I would recommend either pursuing an RFC/U or a notice at AN/I, carefully constructed to present evidence of incivility clearly and concisely. In either case, you should explicitly state that you do not seek to recall Sarek, you want them to stay an admin in the long run, and you are just seeking a short-term sanction. - Jorgath (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. My response was that Avanu shouldn't call for my desysop if he wasn't willing to actually put in the work to demonstrate that I deserved it, and that he shouldn't say it was shitty to block someone to enforce a BLPBAN. I explicitly said on his talkpage that I had no problem with actual criticism, as opposed to personal attacks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As a TPS'er of SoV's talkpage, and having viewed Avanu's interactions and commentary about SoV across many platforms, I have to say that the tone and nature of Avanu's interactions are hounding bordering heavily on dickish. He's needlessly provocative. SoV has kept their cool. Avanu has found zero instances where SoV has actually broken any policy, and done nothing but WP:ABF on anything SoV does. My suggestion would be a one-way interaction ban on Avanu, that does not permit them to discuss, or comment on, or interact in any way regarding SoV. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
*snort* Nice edit summary there, BWilkins. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

heh, I knew you'd appreciate the sarcasm LOL (I was going to say "SoV is provocativelessly needy") (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with BWilkins on this. Particularly "Avanu has found zero instances where SoV has actually broken any policy and done nothing but WP:ABF on anything SoV does.". This is a request for process, not a platform for reviewing Sarek's actions. In addition, the AN/I determined several months ago that keeping a log of admin's bad deeds on Misplaced Pages was a violation of policy, not sure if you recall that debate, but an editor was keeping a list on their Talkpage of bad deeds (in their opinion) that certain admins had taken. I have compiled no such list on Sarek either on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere, I simply don't care to do that or have the time for it generally.

However, back to facts, over a long period of time, extending beyond SoV's talkpage, I have observed SoV's behavior and I take issue with some of the particulars. The idea that I am hounding another editor when I have next to no interaction with him normally is absurd, and the only reason I recently did was because he closed/resolved a AN/I debate I had participated in. He banned the person, and then proceeded to block the guy; the community consensus found this block to be overly harsh and overturned it. I have a particular disdain of power being used in a pushy way for its own sake. I did allow my indignation to get the best of me in that recent debate because I see it as the latest incarnation in a continuing episode of the same. BWilkins might find it humorous to have a legitimate complaint about an admin, and humorous to want to proceed in a professional way with such a complaint. When an editor has a complaint, this kind of ABF only serves to make things more contentious. Additionally, the assertion by BWilkins that I do nothing but assume bad faith on SoV's action is absurd as well. Even in the latest debate, I called on other editors to defer to Sarek's determination of a ban and get his clarification for how it was to be implemented. In other words, I respect his right to act in an administrative capacity, and respect his decisions when they are made impartially and fairly, but I take issue with his actions if they serve to amplify contention or are outright uncivil. I appreciate the assistance from others on how to proceed, sarcasm isn't as helpful though. -- Avanu (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the tone of Avanu's comments in the WP:AN#Block review: Sceptre and AndyTheGrump thread not far above this one (eg ), it's rather hard to take this report seriously. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There are two options in this case. You could file a WP:RFC/U to try to influence Sarek and have him voluntarily agree to stop using admin tools for a while. You could also file an arbitration request with the intention of having ArbCom temporarily desysop Sarek (it's unlikely that they would enjoin him from using the tools without desysopping him).

Neither option seems likely to happen, but they are your only two options. NW (Talk) 12:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah, the 3rd option is that we implement the WP:IB I suggested quite seriously above :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Sarek's point in telling you to put up or shut up, so to speak, is that the way you've been going about things cannot fix anything, it can only increase the ambient "grar" level surrounding you guys, which is exactly what it's been doing. If you believe a user has a history of disruptive behavior or misuse of tools, the way to deal with that is to lay out the case in an RfC/U, showing the evidence you believe proves it, and let the community discuss and reach consensus on what should be done about it. The way not to do it is to drop small comments in unrelated threads about how the person in question is a problem, until they're forced to tell you to either do something about it or drop it. Avanu, if you really feel that Sarek's behavior is so problematic that something needs to happen, then you either need to start an RfC/U about him (which cannot desysop him, but can reach a consensus that he should be desysopped, or that he should stop using X tool, or that he should stop doing Y thing, etc), initiate his recall procedure (whatever that entails - I haven't looked at his in particular), or start an arbcom case (which is likely to be rejected unless you can show some really egregious behavior that could not be resolved through normal dispute resolution). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And I tend to agree with you on what you just said. If I do take some action, I want it to be done with a clear head and reasonable rationale. Generally, I just leave him to his own side of the Wiki and move on. I think the commmunity input here has been helpful in allowing me to know the options and focus my thoughts on this, and I think it is reasonable to allow some time to pass before taking action to make sure it simply isn't emotionally-driven. I want a positive outcome ultimately. Thanks for the comments. -- Avanu (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Nelson M. Cooke

Nelson M. Cooke - A month ago, the following was posted: 01:44, 31 May 2012‎ Ktr101 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (13,122 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Ktr101 moved page Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Nelson M. Cooke to Nelson M. Cooke: Created via Articles for Creation The article still cannot be accessed. Can someone help or tell me what to do? Raymond C. Watson, Jr. (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Categories: