Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:59, 22 October 2014

Welcome to my talk page! Please remember to remain civil. Users who wish to insult, harass or battleground may be asked not to edit on my talk page as per wp:userspace guidelines. Due to personal issues, there may unanticipated periods of little or no editing or monitoring. If there's an urgent issue you can email me or Thank one of my edits to trigger an alert.~Technophant (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

Role of Misplaced Pages

https://en.wikipedia.org/Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde

Read this and especially the section regarding the Role of WIkipedia. I think it helps explain their current actions. However in this case, it specifically states it was workable because there were no reliable news sources to cite, unlike this case, which has a multitude of reliable news sources. My request has simply been for them to have guidelines that reflect their actions, because as everything reads now all their guidelines permit it. An nothing on the page regarding Oversight referencing suppressing a name in public domain due to a life threatening situation. If they have a policy to not allow it, which apparently they do, it should be clarified so people can edit in good faith. Suppressing to this extreme is bizarre considering the amount of information in the public domain by reputable news sources. Their current policy on victimization is about how notable the vicitimization is, and whether or not it warrants its own article, or should be referenced in related articles. If wikipedia believes inclusion causes victimization and therefore should not be included, there should be some kind of obvious cite-able guideline. And then lots of article should be removed because they victimize. If its due to a life threatening situation, the oversight team should clarify rule #4 to include suppression of information that may trigger life endangerment or victimization or re-victimization. Because right now it doesn't say that, when it appears this is how they have been operating since at least 2008MeropeRiddle (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@MeropeRiddle: Did you read http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html ? Seems like deja vu. The idea behind the blockade was to not elevate the value of the prisoner through publicity. I'm not sure what keeping the name off this one would do. Could do article like 2014 Islamic State kidnapping of British aid worker. 07:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes

I have put a template at the beginning of the "References" section in perhaps the vain hope that editors will take notice. Do you think this is a good place for it, or would somewhere else be better? I ask because I believe you have put in several templates similar to this and seem experienced in how to use them. If you can think of a better place, can you move it there, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

RfD discussion of Islamic State

• Because you have participated in the move discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you are being notified of the RfD discussion at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 7#Islamic State. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Relevant article

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jul/08/wikipedia-censorship-seth-finkelstein#start-of-comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeropeRiddle (talk • contribs) 12:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

MeropeRiddle I'm finding myself of tired of fighting this issue on principle. Unlike most issues which are resolved by consensus, this one was decided by a WP:CABAL of admins without room for public discussion. I'm sorry you got blocked for this, apparently without warning. Seem like a WP:BITE. ~Technophant (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Post surgery - 1 month update

It's now been 3788 days (days are auto-updated) since my back surgery. Unfortunately this last week has involved increasing pain and new numbness and tingling in my foot. I really hope this isn't failed back syndrome. I very much believe in the power of prayer and ask for your prayers and support in the coming months.~Technophant (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The numbness of I was experiencing has mostly subsided. Thanks for all the prayers and support.~Technophant (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I woke up this morning feeling better. I've started doing out-patient physical therapy. I think something I'm doing there has made a difference. I feel like I've turned the corner.~Technophant (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Physical therapy does help, if you keep that persistent, you will be recovering but it will take effort. Don't give in, I pray for and support you. Get well soon. --Acetotyce (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Foley (journalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Time for another "Tangential discussion" template on the ISIS Talk page? More than half of the latest long thread had nothing to do with the discussion in hand. I believe you added one before. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I've started a draft RFC/U here. Anybody (except Worldedixor) can edit it. Once I have two or more editors comment on it I'll move it WP space so it can be verified. Then the problem user will have a chance to respond.~Technophant (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been filed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Worldedixor

Logos in ISIS

What a good idea to put in those al-Furqan and al Hayat logos! Will explain to thousands who have puzzled over what those strange markings are in the corner of YouTube videos to do with ISIS and other rebel groups! --P123ct1 (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.~Technophant (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Found this at WP:RFC

Publicizing an RfC

After you create an RfC, it will be noticed by editors that watch the talk page, and by some editors in the Feedback Request Service who are notified by a bot. However, there may not be enough editors to get sufficient input. To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations:

• One of the Village Pump forums, such as those for policy issues, proposals, or miscellaneous
• Noticeboards such as point-of-view noticeboard, reliable source noticeboard, or original research noticeboard
• Talk pages of relevant WikiProjects
• Talk pages of editors listed in the Feedback Request Service. You must select editors from the list at random; you cannot pick editors that will be on "your side" in a dispute.
• Talk pages of closely related articles or policies

When posting a notice at those locations, provide a link to the RfC, and a brief statement, but do not argue the RfC. Take care to adhere to the canvassing guideline, which prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller Thanks for the information. ~Technophant (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

And of course wait until it's official. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

2013 Islamic State kidnapping of British aid worker

I have reverted your move to mainspace of Draft:2013 Islamic State kidnapping of British aid worker and tagged the redirect for speedy deletion (WP:R1). Please gain consensus before doing something which violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the current oversight position. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Rudaw – ISIS

After someone gave "Rudaw" in ISIS a "who?" tag, I googled it and found the Wiki article Rudaw Media Network. I had already tried Misplaced Pages, but typing in "Rudaw" did not bring it up, although it brought up many other "Rudaw"s. Do you know how to fix this linking problem, or should I take it to the Village Pump Technical Help Desk? --P123ct1 (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1 It looks like you already fixed it. I looked at the reference and "about Rudaw" and found that the name is correct.~Technophant (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't fixed it. If you type "Rudaw" in the search box, it comes up with many "Rudaw"s, but not "Rudaw Media Network"! That is what I meant by a "linking problem". --P123ct1 (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Need to have disambiguation then.~Technophant (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to do it. Should I take it to the Village Pump Technical HD? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1  Done~Technophant (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Tx! --P123ct1 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I request an answer to my reasonable question =

You reverted my edit. In order to avoid an edit war, I was discussing your revert of my edit at . I have been patient, and you are entitled not to answer, but if you do not discuss and give a logical justification of your revert and a responsive answer to my question, I will safely assume that you do not object to my reverting your revert of my edit. Worldedixor (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see the following section and Gaz's comment "so it's the worst of both worlds" remark. He's an expert when it comes to jihadology, ask him.~Technophant (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This article could use some help

It was originally written a couple years ago, and it has been added to today. I don't feel comfortable rewriting the whole thing, or even removing much... but I think it has some readability issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/John_Cantlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeropeRiddle (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS - Talk page

Did you see the IP's comments on the Talk page here, especially as regards the length of the article? I was wondering about the 2014 timeline as well. Surely it needs not to be duplicated in ISIS now that it has its own article? What was the reason for retaining it? Although Gazkthul has only had agreement from you and me and possibly Gregkaye (his answer is unclear), do you not think he should go ahead now and shorten the ISI section and give it its own article? That would reduce the "History" section considerably. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Isil

Hi! You participated in the move discussion that closed this week on ISIL (disambiguation). There is currently a discussion on where the title this was redirected from, Isil, should link to located at Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_24#Isil. Please feel fee to participate in the discussion. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Al Hayat Media Center

I notice in the logo you put in for the Al Hayat Media Center in ISIS that the spelling is "ALHAYAT". The article has "Al Hayat" and the logo legend has "Al-Hayat". The two footnotes, not from the organization, have "Al Hayat". On archive.org it shows "al-Hayat" here and other spellings. I can't find anything definitive on Google. Do you know which is the correct spelling? --P123ct1 (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 The easiest answer is I'm not really sure. Gaz would be a good one to ask. 03:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS October 2014 timeline

At the end of the timeline entries, immediately after the last <ref></ref> belonging to the last entry and on the same line, this appears:

"</onlyinclude>==References==<!--keep onlyinclude before references or it will break the transclusion of recent events in the main article--> {{Reflist|30em}}"

This is somewhat confusing for non-technical types. At what point should the next entry be started? Presumably before the "</only include>, though this isn't clear. There used to be a kind of separator code at this point, on a separate line after the last entry, which made it much clearer. It might have been there and has got knocked out by accident. Could you add in something to show exactly where the editor should start their new entry? --P123ct1 (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1Yes it does look strange, however if it's written as differently it will introduce an extra linebreak (not a big deal really). I added a remark before the line so that it's more clear on where to add more material.~Technophant (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Very clear now. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

9 October 2014

I just reverted an edit you made changing many ISILs to Islamic State. You may not be aware of the many failed move attempts to move to Islamic State for the article and related articles. Continued debate toward using "Islamic State" has now been deemed disruptive and topic bans and other sanctions could be imposed. (not a threat by me, just trying to give you a heads up). https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Proposed_move_from_.22ISIS.22_to_.22ISIL.22_in_the_article_text https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#An_RM_to_ISIS.3F and look at the collapsed section. and editors are now being warned and one got a 3 month ISIL topic ban already. Legacypac (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac First, the discussion has been closed by whom? There's no signature or closing decision. I've been away for the last two weeks and did not see the discussion. And why is it collapsed? Also, this change has nothing to do with "end run around RM". It's just a common sense bold proposal. I've made a new proposal to use contextually appropriate names. ~Technophant (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked into it and found that User:PBS had closed the discussion and changed the archive algo from 14 days to 3 days then 7 days. I missed everything due to this. There seems to be strong feelings from Legacypac that seem to be based on personal issues, not WP guidelines. Please also note that Legacypac's edit here with battlegroundish edit summary also removed a spelling correction. I don't like conflict, I don't want to edit war, and I don't want to get TBanned. There's civil ways of handing this. I think this issue to go to Dispute Resolution. 15:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at the top of the talk page for the pull down list of page changes. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Proposed_move_from_.22ISIS.22_to_.22ISIL.22_in_the_article_text where wide input was solicited and the conclusion reached we would be consistent with ISIL not "Islamic State". Look at the title of the article. If you want to dispute the title again, good luck. My attitude is not battleground, it is "let's be consistent". There is no point in having RMs and Rfcs to make decisions and than have editors just do whatever and threaten the editors with dispute resolution for sticking to the decisions. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac If you look I support a moratorium on article renaming. The proposed change of the acroymn does not mean that ISIL is the only name for the group. If that is so then you should go to the ISI section and change that acronym to ISIL too. Does that make sense? No. Please answer my question on the ISIL talk page on why you think the name "Islamic State" is "very problematic".17:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• I did not change the archive length to 3 days that was done by a different editor (to 4 days) and reverted by that editor back to 7 days. I set it to 7 days because at the moment there is over 20K a day going into the talk page. That meant that before I changed the time to 7 days it was over 450k which is far too large for a talk page for anyone on a slow link or a pay per byte tariff.
• The section to which you refer was there when you posted to the page 03:55, 12 October 2014 it was there when I replied at 13:14, 12 October 2014. It was still there when you next edited Wikiepdia at 21:25, 13 October 2014. So it was there for you to view and add opinions. It was not "It was archived prematurely" it was archived at 01:29, 15 October 2014‎ (less than 24 hours ago).
• I see you have edited User talk:GraniteSand but you have totally missed the point in the second edit link it has nothing to do with the edit clash that put back some words by P123ct1 which P123ct1 had removed. It had everything to do with the paragraph at the bottom of that link which starts "Warned? You seem to be under ...". Hence my detailed explanation and highlighting of several sentences when I imposed the temporary ban.

-- PBS (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS Like I said, I've been out of the loop for a while, however what I've known of User:GraniteSand is that he has been a constructive editor in this area. There's a battleground going on, however I don't think GS is the problem. I'm sorry I accused you of changeing it 3 days. It really should have been discussed before anybody changed it, however I see that you were trying in GF to help fix it. You proposed the moratorium over 7 days ago there seems to only support for it so let's put that in place and hope it calms things down.~Technophant (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion: Operation Inherent Resolve

A discussion in which you may be interested has opened here. - SantiLak (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

General sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. PBS (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

With regards to this question I see you worked out the answer for yourself (just as well you worked it out correctly). -- PBS (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

WARNING: The small amount edits I am making to the talk pages in the area of the sanctions is being done as an uninvolved administrator. From now on, while I am an uninvolved administrator you are not to change (copy-edit or refactor) any of my edits to the talk pages or change any edit I make to an articles to which the sanctions apply. You may ask me on my talk page to make amendments (as you did here) and if I think them reasonable I will make them (as I did here). You can ask another uninvolved administrator to make a change to my edits, but do not solicit any other editor to make changes for you. You may not solicit changes to my edits on the talk pages of the sanctioned articles. If this warning is not clear then you may ask me to clarify. -- PBS (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siege of Kobanî, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page YPG. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events

I was not the author of all the nonsense edits on the ISIL events timeline page. Except for updates on situation in Kobane, my only edit was "*1 October: the town of Taza Kharmatho is retaken by Peshmerga and Iraqi Army forces, but remains uninhabitable due to booby traps left by ISIL.". It was sourced, and if that is not considered a reliable source, then half of what is on that page doesn't have a reliable source. It seems to me that you refused all the additions caught in the review period without checking each one, and that's pretty irritating.--2.35.58.16 (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@2.35.58.16: I wasn't the editor that rejected the edits. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Feel free to redo you unaccepted edit. I'll remove your warning.~Technophant (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--2.35.58.16 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Using The in ISIL

You reverted my changes here. Can you please help me understand why this is better or more clear? I don't see it that way.~Technophant (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant:: I thought it was a mistake. The version just before the one I altered here started with "As Islamic State of Iraq" and then went on to add a "the" before the ISIS and IS headings. I also remembered that when the article had "As" in the subheadings, there was no "the" in the titles. I didn't realise you had added "the" deliberately! I do think "the" looks a little strange, but would you like me to revert? --P123ct1 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant:: I am trying to archive my Talk page, not very successfully, and thought I had better put your message here in case it gets lost. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Do you need help? I prefer to manually archive my talk page but I can also set up automatic.~Technophant (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I managed it! It was by trial and error like last time because I couldn't understand the WP Help on archiving properly. I couldn't remember some of the steps I took last time. Phew! What about the edit? Would you like me to change it back? I don't mind, but it will have to be tomorrow as it is very late here. Let me know. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Yes, please change it back. I want to get wider input on it b4 relenting to remove it. (was that too sarcastic?)~Technophant (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. I couldn't self-revert, as the diff I got wasn't mine, so did it manually. Remember it was only two "The"s that I changed, and no, it wasn't sarcastic! --P123ct1 (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIS Talk page

Potential trouble here. See last few entries. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: I took him to wp:ANI. Please go there and give supporting evidence.~Technophant (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: Technophant, in future cases like this please consider transparency issues related to the using of peoples names when canvassing. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

SCW&ISIL sanctions

• @Technophant: I recommend that you remove this notification at once. If you'll notice at the general sanctions log, Gregkaye has already been notified. Editors are never supposed to notify someone of the existence of these sanctions more than once, and certainly not for the sake of badgering editors. Please read the following:

  Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.

  This comes from here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User:RGloucester thanks for catching that. I didn't check the log closely enough before I notified. The entry has been removed. I apologized here. I be more careful in the future.~Technophant (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester , as you know, when Technophant apolgized the text read as follows:

• I've been informed that you were already on the notify log. The duplicate entry has been removed. I apologize for the oversight.~Technophant (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit, placed late on Monday afternoon (UK time), states: "The duplicate entry has been removed" but gives no link to a removal. Following the edit Technophant would have been able to see that the offending banner remained in place.

Never-the-less, this editor was then involved in a large number of other edits during which I made no reply to the "I've been informed" text. It was then only at 01:56 (UK time) on the Tuesday morning that the offending text was removed following which, at 04:08 (UK time), it was re-issued.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

About one of your posts

Could you tell me what you mean here , in particular the word "forced", when you wrote "This section was forced to be put into this article as part of the general censorship of his name debacle." Is this an on-Misplaced Pages discussion you are talking about? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Yes. I was notified through edit summaries (and further clarified by email) that at that time there was a general consensus among Oversight to not allow his name to be on Misplaced Pages. After his execution that ban expired.~Technophant (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That seems rather disturbing (to me anyway). It amounts to Misplaced Pages self-censoring itself because of the opinions or the restrictions of governments or governmental agencies. I wonder where else on Misplaced Pages this sort of thing has occurred? Did a similar thing happen regarding David Haines, I wonder? BTW, I do not think the "Haines' family requested that his abduction be kept a secret" claim in the article is correct - it was entirely a UK Foreign Office position. I recall media reports to that effect, but I will have to look into it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield Actually the "forced" (see edit history at David Cawthorne Haines) was due to an admin and the lengthy discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_115#Guideline_for_crime_victims_of_world_wide_significance (or similar thread) not edit summaries or emails. The name redaction was as I stated. I requested several time to several forums pleading that Oversight release a statement as to why the name was being revdeleted and what's going on (when a decision is going to be made) however to the best of my knowledge no public statements were ever made. It's kind of like the NSA, you know they are listening, you know they can take actions, but if you ask them to explain what they are doing you won't ever get a reply. Very distasteful. Goes against what I thought Misplaced Pages was about. ~Technophant (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't realise you were editing the David Haines article at exactly the same time as I was! Sorry if I disrupted any of your edits. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

WOW - reading the village pump contributions, it is disturbing that that false claim that the Haines' family had requested his name not be used in the news was being put forward by some editors as a reason to censor Misplaced Pages. I'm fairly certain that news of the abduction, and the family's increasing anger at the inactivity of the British government and the ongoing media ban, was in some sections of the media before the video release. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

All of the discussion happened behind closed doors. I too couldn't find any source that claimed that the family didn't want it in the media. His widow went the press and didn't mention anything about it. Even after that happened the "censors" refused to budge from their position, nor did any members of the Oversight committee participate in the Village Pump discussions. ~Technophant (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Tiptoethrutheminefield - I'm going to repost my email I sent to On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 10:00 AM to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org:

I'm not sure why this matter isn't being debated openly. I would like to add this comment I posted to Jimbo's talk page to discussion:

I'm very concerned about the current trend. There seems to be not only reversions, revdeletes, and even blocks regarding this matter. It's one thing to have an open disagreement as to what should or shouldn't be in article space but it's a whole different game when the normal consensus building processes is subverted. The given reason that there's been a media blackout is that the family requested it so that hostage negotiations aren't affected. The subject's wife however isn't playing along with this however. She broke here silence and did a news interview, David Haines' Wife Speaks for First Time Since ISIL Video Released. She does NOT mention a request for this to be kept out of the media. I think this current trend is toxic to consensus building and article writing and is eroding the pillars that this project was founded on.

Out of the 20+ persons on the Misplaced Pages:Functionaries list I received no reply.

Later, on Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:59 PM I sent:

There's another issue with a different hostage, and American woman whom MeropeRiddle has requested not be named. See Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Another hostage.

Also, I was wonder if Oversight has released public statement regarding this issue? I'm also wondering what the stance is regarding inclusion of the name of the 4th Western hostage, a British subject. So far his name is included on 2014_ISIL_beheading_incidents#Alan_Henning.

Could I please be emailed old revisions of ]? I want to make sure that all usable user contributions are included and also since I copied the original Draft from Google cache there needs to be proper CC-BY attribution to original author(s).

I got one reply saying there's a discussion underway, comples issue, etc. Frustrating. I complained to WP:AUSC demanding transparency and a public statement but also didn't get a reply. ~Technophant (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for the long delay. I have an interest in promoting transparency, and here is the reason why there was no public statement: I could not solicit a sufficient response and reach a consensus from my colleagues after forwarding your request to release any public statement.

Unfortunately I cannot act unilaterally because not everyone may be in agreement as to what to do, but I can only offer you advice in my own personal capacity. (1) The unfortunate death of the hostage is this case makes moot the need for suppression, and the suppression has since been lifted. (2) This case does raise a valid issue as to how to deal with similar future cases, and in the absence of any reference to specific outstanding (in the sense of unresolved) examples, the community should have a wider and fuller discussion as to how to approach such a situation in future.

Again I apologize for the protracted delay, and I hope this will address your concerns and have provided directions on the next step forward. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mailer Diablo It sounds like the committee didn't know what to do or couldn't come to a consensus on the issue. I did request that a page be started explaining any new policy of guideline decision and an summary of the David Cawthorne Haines incident. Just having an explanation on my talk page doesn't answer the lingering questions posed by the community in multiple discussion. ~Technophant (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand. If you intend to start a wider policy discussion, do let me know on my talk page so that I can pass the message on for other OS members to participate in the discussion. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ping involved editors @MeropeRiddle: and @Wnt:~Technophant (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Because of the lack of interest in consensus, I can only look at the oversighters' behavior - I haven't looked as carefully as I ought, but I'm not aware of them doing anything with Peter Kassig. Unfortunately, , we're probably going to have another chance to see how the issue plays out, but I'll hope that they are through interfering. Their position on Haines was so over the top, beyond all other media even in Britain, that I really have no adequate theory to explain it. (At some point I should go over the "conspiracy" viewpoint vis-a-vis DA-Notice 5, but it's likely a snipe hunt) Wnt (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@technophant, I have been out of the loop for a bit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeropeRiddle (talk • contribs) 11:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC/U

I saw your post on ANI discussing an RFC/U that you had about another editor. You mention on ANI that you have a consensus to topic ban that editor. This consensus is it in the RFC/U? If so I'm wondering if you perhaps missed Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance#The_nature_of_RfC.2FUSerialjoepsycho (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho Topic ban was not part of the original proposed solutions, it was just the last resort consenssu after the editor refused to cooperate and attacked the nominators. That part was on the rfcu talk page. I took it to requests for close, which has a backlog. I guess it could have been taken to AN. There was a general apathy because the editor had quit editing. I suggest you read the rfcu and talk page.~Technophant (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I've read the RFC/U and the talk page. I was just stopping by to inform you that while you may have a consensus at the RFC/U for a ban, A RFC/ U is still a voluntary process and you still can't use it to "Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures".Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho The RFC/U has been closed for "inactivity". The discussion on the talk page of the RFC/U continues. There's a clear consensus to take this to AN for a topic ban {CBAN}. I am excusing myself from starting any further noticeboard discussion and have asked for help taking getting the proposed CBAN placed. You are an uninvolved editor, would you be willing to close the talk page discussion and take the proper actions to put the proposed sanctions in place?~Technophant (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

My apologies but no I would rather stay uninvolved. Being uninvolved is not helpful in this situation. I'm unaware of what has actually taken place. It would probably be best for you or one of those have endorsed your RFC to take it to ANI.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Your canvassing practices related to the Worldedixor RfC

(Content moved from: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment:Worldedixor)

• Technophant, I want to ask you a few direct questions relating to your canvassing practices related to this case.

At the time of that you opened the thread: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Worldedixor you also conducted a canvassing trawl with the effect of contacting the following editors:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Adjwilley&diff=prev&oldid=625162206
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ericl&diff=prev&oldid=625273456
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Bbb23&diff=prev&oldid=625273589
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dougweller&diff=prev&oldid=625273770
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Supersaiyen312&diff=prev&oldid=625277088
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Thnidu&diff=prev&oldid=625277278
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Master_of_Puppets&diff=prev&oldid=625279692

1. What was your criteria regarding the choice of these editors and how did you go about choosing them?

• All the contacts were made from 11-12 September.
• This was a period of time that directly coincided with Worldedixor's provision of his invaluable and repeated assistance in the long running thread: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 12#"Daash", "'Daʿesh" or "Daesh", coverage in Arabic media and reflected content in the article
• The timespan of within which Worldedixor repeatedly gave his invaluable assistance ranged from 9-15 September which is all the more remarkable as he had the RFC going on at the time.

2 Did you do any checking on Worldedixor's current editing activities at the time of the proceedings?

3 Did you know about the thread just mentioned?

4a If so, why didn't you also notify me about the proceedings?

4b If not, would you have done so if you had known?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As to #1 it's been asked and answered. #2, yes. #3, yes. I put considerable thought in how to handle this issue. While WE has made some valuable contributions (esp. with his knownledge of Arabic), his behavior toward other editors on the talk page and on user talk pages was unacceptable. I was really hoping WE would take the opportunity given to him in the RFC/U to address the issues presented. Instead he chose to attack the certifiers. #4, We considered putting a notice of the RFC/U on the ISIL talk page, and in retrospect I should have. We didn't want to shame WE or feel like he was being attacked or lynch mobbed so it wasn't advertised very widely. I'm not sure it would have mattered, considering WE's lack of willingness to cooperate with the Request. This is my first time starting a RFC/U and now I that I know more about the process if I have to start one again will follow the guidelines more closely. I was hoping that in the closing process something would happen other than simply archiving it. The whole process of trying to deal with user issues if very draining.

Gregkaye, in light of the open WP:AN/I discussion about your disruptive edits initiated by me, these questions seemed to be aiming at either finding fault, getting me in trouble, or attempting to discredit me. I view this as further proof of your battleground mentality and warn you against further attempts to distract the community away from your issues.~Technophant (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Technophant you have not answered my first and fourth questions. You also add less than relevant "We considered" and We didn't" claims but provide no links that might facilitate their validation. As far as I can see from Worldedixor's editing history I was likely the only person that this editor was working with at the time of the RfC. I wasn't contacted. I opened here with the statement, "I want to ask you a few direct questions relating to your canvassing practices related to this case." The questions are clearly phrased and the first and fourth questions remain unanswered. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye I feel I should put you more in the picture, in Technophant's defence. Please study the RfC/U (and its Talk page) and in particular look carefully at the links on the front page and note their dates. This will help you to understand more what was going on. Trouble began around 25 July and was relentless until just before the RfC/U was started, which I think was about the time you joined the page. Things quietened down obviously when the RfC/U began, for reasons that will be clear when you read what the RfC/U was about. Those links on the RfC/U and a quick glance through the archived Talk pages in August especially will show you what had been happening and why the RfC/U came about. Notifying other editors about the RfC/U was a problem, as putting it on the Talk page seemed unfair to Worldedixor, yet limiting it to editors who had had clashes obviously looked like unfair selection bias, so we were damned if we did and damned if we didn't. In retrospect it probably would have been better to advertise it publicly. Neither of us is experienced in handling RfCUs. I expect my message here will have a boomerang effect but I will have to risk it, as I think you need to know why Technophant acted as he did. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please Retract

On User:PBS's talk page you said "I've been threatened with topic ban by Legacypac on my talk page based on this conversation that I didn't participate in and couldn't read." That is a not true, yet it appears you think it is and are acting vindictively toward me. Lay off please. Legacypac (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)