Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:51, 30 November 2014

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 19 days ago on 5 December 2024) - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:18, 24 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 223 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)

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

(Initiated 78 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 77 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)

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 69 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)

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 45 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 41 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 41 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 16 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 39 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead

(Initiated 8 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 32 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

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

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)

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 91 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 79 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 49 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 32 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 57 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

Advice requested regarding mergers and moves of Bach articles

I'm at my wits' end dealing with a situation with which I was asked to help, so I've decided to punt and bring it here for wider attention.

Gerda Arendt created articles on variant forms of Bach's Magnificat (or different Bach Magnificats) which Francis Schonken regards as undesirable forks. He added material from them to a previously existing article and then proposed them for merger. He then started a merger discussion, closed it in his own favor despite objections (one of which took the form of removal of a merger template) and implemented the mergers. Gerda brought the situation to me for review at User talk:Yngvadottir#Magnificat, where I eventually determined that a new merger discussion needed to take place, to be closed by a neutral party, and that Francis had not raised any compelling reason why the articles should not be reverted to their state prior to his implementing the merger, to facilitate that discussion. I announced that to that end I would be reverting his actions, and did so. (See my contributions for November 21, reverting edits by him earlier the same day.) He meanwhile left several messages on my talk, which I stopped to answer, and then began reverting me. I re-reverted him once and then left the situation after notifying all who I had seen participating in the former discussion, plus one who had appeared on my talk, and suggesting that one or more WikiProjects be notified. The new discussion is here. I have asked a couple of times subsequently whether the articles are now in a condition that facilitates the new discussion; the answer has not been clear, complicated by statements that Gerda had agreed to some part of what Francis did (and this is the point where my unfamiliarity with the topic and inability to keep strings of letters and/or numbers straight, which I believe makes me suited to acting neutrally in the dispute, becomes a disadvantage). However, I was concerned by this edit, in which Francis accuses me of involving myself in the dispute and demands I revert and censure others, and I now see edits such as this at the new merger discussion and this section on Gerda's talk (with an objection by another editor), in which Francis is in my judgement overstepping the bounds of civility. There was an earlier instance of his accusing Gerda of battleground tactics and reminding her, in my view inappropriately, of the ArbCom case concerning infoboxes: that concerned his moving an article on a mass, also by J. S. Bach, and is here in my talk page archives. I remain neutral on the issue(s): Francis obviously has relevant expertise and it might be that he is correct and can achieve consensus for his view. However, in my judgement he is making a fair discussion of the issue next to impossible, and Gerda's not chopped liver as an expert (or an article writer) either. I've considered re-reverting and massive application of protection, but I'm not sure I could get it all right even if that heavy-handed approach is appropriate. So I'm bringing this here for the consideration of more and wiser heads; I will now inform both editors. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I asked Yngvadottir because I wanted to avoid going to a noticeboard ... - Clarification: there is only one Magnificat by Bach, however he wrote two distinctly different versions, first (1723) in E-flat major (BWV 243a), then (1733) transposed to D-major (BWV 243). There are other differences outlined in the merge discussion. Even for works with fewer differences, it has become common practise, initiated by Nikkimaria in the summer of 2013, to have individual articles for all versions. I started such an article on the first version. The problem I see is that Francis first copied massively from the new article to the old one, only then demanded a merge to the old, when de facto he had merged already. I believe that we should have two articles, but need to decide how to avoid redundancy. I don't think we need admin action but a fair discussion of the proposed merge, keeping in mind that it happened already and would need to be reverted if consensus is against it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

ps: reading it again, I think that Yngvadottir thought of several Magnificats because several redirects point to the two versions of the one. When I wrote the new article, Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, I moved the old one from Magnificat (Bach) to Magnificat in D major, BWV 243, to disambiguate by the different key, but think now that it was not necessary, because the later version is the one commonly performed today. Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

pps: handle advice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that, or the other half of the conversation at the other person's talk page. Pinging Francis Schonken to come here and explain himself. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: For what it's worth, I got tired of beating my head against the wall with Francis Schonken, who seems to think that consensus is "whatevere I want." The failrue to collaborate and the tendency to edit against consensus - and to do rather poor quality editing when he does - is worrisome. The individual articles are not POV-forking, they are not stubs, and they all are fine as stand-alone pieces. Francis Schonken is creating a problem in search of an issue. Montanabw 03:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'd probably have agreed with a merge, but that's neither here nor there, because unless I'm misreading, it looks like Francis self-closed as favorable a merge proposal where two out of two other people had opposed the merge. Question - did anyone take this to a wikiproject? It's irrelevant to the behavior issue, but could help, or have helped, with content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Gerda stated that it was put to the WikiProject but there was little interest. As to your reading of the first discussion, Roscelese, that's what I see too. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Classical music#Merge?, I took it there, it was changed and restored. To find the actual discussion, on the redirect which Francis would like to make the article title, you have to follow his closing comment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• The merge discussions are way too long, for my taste. The question he raised was if BWV 243a should be merged into BWV 243, - a version before he started copying into it from the other. To first create "his" version and then request that what he copied from should be redirected makes no sense to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Works by Bach have been mentioned. His major works have a general article and a specific one for the structure, for example Mass in B minor vs. Mass in B minor structure. The splits started when featured article Messiah (Handel) had no room for details on the music, and I created four supporting articles, such as Messiah Part II. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, a UAA topic ban for Hoops gza

We've been here before (here, for instance): Hoops gza's contributions to WP:UAA are greatly appreciated but also greatly overdone. Recent conversation is found at User_talk:Edgar181#Usernames. Recent examples include a username "Da Cow", which they wanted blocked for being the pronunciation for "Dachau"; "Ratbastardassn", which I think may mean an association of rat bastards and thus in reference to the user themselves; and "Bangminah" which I think they think is a way of saying "bang a minor". Other users/admins recently involved are Yngvadottir, Edgar181, Connormah.

The problem here is twofold: a. a lack of good faith on the part of Hoops in terms of what users intend their name to be or to mean, and related to that an overemphasis on the US English pronunciation of certain things ("Da Cow" being the best example); b. UAA is already backlogged on a regular basis and plowing through report after report is tedious, so if that work is made more difficult it is to the detriment of the project. I suggest, and I do this reluctantly, a topic ban for Hoops gza. Mind you, last time this came up I was not in favor of it, but after plugging away there for a few days, yeah. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of the username policy is that it does not matter what the user's intentions are, but rather how the Misplaced Pages community interprets the username. For User talk:Da Cow 2.7 (you didn't spell the username correctly, ergo leaving admins unable to find it), an admin even requested that the user change the username (see the user's talk page for proof of this). For "Bangminah", I don't know what you're talking about - you are completely fabricating information about why I made that report. I never made a connection to "bang a minor", in fact I noted that Bang Minah is a famous person, and therefore this, too, in my estimation, is a username violation. I reported "Ratbastardassn" because it has the word BASTARD in it. That is an offensive word in the English language. If you look through the Users list (search "Bastard", for instance), you will see that usernames containing bastard and its variations are blocked on a regular basis as username violations. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Lately, I've definitely noticed from Hoops gza both a high volume of UAA reports and a high error rate. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

My main problems with the reports (for the umpteenth time it seems) is that many of them are borderline "violations" that are more subjective (not blatant and serious violations of policy) and that a great deal of the accounts have either never been used or have not edited in months to years - both points of which are in the guidelines at the top of UAA. I find myself pretty much in accordance with Drmies' two points. Connormah (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

For Bangminah you said "offensive and disruptive", so don't give me that "famous name" jive: you said it was offensive. Bastard, as I responded at UAA, meh. Really. "Bastard" here is something the editor applies to themselves, so they're not trying to insult you. That I didn't spell out Da Cow's name completely is that there's no point to it, and that another admin said something too is immaterial. Your point about the user name list is immaterial. You've been asked before to stop interpreting these user names so narrowly and you couldn't. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No. I did not. I said offensive, disruptive, misleading and promotional, because it was all of those things. I pointed out and linked Bang Minah in my report, pointing out that it was a famous person. Now, as for "bastard", as I have said, take a look at the User list and search "Bastard" to see that we do indeed block bastard. After all, the dictionary defines it as a generalized term of abuse. We also block other expletives. Because they are offensive. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Judgment is required to work out when names need to be reported in order to avoid overwhelming the system. Hoops gza's enthusiasm is good, but the reports are not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately, I think a temporary restriction for Hoops gza on making reports to UAA is necessary. Numerous attempts to get Hoops gza to work within the guidelines for reporting usernames have not worked. Dealing with the bad reports takes too much effort away from handling usernames that are actually problematic. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - this has been raised several time before, but Hoops does not seem to be learning from experience. If he wants to work in this area, I suggest a three months' break during which he watches the page regularly to see which reports are accepted and which declined and why. JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - and as JohnCD suggests, then look at the reports on the noticeboard (including how other reporting editors explain why they are reporting a name) and how they get handled. Also, I'd urge the editor to review the guidelines posted there. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support When the administrators acting on noticeboard complaints are throwing their hands in the air due to a specific editor exacerbating the backlog problem through the repeated inclusion of frivolous reports, it's fair to ask for a topic ban to help prevent further unnecessary bulking up of the backlog. Hoops gza has been given ample opportunity to step back and better vet their reports at UAA, to no avail. It's time for a topic ban. --Jezebel's Ponyo 21:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I can't fault this user's enthusiasm and good faith, but after a quick review of their edits to UAA I see a concerning pattern of newbie biting, failure to assume good faith of new users, and a regrettable attitude when asked nicely to take a little more care with their reports. Hopefully someone can step up to the plate and mentor this user, so their enthusiasm will not go to waste. Lankiveil 10:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC).
• Oppose If you want to ban him for being innacurate, you may as well as ban the bot that's filling up the bot side of that page, it's wildly inaccurate. Further, per "Da Cow", it's entirely possible that a user would try to escape notice by changing the spelling of a name so that it sounded like something else (i.e: "Dachau", "Da Cow"). So his posting wasn't out of line. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't mind the bot being sharpened up but that's a different thing. We have humans doing this work because they are supposed to have judgment, not just algorithms. Presuming "Da Cow" as a variation of is just silly. Yes, it's possible that et cetera. Sure--and then you have to make that argument for all the other cases. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Very weak support - personally I do find the "Da Cow" and "Ratbastardassn" usernames somewhat offensive, and had it been some other user filing the reports I would think that we all need to just chill out and give the good-faith reports due process. I don't think Hoops submitted these in bad faith, but having been previously asked to put more consideration into whether a report is necessary, and having apparently not done so, points to a misunderstanding of the policy and has caused much disruption on a frequently backlogged noticeboard. So only because the backlog is an issue do I support a temporary ban from UAA. Ivanvector (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Note Based on recent editing, the Rat Bastard user name is an artistic reference: Rat Bastard Protective Association. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Ponyo. NE Ent 22:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Yngvadottir: And a username containing "Nazi" might edit about Neo-Nazi organizations. What is your point? Would you not block the username containing "Nazi"? Ergo, are you saying that the word "bastard" is not offensive? - Hoops gza (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I can't speak for Yngvadottir, of course, but no one brought up Nazis here. The word "bastard" in this context is not offensive enough to be blocked. You've been told this three or four times now; if you disagree, maybe you should try your luck at RfA and patrol that board 24/7. If you are successful I will argue to have this topic ban vacated, should it be issued. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What makes this use of the word "bastard" any less offensive? How does the inclusion of the word in the name of an organization make the word any less offensive? Could someone who is a native English speaker please answer? - Hoops gza (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Frankly, I think that Drmies has a vendetta against me. It was not a few weeks ago that I posted a slew of vandalism-only accounts to AIV. She took the time to block IP addresses that were reported after my reports, but she didn't take the time to check my reports. And now this, which may have been made in good faith. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• No vendetta. That I didn't look at some AIV reports while pursuing others means nothing--most likely I checked into a heavily vandalized article and when I got done with that took the dog for a walk. Or the chickens. Do feel free to post an AIV suggestion on my talk page and I will not fail to follow up if I can.

  "Native English"--thanks very much, I think I know English well enough. The problem isn't that I think you're reporting in bad faith: I don't think you are; I just think you fail to apply good faith and, frequently, common sense, to the users whose names you're reporting and from the looks of it I'm not alone. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Hoops gza: I am a native speaker of English (of a sort), for what it's worth. I share Drmies' feeling that "bastard" is just not terribly shocking, particularly when applied to the user him/herself. Also, I'd like to point out that being reported at UAA has the potential for big-time biting of new users who may unthinkingly be using nicknames or internet handles - or have names that sound unfortunate in English - or pronounce things quite differently from you - or have simply not thought it through that this moniker is going to follow them wherever they go in a vast database of edits (newbies tend not to know about contributions pages or article histories). And we don't have anything at sign-up that says "Wait! Don't use the name of your company because we have a rule against that!" And an awful lot of the names are already taken (the first four I tried were.) So this is a fairly sensitive area, which is why the rules highlighted at the top of the noticeboard: there's a risk of turning off or blocking well-meaning new editors, and we do like people to register user names. Does looking at that aspect of it help you understand? It's not just that you're making work for admins - I have to fulfil my quota somewhere or they may take my badge away '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support After going through Hoops gza's UAA reports from August and October, it's evident the the user is reporting usernames that at a quick glance seem to be known violations ie. "shit" which is a very common part of middle eastern sur/given names, also seems the user reports usernames that seem to be famous people, ie "ROBINWILlAMS" which is a famous person but, it's also too generic to be considered a UPOL. It's very evident the user needs to slow down and take a long review the username policy. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrator eyes appreciated

The enforcement request page for the Gamergate general sanctions could use the eyes of more uninvolved administrators to respond to requests. Please watch the page. RGloucester — ☎ 06:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Radical idea: Get rid of the page and/or redirect it. It's only serving as a bottleneck in terms of the full sanctions enforcement request page. The enforcement page for ArbCom has 1000+ watchers. Even if you get 15 more people to watchlist it to make it 70, it will never be in the full capacity of the full. There's tons of uninvolved admins at the general enforcement page. Tutelary (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a "bottleneck". Any uninvolved administrator can impose sanctions at any time under GS/GG. The enforcement page is a place where non-administrators can request action and provide evidence. This deliberative process provides an appropriate way to deal with complaints, and doesn't allow for unproductive threaded discussion. There has been no problem with answering requests. They've all been answered in a timely manner. I've seen AE requests linger for weeks, and that hasn't happened at this page. WP:AE cannot be used for community-established sanctions. Please work within the processes provided to you, as this will result in a better ending for us all. RGloucester — ☎ 06:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

From WP:AE request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions, or request other administrative measures, such as revert restrictions, with respect to pages that are being disrupted in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions, or or appeal discretionary sanctions to uninvolved administrators. Seems appropriate given GamerGate is discretionary sanctions. Tutelary (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There are two types of discretionary sanctions: ArbCom DS and community DS. The reason that page is called "Arbitration enforcement" is because it is only for the enforcement of remedies specified by ArbCom cases. These are not ArbCom sanctions. These are community issued discretionary sanctions, and hence cannot use the "Arbitration enforcement" page. There is nothing wrong with the present channel. RGloucester — ☎ 07:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Though Tutelary was unaware of the distinction between arbcom and community sanctions, she still has a point about centralizing the requests page. Instead of having separate RFE pages for each community sanctions, we'd better have a centralized requests page for all community sanctions, at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Requests for enforcement, shortcut WP:CSE for community sanctions enforcement. Several community sanctions don't even have requests page, and some others got abandoned, so it's no surprise that enforcement of community sanctions isn't as streamlined as AE. ANI is a second best, we need a proper structure for this (the GG RFE is a bit lacking compared to AE too, further reason to have a well structured centralized page). Cenarium (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Page creation needed

I request that Mᵫller is redirected to Müller per Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Redirects#Redirect request: Mᵫller. It appears to be create-protected. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 19:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done TheCatalyst31 19:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Bad redirect. You should have tried to find at least one example of this ligature in use. It is not used. 80.132.64.10 (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Clean-up request for a template's history

Hi. Casually I discovered this template and, looking at the "revision history", I noticed that it was filled of trolling, heavy isults, personal attacks etc; by an anon vandal and some indef-blocked sp; from March 2012 to April 2014. I would request a clean-up of this revisions from the chronology, as is the practice (if I remember correctly) in these cases. I request it also to discourage this habit to use the "edit summary" for trolling; and to delete the vandalized versions, continuously restored by vandals with a simple counter-rollback. I hope this is the right place for this kind of notices. Btw, thanks for attention. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@DerBorg: Just taking a quick look, I don't see anything there that meets WP:CRD. Can you give an example of exactly what you want removed? Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Uhm... the vandals used the edit summary of this template adding several personal attacks. Just to make some examples: xx, are you a complete retard?, YOU UTTER MORONS (again), YOU IDIOT, are you people retarded or just incompetent?, Ido not understand such stupidity people refer to wikipedia..., absolute effing retards grow up this is correct, xx grow up. Francoise Marie was a daughter of France, NOT a princess of the blood. Idiot... and so on. I think it could be better to clean the chronology from all this trolling, IMHO. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I went to the template to remove content anyway, but I decided not to. I thought you meant that a big problem was that vandals were simply reverting to a sneaky state, i.e. they vandalised by hitting "Undo" and the end result was something that didn't look like vandalism. Looking at the template now, I see no obvious vandalism: people have simply been changing French names to English formats, and that's not obviously vandalism. As far as I can see, the only significantly disruptive elements have been the edit summaries, and since you've repeated them here, there's no point now in removing them there. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes protection request for 21 (number)

I'd like to request pending changes protection for 21 (number). The reason why is because a very popular Vine came out a couple of months ago, where somebody asks a kid what 9 + 10 is and the kid answers 21. The Vine is extremely popular right now (just look up "21 vine"), and I've seen quite a bit of vandalism on the page adding content along the lines of that Vine. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 15:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Place to request page protection is thisaway. I've made the request for you with regards to this one. Amortias (T)(C) 15:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Amortias: Okay! I wasn't sure where to request protection (as I hadn't found a page for it yet), so I just put it here. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What does a vine and 21 have to do with eachother anyway? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This video-sharing app; I remembered it when I saw the logo. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

RfA Semi protection

I realize this is not a common issue, but why are RfA pages not auto-semi'd ? Such as at RFP Mlpearc (open channel) 18:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Because WP:RFA policy is "every Wikipedian is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections," NE Ent 19:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I was thinking IP's can not open an RfA which lead me here :P Thanx. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

IPs aren't allowed to vote, but they're allowed to contribute to the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel

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

Moved from WP:ANI#Gamaliel by me. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

1. On October 24th, after a discussion at ANI, the community imposed a discretionary sanction regarding the GamerGate drama, specifically that..

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic space of Gamergate controversy broadly construed, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

2. Since that date, Gamaliel (talk · contribs) has acted to impose topic bans under these sanctions on four editors: Die-yng (talk · contribs), Cobbsaladin (talk · contribs), MarkBernstein (talk · contribs), and Tutelary (talk · contribs). See WP:GS/GG.

3. An ArbCom case request (Old revision of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case) was made on October 27th regarding Gamaliel's administrative actions regarding a content dispute at Neil deGrasse Tyson, specifically regarding him taking actions while he was an involved administrator. To quote from the arbitrator's opinions...

Now, in my opinion, up to this point, Gamaliel's actions were not in breach of the standards of behaviour expected of administrators. The subsequent block, however, was and so was the full protection of Gamaliel's talk page. - Salvio

I would say that Gamaliel was involved, but his actions were generally appropriate (if intemperately made) given the circumstances. - Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs

I'm generally unhappy with Gamaliel's behaviour at the time and would have been accepting a case - were it not for the fact that Gamaliel had explained himself, apologised and taken a break. I hope he spots that a break is needed sooner in future. - Worm That Turned

With respect to Gamaliel, I generally agree with the comments above. - Newyorkbrad

The consensus among the arbitrators here was that Gamaliel had violated the prohibition regarding administrative actions taken by involved administrators, but then stepped back and apologized, and he was given a pass on that basis.

4. An ArbCom case (WP:ARBGG) was requested regarding the whole GamerGate fiasco on November 9th, and the case was opened on the 27th. Gamaliel is a party to that case. Three of the impositions of discretionary sanctions made by Gamaliel were made since the opening of that request, and two were made since the case was opened (again, with him as a party to that case)

5. Per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Role_of_administrators, point 1, administrators are specifically prohibited from imposing discretionary sanctions when they are involved. "Administrators who fail to meet these expectations may be subject to any remedy the committee consider appropriate, including desysopping." That would of course be an ArbCom action, and I am specifically not requesting that, however I would anticipate that the committee would consider the opinion of the community regarding Gamaliel's involvement when forming their decision.

I request that the community formally ban Gamaliel from imposing any further discretionary sanctions or taking other administrative action regarding topics involving GamerGate or editors who are involved in the current ArbCom case, and suggest strongly that such a prohibition be extended to any imposition of discretionary sanctions. While not trying to 'broaden' this discussion into a debate about the other editors upon whom he imposed sanctions, I would strongly suggest that in the interest of fairness toward those editors that the community overturn those sanctions immediately, with the exception of the one editor who's topic ban was confirmed at ANI, with the caveat that this would not prevent another uninvolved administrator from reimposing those sanctions if they felt it was appropriate. If it is determined that Gamaliel was in fact an 'involved' administrator, and that his imposition of discretionary sanctions was in violation of policy, then it is patently unjust that those editors be required to appeal their sanctions to him.

Since writing most of the above, though I'm not going to rewrite it, it has come to my attention that there has been evidence presented by The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) at the GamerGate ArbCom page regarding the involvement of Gamaliel with the subject Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence#Gamaliel_is_INVOLVED. I had not previously read that material, and my post here is not based upon it, though I do feel that it is worth perusing. Regardless of any prior involvement, once he was named as a party to the ArbCom case his involvement became explicit, and he was thus specifically prohibited from taking further administrative actions in the matter. Revent 23:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Revent - please see where one of the Arbitrators has suggested administrators will not be considered involved just by being listed as part of the case and previous involvement would need to be taken into account. It will be the responsibility of the committee to decide whether Gamaliel's actions should be reversed or sanctioned. They cannot be reversed by another administrator and probably shouldn't be reversed by the community with an open Arbitration Case. Nick (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from individual arbitrators do not constitute statements with the authority of the committee, so ... what Nick said, mostly. I don't think the arbcom case has affect until it's closed, but given the nature of the Gamergate dispute I'd expect the community to give wide latitude to the discretion of the admins monitoring the situation. NE Ent 23:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why we need to have this discussion? Since TDA's brought this situation into the Arbcom case, presumably Arbcom will act on it or decide not to act on it, so a community discussion seems to be kind-of pointless. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel has been acting under the authority of DS that were imposed by the community, not ArbCom, and the ArbCom ruling is not due for a month. This is a question of the appropriateness of his administrative actions taken in regards to that community action, regardless of the opinion expressed by Salvio. I think it is fair to say that the community expects administrators to err on the side of not taking action in matters where they would be considered to be involved by a neutral party (note that I have had absolutely nothing to do with any of the GamerGate drama), and that it was poor judgement on Gamaliel's part to do so. Given that Gamaliel was quite recently 'chided' by ArbCom for the same thing, taking action in a case where he was involved, I think it is perfect legitimate for the community to discuss actions taken under the color of the community's authority.

I would also note that Gamaliel's 'not a closure' of the recent discussion regarding a topic ban of Tutelary, and his decision to impose a topic ban under previously existing community DS when such a ban was the exact subject of discussion, was IMO an overt act on his part to subvert the authority of the community to make a decision regarding such a ban. Given that he had previously !voted to topic ban Tutelary, as noted by TDA at ArbCom, he was not uninvolved.

The matter of actions taken under the authority of community imposed DS is a completely separate matter from what ArbCom may decide. Revent 00:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I knew I shouldn't have logged onto Misplaced Pages this evening.

The first statement in the case is dated November 10. Since then, other named parties including User:Dreadstar, User:Acroterion. and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise have continued to act in the capacity of uninvolved administrators, as I have, including imposing topic bans. To my knowledge, none of the administrators working in this area have indicated that they will cease working in this area now that the case has been officially accepted by the Committee. In the comment linked above, Arbitrator User:Salvio giuliano explicitly states "you can continue enforcing the community sanctions".

The frivolous claims of User:The Devil's Advocate that I am "INVOLVED" (you can tell it's serious bizness because he used all caps) have been dismissed by uninvolved parties when he brought them up previously at ANI, where he was also blocked by an uninvolved admin for his disruptive behavior on that thread. I expect the Committee will reject them as well and sanction him for his behavior.

I seriously erred in the Neil DeGrasse Tyson matter. I will not participate in a rehashing of that matter here, other than to say that my involvement consisted of actually editing the article, so there was no question that I was an involved party. I have not edited the GamerGate articles. With GamerGate, the claims of involvement are frivolous at best, and at worst deliberately designed to influence administrative decisions and prevent enforcement of Misplaced Pages policies.

So why are we here? Your points seem to be that I fucked up in some completely unrelated matter, I'm party to an ArbCom case where it was explicitly stated that it I can continue to enforce these sanctions as other administrators are doing, and someone brought up some claims which you admit you haven't even read.

I'm sure your post is well intentioned, but it is irresponsible for you to waste the time of the community in this manner. Having to deal with frivolous complaints does not encourage editors and administrators to get into the trenches and help restore order and policy compliance in contentious situations like GamerGate. Gamaliel (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

"someone brought up some claims which you admit you haven't even read." I did read them, actually, after I wrote the bulk of my post, as I noted. I think I made it perfectly clear, though, that what I was saying was not based on TDA's statement to ArbCom. There is, at least in my opinion, ample reason to consider it inappropriate for you to be taking action in this area, and to question your ability to judge whether or not you are involved in a matter before taking action. The fact that you quite recently 'seriously erred' in the exact same way that I am questioning now is perfectly relevant, as it shows a history of poor judgement in assessing if you are involved in a matter. There is no 'requirement' or 'need' that you be the one to take an administrative action... there are other admins perfectly capable of doing so, and that you have continued to do so after the question was raised IMO makes it quite clear that you are incapable of being impartial regarding this... otherwise, you would simply have left it for some other administrator to address. Revent 00:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not seriously err "in the exact same way" unless you are somehow claiming that I am secretly editing the GamerGate articles or that a single action taken in the heat of the moment after three days of harassment is exactly the same as many different actions taken after much deliberation over the period of months. Every single one of my major administrative actions in GamerGate has received the support or approval of other uninvolved administrators. The claims of my involvement have been dismissed by uninvolved parties at ANI. Even if you are correct in your assertion that I am incapable of judging when I am involved, I feel that is sufficient evidence to verify that my judgment is sound.

Could I simply walk away and leave the mess for others to clean up? Sure, I could, but that would make me a shitty administrator who isn't willing to do the job he signed up for and should resign. And if every administrator who was the subject of a frivolous complaint walked away, that would leave no one to do the work and provide a powerful incentive for involved parties to fabricate frivolous complaints. Gamaliel (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Close with prejudice to include all future GG issues while ArbCom is involved. Preliminary injunctions are available at arbcom. --DHeyward (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• Close as well. The dispute does not seem to be a review of the topic bans but for a pre-emptive request. I'd say we let Arbcom take care of it at the moment and/or if there is a future GG-based topic ban that's questionable. Arbcom can determine if Gamaliel is involved or sanctionable, there is no need for this discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog