Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:09, 3 December 2014

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• 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

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 28 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 26 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 95 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 75 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)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 65 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 56 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 49 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)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine

(Initiated 34 days ago on 7 December 2024) slowed for a while Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Seraphimblade 10:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Wicked (2024 film)#RfC on whether credited name or common name should be used

(Initiated 31 days ago on 11 December 2024) Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. Happily888 (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 22 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages

(Initiated 10 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance

(Initiated 10 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (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 108 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 74 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 65 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 45 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 14 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

RFC close review Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq

I've discussed this with the closer on their talk page. I question if this is a reasonable summation of the consensus as it is not a reasonable clear determination. The support for the inclusion seems to be based on the poll. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• The only expressed problem with the close that I see is "You say the Section can be amended to better link it with the core subject but when asked how they would or could do that they failed to provide a solution." I don't believe the closure is required to specify a specific solution to make the article better. The closure expressed the consensus that the section should be included, and then suggested that it might be improved in the future. You can just ignore that second part or try to improve it, but it doesn't invalidate the closure. --Obsidi (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• The comment, "Section can be amended to better link it with the core subject." Seems to reference the conversation that took place between Myself and the final editor to comment. Yes you are right the closer does not have to provide a solution. When the closer suggested the same thing that was acknowledged. The closer is an uninvolved party their solely to determine the consensus based off the discussion of the involved party. A Good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached. Consensus is not a head count. The issue discussed is not that the closer failed to provide a solution. The editor they seem to have referenced failed to provide said solution. More specifically the editor they referenced failed to make the case that Iran and Hezbollah's reaction to the 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq is related to the 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq. Without the closer providing transparency I have no way of knowing how they determined the consensus. The only readily apparent reason is that the vote count is the reason.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

After reading that brief discussion, it seems to me that you didn't really ask for a rationale. Your first comment does indeed seem to say that your reason for requesting a review is that the closer didn't provide a solution. Only in the final comment do you mention vote counting, which is perhaps an indirect request for a rationale, but since Samsara hasn't edited since that time, I think they don't know about it rather than that they are refusing to provide transparency.

Also, you might want to know that I found it pretty hard to interpret your comments, and I'd suggest that's why this request hasn't been getting much attention. :-) Sunrise (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

When I first contacted Samsara I had asked them to review their close. Their close seemed to be based somewhat on comments by PointsofNoReturn. PointsofNoReturn suggested that a section could be written that on how Iran and Hezbollah feel about the 2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq relates to the 2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq#Iran.2C_Hezbollah_Reaction_to_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq. The material was removed on the basis that it was not related to the Iranian-led intervention. The nominal subject is the Iranian-led intervention. There is a tangential relationship between it and the American-led intervention. They were asked to demonstrate or explain how they could link the two in the article as they suggested they could. They didn't respond.

I do not know that this is the rationale for Samsara close. After they suggested I take it for a close review I did respond once more. I did wait 4 days before bringing it here. It has now been more than 15 days.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. (After there has been sufficient discussion, would an experienced editor assess the consensus in this closure review?) Cunard (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Unarchived from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266. Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her

This is a request to review the close at Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Here. I questioned the close by talking about a lack of consensus to support closing the Rfc by agreement and told him/her the closing should be inconclusive. According to WP:RFC/U:

"However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past. In case a wording has not been agreed upon, the RfC/U should be closed as if it was being closed due to inactivity (or closed due to other dispute resolution)."

There was no discussion of a summary, resolution, or clear consensus that "all participants" agreed to. According to WP policy, the close should have been due to inactivity or closed due to other dispute resolution, certainly not by agreement. I understand that consensus does not require unanimity, however, all opposed arguments, especially when backed by WP policy, need to be addressed and considered. I explained this to the closer and he/she tried to disregard my arguments as being irrelevant to the scope of the RFC. When I proved that the RFC included determining whether a source could be used within a particular article and that my argument was relevant, the closer offered a new justification of his/her close by using majority opinion. Majority opinion does not determine consensus and does not override WP policy least the policy itself gets changed. When I explained that simply going with majority opinion and ignoring policy based arguments was disallowed, the closer ceased showing interest in discussing it further or trying to substantiate the close with a justification that wasn't against WP policy. Seeing as there is no policy based justification for the close, I suggest that the close be changed to "due to inactivity" or moved to a different dispute resolution forum that addresses the aspect of appropriate uses of questionable sources, and/or whether a source is questionable or not.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The policy cited by the OP has to do with closure of a user conduct RFC, which doesn't appear to be applicable. The RFC was a article content RFC, which has different and less rigid closing guidelines. If the OP thinks that the close was improper, the venue for considering that is WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get bureaucratic about going to WP:AN.--v/r - TP 17:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TParis, that the bureaucracy shouldn't be a big issue. However, if editors are unwilling to examine this here, then I'll relist this on the other AN. Regarding RFC/U, I was mistaken in citing it, however my objection is still justified by WP guidelines regarding closing and the analysis of consensus. There is no clear consensus and the closer even admitted to ignoring policy based arguments which is against article content RFC guidelines for closing/moving discussions. There are also other matters like forum shopping that I didn't discuss with closer, but don't think it's necessary since there wasn't a consensus to begin with.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't really an RFC. Looking back in history when it was open , it wasn't transcluded anywhere other than that page, so you never saw ANY input from anyone that didn't come to that page. That is fine for a discussion, but you don't get any "uninvolved" opinions that way. I guess you can call it "RFC", but really it is just a local discussion. I also note that you can go to WP:RSN to get better service when it comes to determining if a source is reliable or not. Not exactly what you are asking for, just saying that when you are looking for "objective opinions", you pretty much have to ask outside the circle of editors that are arguing over it. Dennis - 2¢ 23:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make the RFC. The only thing I'm asking for is that it's closure gets reviewed and hopefully overturned. If you and other editors feel that it doesn't even suffice as an RFC because it didn't seek external input, then that's fine with me.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Moved from WP:ANI and retitled to "Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her". Cunard (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This wasn't an RFC. That said it still falls under "other closures" on WP:Closing discussions. From my view of looking at the arguments, from a policy perspective the closure seems appropriate. Could have been more detailed, but, with proper attribution, it seems a fairly straightforward understanding of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:SELFSOURCE. Given you need to show the closure to be unreasonable understanding of consensus and that the closure wont be challenged "if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if it was made on the basis of policy." It doesn't seem like the closure should be reversed to me. --Obsidi (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus. No consensus was presented or agreed upon by the editors involved. On top of that, valid policy based arguments were completely ignored. Sorry, but WP:AttributePOV does not override WP:QS which specifically states that questionable and self published sources should only be used on topics/articles about themselves. Even the WP:Selfsource, that you referenced, defines where self published sources can be used and that's in articles about themselves or topics about themselves. A film review, is a review about a third party and is not about author or source itself. That means on articles about different topics, they are not considered reliable. If WP:AttributePOV was enough to merit inclusion of opinions simply because they are quoted and attributed, then we'd could put facebook messages from young earth creationists alongside peer reviewed scholarly works. Sorry, but WP has clearly defined policies regarding reliability and questionable sources have very limited use on wikipedia. So the comments/opinions citing WP:AttributePOV for inclusion of questionable sources are actually against policy and not aligned with it. WP:AttributePOV is for sources already deemed reliable and says nothing about self published works and questionable sources being permitted in any article so long as they are properly attributed. We have multiple policies that strictly prohibit that.

Without revising the discussion here. The point is that the closure admitted to ignoring arguments after demonstrating a lack of understanding of the scope of the discussion. That means their rationale for closing is inherently flawed because they didn't understand the purpose of the discussion to begin with. Furthermore, when this was pointed out, they admitted to just siding with "majority opinion" which is also against WP policies regarding consensus. There was no consensus, valid policy based arguments were ignored while other arguments that violated WP policies were included, and that lead to an erroneous closure review.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• This is a review of the closing, not a second bite at the apple. With that in mind, after looking briefly at the merits, I would conclude that the close was within expectations (although a bit brief) and there is no obvious failure in process that forces us to overturn it. This doesn't mean it is "right", only that it is within procedural expectations. Every close is always "wrong" in someone's eyes, and the purpose of review isn't to judge the merits of the discussion, it is to weigh them only enough to determine if the close is reasonable, and that someone who is completely uninvolved could come to the same conclusion. That doesn't mean that everyone uninvolved MUST come to the same conclusion, only that the closing is reasonably within the range of "sane". On that point, it passes. Now, that said, it was only a local consensus, it was not a real RFC. You can go to WP:RSN or follow the instructions at WP:RFC to do a proper RFC, with the goal of getting opinions from people who aren't emotionally invested in the outcome of the discussion. That is always the best solution, as it will offer unbiased insights. If so compelled, I recommend doing so slowly with a neutral and balanced approach, without indicating your preference in the wording of the initial proposal. Dennis - 2¢ 18:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know how you guys can offer input without addressing the points/arguments put before you. When closing an argument the closer is suppose to ignore arguments that are against policy and is suppose to evaluate the arguments put forward by those involved. The closer did not do this and has admitted to this. He/she didn't understand the scope of the discussion, admitted to ignoring policy based arguments, and admitted to going with a simple majority which is not how consensus is determined and is also a violation of rules pertaining to consensus. So, no, it wasn't "within expectations" for multiple reasons. It's not simply a matter of "disagreeing" it's a matter of WP policy and allowing the use of questionable sources to make claims about third parties on articles/topics not about the source itself is against WP:QS and WP:Selfsource. Local RFCs are not allowed to change or ignore policy unless the policy is changed. Again, it is not "sane" to allow Ken Hamm's facebook quotes to stand along side peer reviewed scientific works about the age of the earth, and that's what the closure of this RFC does. It shows a lack of understanding of the relevant policies determining the appropriate use of questionable sources, ignored valid policy based arguments, and went with a simple majority instead of evaluating the merits of the arguments. That's not how closing is suppose to be done.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you haven't guessed by now, the best solution is to do a real RFC instead. Because the last wasn't transcluded to a larger audience, I think it would be in good faith to do so. If your interest is finding a solution, to get input, to get a true answer from the community, that is your best option. Dennis - 2¢ 22:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis were you going to actually address the arguments made about this closure being against policy or just continue ignoring them?Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. (After there has been sufficient discussion, would an experienced editor assess the consensus in this closure review?) Cunard (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the timestamp, I had thought this was already archived.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the closer didn't understand the scope of the RFC and admitted to ignoring policies and policy based arguments in the RFC, there is also an issue of Forumshopping that was done on this topic by the creator of this local RFC. This issue has been brought up and discussed on multiple noticeboards and noticeboard talk pages numerous times, with the creator trying to find some avenue or spin to insert Breitbart.com as a reliable source even though multiple editors in almost every discussion explained why it couldn't be used or explained specifically where it could be used. The RFC certainly didn't disclose these other noticeboard discussions.

RS Noticeboard

NPOV Noticeboard

RS Noticeboard again

RS Noticeboard again

Verifiability Talk Page

Sorry, I don't know how to link directly to a topic, but just do a search for "breitbart" or "Victor" and you'll see that's quite a bit of forumshopping.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Unarchived from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267. Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 02:13, 2 December 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)

RfA Semi protection

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

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)

Redirect problem

I apologize in advance if I am posting this in the wrong place. I have stumbled across a page Continuous positive airway pressure that has a somewhat interesting history. It was moved to Positive airway pressure in 2006, then a new article was created (or perhaps broken away from PAP) in 2011. However, the talk page remains a redirect to the PAP talk page. I don't want to simply remove the redirect because all the history of the talk page will be lost. If somebody who knows what to do in this situation could have a look it would be great. (On a separate note, if someone could translate the CPAP page's lede into English that would even better...) Thank you, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Weird, so Continuous positive airway pressure does not have a talk page (only a redirect). And Positive airway pressure's talk page is the merge of the talk pages about both Continuous positive airway pressure and Positive airway pressure. Are these really two different topics (or should we propose to merge one of them into the other)? From what I can tell both seem to be talking a lot about CPAP. If the articles can be merged that solves the problem, otherwise I don't know how we will be able to tell which talk page edits belong to which article (and would probably just have to remove the redirect). --Obsidi (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this merge is already been proposed Talk:Positive_airway_pressure#Merging_Continuous_positive_airway_pressure_and_Positive_airway_pressure. That would solve all the talk page problems. --Obsidi (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion amending and rescinding some discretionary sanctions remedies

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Following a request to amend several prior decisions to terminate discretionary sanctions provisions that may no longer be necessary,

1. Remedy 14 of the Ayn Rand case is rescinded;
2. Remedy 5 of the Monty Hall problem case is rescinded;
3. Remedy 1 of the Longevity case is rescinded;
4. The discretionary sanctions authorised explicitly for the Cold fusion 2 and the Homeopathy cases are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience and "Fringe science" cases continue to apply. Additionally, Remedy 14 of the Pseudoscience case is amended by replacing the word "articles" with the word "pages" for consistency;
5. Remedy 5 of the Tree shaping case is rescinded;
6. Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is rescinded;
7. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
8. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.
9. A record of topics for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised and subsequently terminated is to be established and maintained on the discretionary sanctions main page.

The archived copy of the amendment request and discussion can be viewed here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)\

Discuss this

How to delete a vector page

I am trying to delete User:Neotarf/vector.css, but the deletion code I pasted on it doesn't look right. I have no idea what this page does. I'm pretty sure this isn't the right forum, but I'm also sure someone will be along shortly to tell me where to ask.

Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Although the code doesn't look right, don't worry. When you put {{db-u1}} on .js, .css, .etc pages, they show up in CAT:CSD anyway. In the future, if you run into some situation where you can't figure out what to do, feel free to make a request just like this one; WP:AN is a great place to ask for help on administrative issues such as deletion. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Misplaced Pages from: (i) editing the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) discussing the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply.
2. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
3. For her actions discussed in this case, Carolmooredc is indefinitely banned from the English Language Misplaced Pages. She may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
4. Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
5. Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion.

   If Eric Corbett finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.

   If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked. The first two such blocks shall be of 72 hours duration, increasing thereafter for each subsequent breach to one week, one month, and three months. Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block (three months) prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

   The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect Eric Corbett's talk page for the duration of the block.

   Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

6. Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic. Neotarf is also warned that complaints about usernames should be made through appropriate channels and that further accusations, as well as unnecessary antagonism, may result in sanctions.
7. For their actions discussed in this case, and in particular for adopting a consistently hostile attitude to other contributors, Neotarf is indefinitely banned from the English Misplaced Pages. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
8. Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is warned not to create articles regarding editors he is in dispute with.
9. Sitush and Carolmooredc are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
10. SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s actions regarding Carolmooredc have led to a 1-way interaction ban imposed by the community following a noticeboard discussion.
11. Two kinds of pork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
12. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for pages relating to the Gender gap task force. The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm 08:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

User:Ilvon and copy and paste moves

• Ilvon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Heading says it all really. They were advised here and warned here, haven't responded and are still at it. This is breaking many things (the first notice was because of a copy vio warning triggered by it) and just creating work for everyone, and has to stop.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 20:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning, and am prepared to block if the violations persist, as they have shown no understanding of what they have done wrong. I should have time to fix up all the remaining stubs (by redirecting to the corresponding minor planet list per our guideline WP:NASTRO, since they are all non-notable anyways) tomorrow. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And they've done another copy-paste move. I've now blocked them indefinitely until they acknowledge that it is a problem If they do acknowledge it and promise not to do it, any admin has my permission to immediately reverse the block. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Advice requested regarding mergers and moves of Bach articles (restored from archive)

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)

I have restored this section from the archives since Francis Schonken has now asked me to perform a merger while the discussion at Talk:Magnificat (Bach)#Merge discussion continues. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please see my close of the merge discussion at Talk:Magnificat_(Bach)#Merge_discussion, and let me reiterate that the behavior of Francis Schonken is well below the level one would expect. Any future edit warring will be met with a block, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Chamath237 uploading copyrighted images

User:Chamath237 has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images on Misplaced Pages despite numerous warnings (see talk page). His latest upload was taken from this newspaper website. He has been banned indefinitely from Commons for the same issue.--obi2canibe 21:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Few of those deletions were relevant; most of them were unrelated to copyright or were for items already marked as nonfree, e.g. File:Nadra.jpg. All I see is Maithripala and File:SLTB luxury bus.jpg, and we shouldn't block for just two. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Need advice: How to handle a banned sock who is also a BLP

I am bringing this question here in the hopes of getting some sound advice from administrators experienced in sock puppet and BLP matters. A semi-notable scientist has gotten himself banned for using various IP addresses, etc., to edit the Misplaced Pages article about him. There are, however, serious BLP concerns about the article that deserve to be addressed. He has posted those concerns at BLP/N using an IP address and self-identified himself as the article subject. Another editor struck the comment by the banned IP user. Please note, I am not alleging any wrongdoing by the editor who struck the IP user's comments. If the banned IP user had posted anywhere else other than BLP/N under these circumstances, I would probably have struck the comments myself, as is the common practice. However, given the circumstances, I wonder if this was appropriate. Should we not be encouraging a concerned BLP subject to bring their concerns to BLP/N, rather than punishing them by striking their concerns (even if they are a banned sock)? I can only imagine the frustration of the banned IP user at this point, who no doubt feels that he is caught in some sort of Kafkaesque web he does not understand. I would appreciate some feedback. For those seeking more background, please see the BLP/N discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Question about content and source in a BLP article on Ariel Fernandez. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Concerned subjects should not get themselves banned, so that they can avail themselves of the article talk page, BLP/N, etc. Failing that, there's always info-en-q@wikimedia.org... Bobby Tables (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

As Bobby Tables, they can also view the whole section on advice at WP:Contact_us_-_Subjects. Amortias (T)(C) 22:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That e-mail is handled by WP:ORTS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Bobby, theoretically I agree with you: don't get banned/blocked. The common reality of the situation -- which I have now witnessed multiple times -- is an article subject attempts to make changes, or even simple factual corrections, to the article about them, and then they get banned/blocked because they chose a user name that identified them as the article subject. (Some then compound that error by socking.) Most article subjects have little or no understanding of internal Misplaced Pages policies and procedures -- why would they? I have witnessed merciless blocking/banning with little or no talk page explanation under these circumstances, and I have also witnessed the community controversies that are sometimes generated when a BLP article subject learns the WP rules and strikes back. It seems we should have better procedures for handling what is a relatively common problem. I have encountered a number of BLP subjects over the last five years, and once I have explained the applicable WP guidelines and policies, I have often found them to be a helpful resource in improving the articles about them -- they are often aware of bona fide reliable sources about themselves. Most BLP subjects just want to get the basic facts of their bios correct. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I find it hard - as a very experienced editor - to navigate Misplaced Pages's help pages, so I'd suggest providing the person with a fair bit of leeway here. It would be best to direct them to an off-Wiki means of communication though, if only for the sake of protecting their privacy. Bobby, I can think of a few instances where notable people ended up blocked while trying - in good faith - to amend their article to remove BLP issues, so your comment is a bit harsh. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The first thing that came to my mind was User talk:Jimbo Wales, where banned users are welcome to present their case directly to him. This seems like the exact drama that Wales' talk page is generally known for addressing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

fwiw i was involved in the last eruption of Ariel Fernandez back in October, which led to the semi-protecting of the article about him and a couple of days of drama. Ariel knows very well how to work all the boards and how to email WMF. I have been in email touch with him all day, until this afternoon when I told him i was done with him. he knows how to email editors. I think leaving one post from him at BLPN, struck (like this) is reasonable for people who are kind of new to the issues with him, but all other posts should be deleted. i would even say revdelled but i wouldn't want to waste anybody's time with that. Key point is 'he lost his privileges - after tons and tons of warnings. As a WP user he is not "poor little" anything - he has made many many SOCKs and in SPI discussions has outrageously lied (those of you who have seen SPI discussions know how that can go) and his editing has been relentlessly self-promotional. 100% WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's really not a good idea to keep this discussion going in such a public forum. If they wish to use the talk page or BLPN and don't cause disruption, we should allow them, but their best bet is OTRS—info-en-q@wikimedia.org. OTRS agents have a lot of experience dealing with article subjects and working with them to address what issues there are while patiently explaining that we don't write puff pieces. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Constituencies of Pakistan

So I thought I'd try to get back into article content this morning. Clicking the 'Random page' link took me to Constituency MR-1, one of over 120 stubs for constituencies of Pakistan, all apparently non-notable. What's the best way of dealing with this sort of thing? I've gone through and added over 30 of them to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Constituency MR-1, but, TBH, life's too short, and there's a beach just over there that I think would be much improved by me being on it. Is there some better way through this? GoldenRing (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do would be to make a list of all of them; asdd that list to the said AFD; and tag them all with AWB (if you can't do it yourself, leave a note at Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks linking to a full list). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed site ban for Blastikus

With the upcoming unification of these SPIs

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Blastikus/Archive
• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/198.189.184.243/Archive

along with recent sock activity, I propose a site ban for Blastikus (the master sock).

Blastikus' voluminous screeds, sometimes spanning pages, have a recognizable style. He had been using WP as a soapbox for anti-Semitic propaganda and conspiracy theories, eventually receiving an indef block for "trolling, disruption or harassment". Socking followed.

Pottinger's cats (talk · contribs), though it never officially connected to Blastikus until now, was another sock that edited fringe topics (Vitamin C megadosing, orthomolecular medicine, and others), including an 84K (!) sprawling rant about the New World Order.

As 198.189.184.243 he was blocked twice for warring and disruptive editing at orthomolecular medicine, and later topic banned from fringe science. His ban appeal exhibited the same kind of fringe science screeds that got him banned. Through other IPs he violated his topic ban, proclaiming "I do not recognize the legitimacy of the initial topic ban" and saying that admins "do not have a legitimate basis and are akin to the political corruption in Maoist or Soviet systems". He was blocked for violation of the ban. As another IP he continued pushing fringe science, resulting in another block.

Many other incidents could be mentioned, and I've surely missed some prominent ones. Most recently he was making a large number of fringe POV-pushing edits to Gustav Geley, along with his characteristic interminable screeds on the talk page.

The new SPI connects to a global account with his real name. Out of courtesy I will not repeat it here, but the name is connected to anti-Semitic rants and conspiracy theories across the Internet, showing up at places like ScienceBlogs to post massive comments that are met with incredulity.

The global account is currently going hog wild at wikiversity. Maybe we don't care about wikiversity, but if some of us do, then an additional reason for an enwiki site ban is that it will permit the wikiversity community to cite precedent, if/when they need to deal with him. Manul 09:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Close required for Media Viewer discussion

Moved from ANI NE Ent 11:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

We need a closer at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Media Viewer RfC Question 1 and Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Media Viewer RfC Question 2, both sections should probably be closed together. These were previously closed as no-consensus, but after discussion, the close was reverted. Now it needs to be re-closed, please. (This just might be why no one wants to be an administrator) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at it, and if I were inclined to close it then I would be inclined to close Question 1 as Pass (remove Media Viewer as the default) and Question 2 as No Consensus or Pass (minus point 6). Given the number of people who actually voted in either question, I might be inclined to close both as No Consensus though: a decision of this magnitude deserves as much representation from the community as possible. Were I an admin, I would take the time to properly read all the comments and make a formal decision, but I am not and so I will just voice my opinion and defer it to an actual administrator. demize (t · c) 16:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No one in their right mind would touch that. It's not an RFC, it's a WP:POLEMIC. We all know that "Consensus is not voting" is an oversimplification (it's voting, it's just weighted voting), but many of the supports didn't ever bother to make up a reason or toss in a perfunctory per nom. Many of the comments don't even address the question at all, but rather simply disparage WMF. Sure, Media Viewer annoys me, too, and back in August User:Erik Moeller (WMF), was a PR disaster, but an RFC supported by 75 of 116,790 active users with many of the voters not addressing the actual issue is not going to carry much weight with WMF. If you have concerns about MV, go to mw:Extension_talk:Media_Viewer/About and discuss them there with the WMF with maturity and respect. NE Ent 11:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is poison... Any admin that would state that this RfC (as I believe) has no basis on any (local) policy risks being admonished. I think we need at least a panel of three admins to close this. And even then I don't know if I want to be a part of it. -- ] {{talk}} 13:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog