Misplaced Pages

Endorse close Yes, I'm probably not the most neutral party here, however this close was what I was getting at originally. This fiasco has gone on far too long; multiple closures reaching the same conclusion should say something.Let's move on, and look back at this in the future if consensus gets clearer. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Mdann, I agree that the previously overturned close does say something. This RfC has attracted closers with strong minority views. In the review of your close I deliberately left out diffs that you were opposed to the original RfC result (not a participant, but you opposed that consensus), and you supported the development of Superprotect. I took the high road and kept my mouth shut, because I could win the review without the drama. Alsee (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"I could win the review"??? sounds like WP:BATTLE to me. In any case, when I make a closure, I approach it from the evidence and arguments provided, as opposed to my personal views on the situation, which have always sat in the "meh, not bothered" region. My main reason for supporting superprotect was not that I agreed with it, but as it was a good temporary solution to stop an edit war and get back to discussion. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

By "win the review" I meant "overturn an improper close". I would not challenge a close if I did not have a good-faith belief that there was a problem with it. Alsee (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn close. It is nice that the closing rationale in this case (Special:Diff/637404322) is far more detailed than the previous one. That is definitely good. Unfortunately, the details seem to be of the kind that shouldn't have been there... There is a list of discounted arguments (that is good): "The large majority of supports for turning off the feature were either regarding issues addressed by subsequent improvements, expressing disappointment at the version of media viewer first deployed, frustration at the subsequent events, anger at the WMF, or did not provide a rationale. As such, those did not contribute to the result, neither did arguments regarding exceptions to consensus, speculation on the WMF response, or personal feelings on either side.". But I do not see such arguments in the discussion (certainly not a majority). What were those "issues addressed by subsequent improvements"? Whose argument was "anger at the WMF"? How does an argument "personal feelings on either side" even look like? Actually, something was explained in the talk page (Special:Diff/638110026). That is nice, but it is hard to see how numbers are supposed to add up to that "majority" that was promised (19 out of 75 have been listed; also 4 out of 36 "opposes").

Not that such weights are fully justifiable: for example, many "Votes only expressing dissatisfaction at WMF or personal feelings" seem to be simply relevant opinions.

Then the closer proceeds to weighting of the arguments. Unfortunately, it is hard to see how that weighting takes opinions expressed in the discussion into account. For there were certain indicators which arguments had more weight - for example, those same "per X votes". They were ignored. Instead, arguments were dismissed or claimed to have been supported with something like "The argument that the media viewer does not show licensing information sufficiently compared to file pages is unsupported, since on file pages this information is below the image and in their overwhelming majority, readers will not scroll down to it and look at it since they already have what they're looking for, so file pages aren't that much of an opportunity to educate them."... That could be suitable for a "vote", but is it suitable for the close?

Also, the closer introduces a distinction between logged in and non-logged in users ("First off, it is crucial to make a distinction between logged in and logged out users, as most commentators agree, but such separation was not preserved in the format from the previous RFC.") for little reason. It was not in the discussion.

Then, the closer has simply claimed that "The media viewer has also been considerably revamped since then, so the issue being commented on is very different, and the community has a very different take on the situation, meaning the previous RFC result has become irrelevant (but I did consider the still relevant comments from there).", although there were arguments to the contrary in the discussion. No answer or reason why they were ignored was given.

Finally, it is strange to see something like " As noted, there is no consensus for either of the two main outcomes, but there is consensus for requesting several modifications to the media viewer, in order to address several points of enduring concern, expressed on both sides, which need to be resolved as soon as possible, though the implementation of each can be discussed further if needed", followed by 8 points "with consensus", that were not even discussed as such... That does look like a list of things the closer would personally support... But, once again, the closer shouldn't just throw out all discussion and simply declare that things he wants have "consensus". Therefore, I would say that this close should be overturned. -Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, if I had gone into details in the closing statement, the length of it would have been really excessive, but as I said I can develop more now. Beware that I listed on my talk page the votes which did not contribute to the analysis of arguments, while I listed in my closing statement the comments that ended up not affecting the final result after weighing of arguments, and those are very different things, although there is some overlap. (And I stand by my comment on a majority for the later, which I've never suggested for the former.) As I said above, a "per x" vote is indisputably not an argument in itself and therefore there's no way it can contribute to the analysis of arguments, but again, they were considered when weighing arguments. The votes complaining of issues addressed by newer media viewer versions were definitely not straight discounted, but they couldn't pass muster after weighing of arguments. I will need some specifics about how a single sentence rant against the WMF can be construed as a relevant argument in this RFC. Arguments regarding exceptions to consensus and WMF response did not contribute in the end because the conclusion was reached without them needing to be considered.

Regarding the issue of copyright, I am baffled that you throw out an accusation of supervote, which only shows that you did not even attempt a good faith effort to find the counter argument I was referring to. You really didn't have to look far, it was the second oppose vote, and a powerful rebuttal to the arguments made in the support section (not the only one though), I had no choice but to acknowledge this.

As pointed out already most voters argued on the underlying issue (media viewer), so it was de facto (if not de jure) an extension of the previous RFC, and it is apparent that the state of consensus on the underlying issue changed. Implicitly or explicitly, the determining factor for voters was the underlying issue itself, so in order to determine consensus in this RFC it was necessary to determine consensus on the underlying issue, which as noted above changed. Of this it follows that the distinction between logged in and logged out users had to be made in order to gauge consensus on the underlying issue. Voters did so explicitly, such as when distinguishing editors from readers, or implicitly, such as when referencing the previous RFC in which the distinction was formalized in structure. In response to the blunt "It was not in the discussion.", I'll reiterate my disappointment at the lack of even a small attempt to review the discussion; there were several patently obvious explicit references such as in supports 26 and 46, in opposes 6, 11, 15, and several others that I'll leave out cause I've more than done my part.

Regarding you penultimate paragraph, I've addressed this extensively above and in my previous answers (to sum up, for voters the determining factor was the underlying issue itself and it became obvious that the community's take on it had massively evolved).

All of the points that I mentioned at the end gained consensus either in this RFC (ex: make it easier to turn it off, easier to edit the file description, remaining technical issues, and need for another survey - if you don't mind I'll leave it to you to find the specific comments), or in linked discussions (customization and featured pictures). I gave a few examples of possible implementations but only for illustrative and clarity purposes, and I expressly invited further discussion on those points.

Finally I will emphasize that in a close review the burden of proof is on the challengers, so I would appreciate arguments backed up by actual evidence. Cenarium (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If the community's position had "massively evolved" you wouldn't be casting a supervote against more than 2-to-1 support, trying to vacate a consensus you don't like. Alsee (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"Regarding your first point, if I had gone into details in the closing statement, the length of it would have been really excessive" - well, I guess I cannot object to excessive length. My statement (and this response) are not very short either...

"Beware that I listed on my talk page the votes which did not contribute to the analysis of arguments, while I listed in my closing statement the comments that ended up not affecting the final result after weighing of arguments, and those are very different things, although there is some overlap." - I see. That's clearer.

"And I stand by my comment on a majority for the later, which I've never suggested for the former." - so, could you, please, make a list, so that we could check?

"The votes complaining of issues addressed by newer media viewer versions were definitely not straight discounted, but they couldn't pass muster after weighing of arguments." - so, what issues (or what "votes") are that?

"I will need some specifics about how a single sentence rant against the WMF can be construed as a relevant argument in this RFC.". First of all, the RFC was asking if we should drop the issue. One of possible reasons to choose is quality of the software in question, but, contrary to your view, it is not the only reason. It is also legitimate to consider the relationship with WMF in long term. If you do not discount opinion that we should not fight WMF (let's say, oppose 25 - "Confronting WMF is unproductive, unhelpful and unnecessary."), it is only fair to refuse to discount opinion that confronting WMF on this issue is a good idea. But let's look at specific "votes". You have listed five opinions classified like that: "31,40,41,45,73". I don't think it is right to consider that as basis for 31 (you could have classified it as one of "Votes with no rationale"). 40 is "Especially the brutal force to implement such a buggy, unwanted bling-thing was absolutely disgusting." - at the very least, "buggy" is also somewhat relevant if you ignore the "long-term view". 41 ("Never have so many been so upset at so few, but in this process - which I'm sure will ultimately be devoutly ignored - we have a chance to right a wrong, and maybe, just maybe, get back to the way things were: happy editors, happy readers, and happy fact checkers for articles and images") - well, what about those fact checkers? The description of the image is not really that visible in Media Viewer... 71 ("Moving from neutral to support, per 98.207.91.246's links under Neutral that show many disgruntled readers and very shaky evidence that Media Viewer is beneficial. I also think it's pretty impressive that someone began editing Misplaced Pages for the express purpose of protesting Media Viewer. Separately, considering some of the feedback left by readers, this feels like yet another case of releasing buggy software to the public and explaining away the detriment to readers and/or new editors by saying it will be fixed. Finally, there was already an RFC on this and the overwhelming consensus was to disable it. What's the holdup?") - can't think of anything wrong with it. Actually, it counts as a very good response to your "The arguments that the media viewer is closer to the needs of readers compared to a classic file page are well supported". Unfortunately, you ignored it...

"Regarding the issue of copyright, I am baffled that you throw out an accusation of supervote, which only shows that you did not even attempt a good faith effort to find the counter argument I was referring to. You really didn't have to look far, it was the second oppose vote, and a powerful rebuttal to the arguments made in the support section (not the only one though), I had no choice but to acknowledge this." - first of all, please, calm down. I do not say that you acted in bad faith and would appreciate that you would also respond likewise. So, now that that's dealt with, let's proceed. Yes, I have seen that argument. It is, at the very least, less developed than yours. And if you wanted to specify that you felt it was "a powerful rebuttal to the arguments made in the support section", you could have said so in the close (let's say, "I think arguments about copyright information have been answered by oppose 2."). It would have been shorter and clearer. Anyway, your evaluation does seem to ignore the point made in support 3 (difficult cases) and strong support of the argument (supports 3, 35, 36, 47, 59, 74, "per X votes" 6, 32, 60, 66, 67 vs. the oppose 2). And I don't think the oppose 2 is very strong (I hope we won't need to discuss that any further).

"Implicitly or explicitly, the determining factor for voters was the underlying issue itself, so in order to determine consensus in this RFC it was necessary to determine consensus on the underlying issue, which as noted above changed." - as I said, it was one possible reason to choose one option or another, but not the only one. You just mistakenly decided to ignore the others.

"In response to the blunt "It was not in the discussion.", I'll reiterate my disappointment at the lack of even a small attempt to review the discussion; there were several patently obvious explicit references such as in supports 26 and 46, in opposes 6, 11, 15, and several others that I'll leave out cause I've more than done my part." - first of all, I am afraid that 5 "votes" do not justify such distinction, when it was not really discussed by the rest of participants. Second, well, do you seriously claim that support 26 ("Awful tool, unwanted, unwarranted and a technically backwards step that worsens the experience for editors, whether logged in or not."), support 46 ("keeping Media Viewer disabled by default for both registered and unregistered editors.") or even oppose 6 ("It's long past time to deploy this improved file-page interface, especially for non-logged-in readers who likely don't care about the cruft that we editors do.") justify such distinction? In no "vote" that you mention was any different approach to logged-in and not-logged-in users proposed or advocated!

"All of the points that I mentioned at the end gained consensus either in this RFC (ex: make it easier to turn it off, easier to edit the file description, remaining technical issues, and need for another survey - if you don't mind I'll leave it to you to find the specific comments)" - sorry, but just because something was tangentially proposed in the discussion does not mean that it has consensus. There might have been users who do not agree, but avoided things that were "offtopic". Therefore, I do not find your approach suitable for closing discussions.

"Finally I will emphasize that in a close review the burden of proof is on the challengers, so I would appreciate arguments backed up by actual evidence." - I do happen to think that I have offered some. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The length of a comment doesn't make its strength, its substance does.

I didn't discount votes about what you call long term relationship with WMF, or dynamics between the community and the WMF, for example I counted support #68 and the second part of support #65, among others. What I discounted are comments which didn't contribute to the formation of consensus, because they didn't bring any reasoned argument to the discussion (which includes dismissive or angry comments when their arguments (if any) are expressed elsewhere in a reasoned way). Regarding support #71, you got the number wrong, it was support #73, but since you mentioned it, the view of a single IP should be considered, but it is insufficient on its own to ascertain reader satisfaction.

The weighing of arguments with respect to copyright also included the comments made in the previous RFC, so it was about more than just oppose #2 (some of them address the "complex cases argument", essentially that it's primarily a TLDR issue that isn't germane to media viewer).

Those voters would not have made a distinction between unregistered and registered users if they didn't think it was warranted, and there has been explicit criticism of the RFC format as well.

The points I mentioned were concerns recognized on both sides, or noncontroversial (e.g. featured pictures) so didn't need loads of discussions to get consensus.

I will gladly provide a more detailed list of arguments with their weighing if it is requested by uninvolved users. Cenarium (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

"The length of a comment doesn't make its strength, its substance does." - sure. Did anyone claim otherwise?

"I didn't discount votes about what you call long term relationship with WMF, or dynamics between the community and the WMF" - OK, that's a bit clearer, although it would be far more clear after seeing a list.

"the view of a single IP should be considered, but it is insufficient on its own to ascertain reader satisfaction." - yet it was enough to make a participant change his mind. It counts more than your personal view about needs of readers (which, by the way, should have no weight at all). And it is not merely opinion of one IP, but a pattern of reader feedback, with a challenge of evidence used to claim that "Media Viewer is useful to readers.". It shows that this claim is not as uncontroversial, as you claim in the closing statement. And if you have ignored that much of this "vote", that does make me question the rest of your work (that hasn't been presented for us to check). Also, since that claim was so important to your close, mishandling of this "vote" alone can call the whole close into question.

"The weighing of arguments with respect to copyright also included the comments made in the previous RFC" - so, you took one discussion with a rather clear consensus to one side, added another discussion (with a lower weight) that had simply overwhelming consensus to the same side, and got no consensus? Sorry, but it doesn't look very believable. Something must have gone wrong.

"Those voters would not have made a distinction between unregistered and registered users if they didn't think it was warranted, and there has been explicit criticism of the RFC format as well." - but they didn't make a distinction.

"The points I mentioned were concerns recognized on both sides, or noncontroversial (e.g. featured pictures) so didn't need loads of discussions to get consensus." - they still need discussion about them, even if it is just "I propose X." followed by silence.

"I will gladly provide a more detailed list of arguments with their weighing if it is requested by uninvolved users." - why only by uninvolved users? And why in plural? It shouldn't be much of an effort, as you must have made the list while closing the discussion. You just create an impression (hopefully, wrong) that there is something worth hiding there... It is very easy to demonstrate that it is wrong. Just upload the file with it and give a link here. It is not like closer doesn't have to defend his own close, when it is, at least, counterintuitive.

And there is still that part about issues (or "votes") that were discounted, because of changed situation. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, you are trying to re-debate the issue, as evidenced by your belief that I somehow provided my opinion when I only analyzed the debate, which isn't the purpose of a close review. I'm not your "opponent". If there are legitimate concerns on my close, then uninvolved users will no doubt point them out and I'll provide more justification if necessary, but I've already thoroughly justified almost every aspect of it. The way it's headed, you and Aslee are just trying to win the argument by attrition, and I'm not going to play along. You are asking me to invest exponentially increasing amount of times, always finding a new "issue". It may look like the easy way when a dozen of actively involved users face a single or a handful of uninvolved admins, but it's a tactic that is well known and won't work around here. Misplaced Pages is already plagued enough as it is by contentious discussions which can't get any closer for weeks or months. Cenarium (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"Nope, you are trying to re-debate the issue, as evidenced by your belief that I somehow provided my opinion when I only analyzed the debate, which isn't the purpose of a close review." - um, that would only be true if you did the close well. That hasn't been demonstrated.

"If there are legitimate concerns on my close, then uninvolved users will no doubt point them out and I'll provide more justification if necessary" - why specifically "uninvolved"?

"I've already thoroughly justified almost every aspect of it." - not in the least. As you have wrote yourself, "The length of a comment doesn't make its strength, its substance does.".

"You are asking me to invest exponentially increasing amount of times, always finding a new "issue"." - no, I am asking you to do a very simple thing: upload the list of arguments or "votes" (with weights) that you have made while closing the discussion. If you closed the discussion properly, you simply had to make a spreadsheet or text file like with such list, for there were too many arguments and names to remember. Thus if you closed the discussion properly, then now the work you have to do would be less hard than writing this response to me.

Of course, if you did not close the discussion properly and just declared that you saw a "majority" because you felt like doing so (and, for all the length of your explanations, it looks like you still haven't given any conclusive evidence that you didn't do so), making a list will be hard. But then, defending a bad close should be very hard. And if you find it too hard, you are always free to give up.

"Misplaced Pages is already plagued enough as it is by contentious discussions which can't get any closer for weeks or months." - sorry, but I think that is still much better than bad closes. And if you think I should do something about that, I did write a "user essay" with a "checklist" for closing discussions (User:Martynas Patasius/Things to check while closing discussions - which, by the way, includes making lists). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved because I want to be certain that it is a legitimate concern on the close as opposed to a rehashing of the debate. I'm not going to give out a list when the only effect will be to give you as many reasons as there are entries for pointlessly rehashing the debate. Cenarium (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you think that those entries are not exactly perfectly obvious..? That they are, um, debatable..? And you do not want to publish them, because that would hurt your case..? Well, thank you - I don't think it is reasonable to expect you to admit that the reasoning supporting your close is weak in any stronger way.

Although I have to admit that I do not really understand what exactly do you mean by "rehashing the debate"... We have a discussion about weight of arguments concerning situation with Media Viewer, and it does seem to be different from RFC itself. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If you admit that you are going to debate for hours every single minor point that isn't "exactly perfectly obvious", then I think you could not prove my point in any stronger way. I don't have such a written list anyway, I happen to have a good memory but I would still need to go through the discussion to get the exact references, I'm not going to do so just to satisfy your desire for pointless arguing. As for my case, it looks pretty good and I'm very much satisfied, thanks for asking. There's a whole lot of WP shortcuts I could throw out at this point but I'll refrain. You just spent the last several months focused on debating media viewer, don't you have other things to do ? I have. Cenarium (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I just wanted to point out that the only uninvolved users are Hobit and Sladen (all others either commented in the RFC, or for Mdann52, closed it previously), and neither Hobit nor Sladen asked for an overturn. I will also point out that the previous close review was advertized in a non-neutral way at village pump (proposals) in a new section. While this didn't affect the previous close review, for which agreement was wide, the users who commented there were subsequently individually notified about the present close review. Although the individual notifications were neutral, this may affect the present close review since the individuals notified were from a group biased by the previous non-neutral advertizing. Only two users who commented here were not notified in this way, they are Fluffernutter and Sladen, none of them asked for an overturn. Cenarium (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right about the several involved but the review closer usually discounts those. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but I thought I would share my findings since I had checked myself. Cenarium (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Does this ad hominem (and yes, it is ad hominem - you argue that arguments should be ignored because of who their authors are) mean that you do not really have a good answer to the arguments themselves (for example, the ones I have given)..?

But let's look at the opinions of users whom you consider to be uninvolved. Both Hobit and Sladen indicated that they do not really care that much (as one might suspect, that often explains why uninvolved users are uninvolved). They didn't say they want the close to be overturned, but they didn't say they endorse it either. Fluffernutter is oppose 5.

Furthermore, one can construct other similar arguments. For example, "One of two users whose opinion started with 'endorse close' is oppose 11, another one is the previous closer, who closed in the same way.". What does that tell us? Only that ad hominem is not a strong argument... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You may want to review the definition of ad hominem, which consists in commenting on the character of a person, not quite the same thing as noting that several commentators participated in the RFC whose close is being reviewed. I stated in my edit summary that I would reply later (I'm taking a Christmas break), but this won't take long as your answer is essentially an annotated list of long quotations. Contrary to your suggestion, I didn't single out the commentators based on their vote. Cenarium (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

"I stated in my edit summary that I would reply later (I'm taking a Christmas break), but this won't take long as your answer is essentially an annotated list of long quotations." - I am happy to hear that. Oh, and, since you gave me an excuse - merry Christmas (to you and to other participants)!

"Contrary to your suggestion, I didn't single out the commentators based on their vote." - I don't see where I suggested that. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, Martinyas Pastasius, your arguments cite no policy, so your arguments are not good. You also point to factually unsupported arguments - such arguments are not good. Your arguments are also contrary to CONLIMITED, NOVOTE, IDONTLIKEIT, and the instructions at VPT, not to mention CONEXCEPT. There is no ad hominem -- the involved arguments, such as you and I and Alsee, et al., in review, are generally discounted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

So, I guess you are not actually quoting my arguments and policy, because you expect that the closer will ignore your arguments anyway? As you wish... Although I do hope that your arguments (or lack of them, if you do not want to present them) will be taken into account. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It's just that arguing and arguing and arguing until you impose the close you want is seen through - as will be that you have no policy nor facts. You dislike it, that's already well understood. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Panel of 3 After the original (overturned) close, at least four people called for a panel of three to close this. It's seriously needed here. Alsee (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That would have been nice, but it didn't happen. Given the associated drama with this RFC, it's now unlikely to ever happen, even if we did overturn this close. Maybe we could get that if we held a new RFC in a few months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Username gymnastics

I'm posting this here not necessarily as an accusation of wrongdoing, but because after looking at the guidelines, I'm still a little unclear and would like more experienced editors to offer their opinion on this matter. According to User:Sławomir Biały's userpage, he is semi-retired and according to his contribution list hasn't made an edit since August 2013. However, as you can see here for example, he is, in fact, actively editing. On closer inspection, Sławomir Biały is operating an alternate account User:Slawekb which is redirected back to User:Sławomir Biały, while the editing history remains with Slawekb. Near the top of the userpage for Sławomir Biały is notice of the alternate account, however, it's not immediately apparent (at least to me) and takes a little digging to figure out what's going on here. Is this an acceptable configuration and use of multiple accounts? – JBarta (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

On the face of it I don't see anything technically wrong with this; they've ceased editing from Sławomir Biały and are only editing from the other account, an account they have a legitimate reason for having (used when special characters aren't available). That said, it seems unnecessarily confusing to be redirecting from the account they're editing from to the one they're not, it would make more sense to me for them to just abandon the other account and use Slawekb full time. The message stating that they edit from the second account is also not as clear as I'd prefer it to be, buried amongst a paragraph well below the semi-retired template. I would urge Sławomir to move their user and user talk to the account they're editing from and continue to not use the old account. Sam Walton (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

See for prior discussion. As the account notice is the four sentence in a blob which includes statements about watchlists and email, it's easily missed. I'm empathic with the desire to sign posts as spelled natively with using a more easily used ASCII character account name, but it does make understanding a take page history confusing. I'll also note that WP:Flow, as currently planned, will eliminate custom signatures, removing this choice. Simply making the alternate account standalone and prominent seems like a reasonable compromise to me. NE Ent 01:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I disagree most strongly with the premise of this entire inquest. I have had this username configuration for almost five years now, and been a productive editor all this time (and for a considerable time before that, laboring under the original account exclusively). Now a small group of administrators wants to legislate community norms retroactively? Nonsense. If it does not violate some explicit guideline, decided by Misplaced Pages community consensus, then by default my username configuration is reasonable, and well within the norms of acceptable userspace activity. The reasons for this configuration are clear to all of the participants in this discussion, and everyone (hopefully) agrees that these reasons exemplify the mandate of our great project, to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. In particular, one of the Foundation's goals has been to include many different cultures and ethnicities. I will not change the way my name is spelled to satisfy some perceived bureaucratic irregularity. The very notion that someone on this noticeboard would even suggest such a thing is positively shameful. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to dictate what you should and shouldn't do, as I said in my reply I don't think you're technically doing anything wrong, the redirects are just a little needlessly confusing for other editors. Sam Walton (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I, too, was baffled by this editor's confusing signature, which makes it difficult to peruse their edit history. I encourage the editor to reconfigure things to make things easier for other editors, in the spirit of collaboration. Just use the Sławomir Biały account, and all will be well. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is really the only reasonable request here. I will go back to using Sławomir Biały as the primary. Also, I have changed my signature on the secondary so that it points to User:Slawekb and User talk:Slawekb, to make it less confusing. I seem to recall some technical reason for replacing the redirects in my signature, but I cannot think what it could have been offhand. Anyway, given that my contributions will from now on be split between two accounts, I think this inquest will actually have the unintended consequence of making perusing my contributions more confusing, rather than less so. But I will not "compromise" on how I spell my name. That suggestion is totally unacceptable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If User:Sławomir Biały is problematic for you and User:Slawekb is not, why not simply dump the problematic account and just use the alternate? If you feel it's important, you can always put your correctly spelled name at the top of User:Slawekb. Wouldn't the simple approach be the preferred approach? – JBarta (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, frankly I don't like the diminutive name "Slawek" at all. So I don't really want to have that plastered across the top of my user page or user talk page. Not that my personal affairs are any business of this noticeboard, and I find the matter most distasteful that I am being dictated to in this fashion. I do not serve at the pleasure of bureaucrats, and dictating that I should disregard my cultural heritage is disrespectful and falls well outside the mandate of anyone here. It is enough to make me consider leaving the project permanently, given how, from the tenor of the comments here, such behavior seems to be encouraged from our so-called "administrators". Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not about being dictated to or serving anyone. Though I understand that if you think about it in those terms you would get upset about it. It was just a bit of unnecessary confusion that I felt could be eliminated in a simple manner. What about this... if the first account is problematic for you and you don't like the second, have you considered ditching both existing accounts for a new one that is non-problematic to login to and is a name you feel comfortable with? That would certainly solve ALL problems with one swipe. Yes? – JBarta (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm a bit lost as to why you'd create a new account but then redirect back to an account you no longer edit with? ... Why not make a WP:FRESHSTART and stick to one account? ... Also as noted above your signature is bloody confusing –Davey2010 — Preceding undated comment added 04:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

As it has said clearly on my userpage for the past five years: there are diacritics in my username, and login is not always an option. For some time I used an alternate account when login with the diacritics was not available. Surely it is less confusing to use just one account, no? This was the original reason to go to using just the one account. WP:FRESHSTART is totally irrelevant. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I would say that the user needs to fix 2 issues:
  1. The talk page redirect should be reversed - that is, the active user talk page should be that of the active account.
  2. The sig should link directly to the active account, not to a page which redirects to the inctive one.
• Other than this, I see no problems. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Outsiders comment: Shouldn't the actual person be the primary entity? Two accounts (for technical reasons that not all of you have grasped) and one editor/person. You seem to regard edits by User:Sławomir Biały and User:Slawekb as edits by two distinct editors. Pretending to be two persons when you are one would be questionable in my world, not the other way around. The problem lies with Misplaced Pages. It should be possible to have edit histories automatically merged for two separate legitimate accounts. YohanN7 (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Outsider Comment : To try and make an analogy that people might understand a bit better, imagine that your name is Robert and you register an account under that name. Many keyboards don't have the "t" character though, so you also register the name "Bob" since it's a shorter version of your name even though you don't really like being called that. You'd prefer to have people address you as "Robert" though so you sign your posts with that name, redirect the "Bob" pages to "Robert," and put a notice on the "Robert" page that you usually operate from the "Bob" username for exactly that reason. That seems extremely clear and reasonable to me, and I don't see any scenerio where that arrangement could be used to coverup any wrongdoing in a way that wouldn't be found out in about 5 seconds of investigating. And unless I'm missing something that seems to be exactly what happened here. Can we leave the guy alone? Chuy1530 (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • +1. This arrangement is acceptable. So long as he undertakes the responsibility of reading messages on both accounts, I don't see any problem with it, or any concern about which one is "active" (since that may change at any moment). Also, why are we complaining about this minor and perfectly understandable practical arrangement, when we have an admin with far more than two simultaneously active accounts? I hope that we aren't sending the message that it's okay to have a bunch of accounts as long as you're doing it for laughs, but that if you need two accounts because of poor language support in the software, then that's a terrible inconvenience for us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Could use some help...

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

Can someone please block User:Hashemabucu. S/he is creating spam articles back to back and nothing is happening at WP:AIV. Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 11:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by User:Gilliam and all articles deleted. APK whisper in my ear 11:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Need user page redaction

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

Hi admins, need a quick deletion of personal info. I believe the user is a minor (albeit a problematic one per their sock history). Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Where is their age listed? It doesn't list an age, so how would you know they are a minor? Also, SPI link? Tutelary (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Although ANI can be fast (AN less so), oversight are even faster than a fast thing, if you're concerned. -- zzuuzz 20:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: for future reference, suggestions that a user is a minor is not something that is generally suppressed (oversighted) or deleted. If someone says, "I'm FooBar, I'm ten-years-old, I live in Metropolis, and my parents are FooRab and BarFoo," that will generally be removed. Just Special:EmailUser/Oversight. Thanks, happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Keegan: - Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was concerned that if the kid was a minor, they shouldn't be posting their real name online. If that's not a problem, then I suppose nothing need be done. I'll keep Oversight in mind. Thanks both. Oh, and the SPI report is Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabriella~four.3-6/Archive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Closure Review Request on Climate Engineering

Yesterday evening (well, today in GMT) I did a Non-Administrative Closure of an open RFC at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Climate_engineering#Editing_disagreement_over_soot_particles. I concluded that there was rough consensus to mention the injection of soot particles as a form of climate engineering, but not to mention "firestorm" or "nuclear winter". I then had a request from an IP to re-open the closure, at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&diff=640125111&oldid=640098032. The IP does not appear to be one of the participants in the original discussion, but IP addresses change. In reviewing the closure, I think that my closure was correct, and that there is no need to mention "firestorm" or "nuclear winter", which are mentioned in the paper, but do not have to be in the article. I am not planning to re-open my closure but understand that my closure can be re-opened here by an admin after discussion. Since some of the editors were talking past each other in the RFC, I did suggest that if anyone was dissatisfied with the closure, they might try the dispute resolution noticeboard to request a volunteer moderator to facilitate more focused discussion. I am willing to have my closure reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The RFC was not concluded, no consensus on the important issue of correctly summarizing what the peer-reviewed papers state, was, even near to being determined. As the IP user who did indeed begin the RFC, I was in the process of discussion with another user and we were getting close to the root of their antipathy towards what the peer-reviewed paper states. So I really don't understand why the RFC was prematurely closed. Granted I had been away on business for a number of days and hadn't had the time to reply to the other involved editor's argument, I am however, now back and wish to continue the discussion process.

I diligently ping the other editor in the discussion when replies are made to the RFC and find this premature close needless and a bit antagonistic. As no warning, or even a note, had been posted on the talk page giving due notice to those concerned that it would be closed in XYZ number of days, instead, I arrived to reply and found that, much to my chagrin, the whole page was locked from further discussion. I dutifully contacted the closer:Robert McClenon, in the hopes that they would revert the enforcement of the lockout, or even to get involved and give their 2 cents to the RFC, but sadly I got no reply in that vein and now find myself on an Administrators' noticeboard for some reason.

92.251.172.194 (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Endorse close. The close does appear to correctly read the consensus. Although participation was low, no editor apart from the proposer appears to have been in favour of making reference to firestorms and nuclear winters in the article. This means that there was no consensus to make such references in the article. The IP user should note that this does not mean that they are banned from discussing the matter further with other editors, just that a holding-position has been reached, which will not change unless/until they can get consensus for what they want. Formerip (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That was curiously fast and I think a bit of a mis-characterization, I am simply in favor of summarizing the proposal with the very spirit of that found in the 2 peer-reviewed papers. Honestly, we already have a full length paragraph on the thing here Nuclear_winter#Climate_engineering. So a single concise sentence, much like those used by the actual scientists that are referenced(Paul Crutzen), with a link to that above article section would suffice, No? Secondly I am now rather confused, how can a "consensus for what I want" be reached or "further discussion on the matter with other editors" occur on the talk page, when the RFC has been closed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.172.194 (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You can open a new section on the talkpage, saying that you wish to continue discussion, because you are not satisfied that the correct outcome was reached in the RfC. If you can win either new editors or editors who participated in the RfC over to your point-of-view, then you may be able to achieve a new consensus. Of course, I can't promise you that this would be successful, just informing you that you are entitled to try it. Formerip (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, so I have to open another RfC? Why can't the one that was open only yesterday just be re-opened? The RfC resulted in just a single editor coming in to the talk page, and that request was left open for weeks before even that editor came along. Honestly I need to express that this is like the twilight zone, we have editors claiming they seemingly "know better" than the writings of 3 peer-reviewed climate scientists, one of which is a Nobel prize winner. The consensus should be what is peer-reviewed. Not what wiki-editors feel.

92.251.172.194 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to start another RfC, just a regular discussion will do. In fact, that's better if you don't want someone to come along and close it in a month.

I can't really comment on who is right and wrong in the dispute, because I don't know, but perhaps the other editors don't so much feel they know better than the peer-reviewed sources, more that they feel able to make an editorial judgement about what words to quote and not quote. Formerip (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Where in the rules does it say that requests for comments must be closed within a month? All I've read is that Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment. - So, seen as BOTH editors involved are willing to continue to comment, was not the closure of the RfC obviously premature and contrary to policy?

Secondly, I am now honestly curious by your argument, why does wikipedia enertain non-scientists being arrogant enough to think they can go "make editorial judgements about words to quote"? Isn't that what trash tabloids are renowned for doing? There is 1 thing of making things as simple as possible, but as Einstein said, they should be made no simpler. I agree with making it easy for lay readers by stating things in plain English, but that is a world apart entirely from the "editting" process of engaging in bastardizing the spirit of the plain English of 2 completely independent peer-reviewed papers. Omitting important climate terms, that will, I guarantee you, result in readers being misled and confused.

92.251.172.194 (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse, the close seems to accurately reflect the discussion. I don't deny that the papers mention nuclear winter and firestorm soot, but there seems to be a consensus among editors that the article shouldn't include those terms at this time. You may take this as administrator endorsement of the close, if you wish. Lankiveil 02:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC).

Further Thoughts by Closer

I had no involvement in this question until I closed the RFC. However, I have a few comments, since the IP seems to be trying to raise a variety of arguments that do not seem to be based on policy or guideline.

The IP wrote: "The RFC was not concluded, no consensus on the important issue of correctly summarizing what the peer-reviewed papers state, was, even near to being determined. As the IP user who did indeed begin the RFC, I was in the process of discussion with another user and we were getting close to the root of their antipathy towards what the peer-reviewed paper states. So I really don't understand why the RFC was prematurely closed." The RFC was concluded: "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time." There was no request to extend the RFC, which had been open for 43 days. The claim that the RFC was prematurely closed is unsubstantiated.

I did not know that the IP who requested closure revert was the originator of the RFC. The originating IP and the requesting IP are in entirely different blocks. By the way, IP, that is another reason why I encouraged you to create a registered account. It is also a reason why many closers minimize the contributions of IP editors, because they cannot tell whether multiple IP addresses are one human being or multiple human beings.

The IP wrote: "but sadly I got no reply in that vein and now find myself on an Administrators' noticeboard for some reason." This is being discussed on the Administrators' Noticeboard because this is the proper venue for the review of closures. I was not reporting the IP for misconduct, but was using the standard an-notice template to inform the requesting IP of the closure review. The IP requested that I revert or re-open the closure. After that request, I reviewed the RFC and my closure, and I did not think that I had made a mistake, but was willing to be reviewed. I see nothing in the guidelines about RFCs that requires, encourages, or even permits a closure to be re-opened simply to allow a late comment after the RFC has expired, and has not been extended. Since I thought that I had acted in process, but wished to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, I voluntarily asked for closure review. I see that two editors endorse my closure, and that the IP does not, but his or her arguments appear to be tendentious rather than persuasive.

The fact that the paper mentioned “firestorm” and “nuclear winter” does not mean that the article should mention them. Any reader who goes from the references to the paper will see that. How much of the content of a referenced paper should be included in an encyclopedic article is a matter of judgment as to what is due and undue weight.

The IP states that: "The RfC resulted in just a single editor coming in to the talk page, and that request was left open for weeks before even that editor came along." There were multiple editors who replied to the RFC. The last reply was on 4 December 2014. It was hardly hasty to close it on 29 December 2014.

As was mentioned, the subject isn’t "locked", and the talk page isn’t closed. The RFC is closed unless the closure reviewers think that it should be re-opened. The IP has a right to continue discussion, either via another RFC (which may have the same result), or via round-and-round discussion on the talk page, or, as I suggested, at the dispute resolution noticeboard with a volunteer moderator who will try to encourage interactive discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. As mentioned, the subject isn’t "locked". It was a fair closure of that debate. Other debates, in the future, may have different conclusions. Igor the bunny (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

To reply to the falsehoods in User talk:Robert McClenon's argument. He claims that the closure was done nice and proper, however how is one supposed to really get a sense of that when he repeatedly states things that are demonstrably untrue? In both his RfC closing argument that he gave and most recently here just hours ago he and others have written - "The fact that the paper mentioned “firestorm” and “nuclear winter” does not mean that the article should mention them.". However, you will forgive me for not being convinced you know what you're talking about, as the papers actually never mention firestorm, but they do repeatedly mention nuclear winter and therefore I thought it more than worthy of using that very term. As you can imagine, when someone makes arguments based on falsehoods like that, you really have to wonder, did they even read the papers or the accompanying arguments in their favor?

Secondly, what the rest of you are telling me is - No we cannot possibly re-open the RfC even though, I requested that it be re-opened VERY quickly. I must instead start a whole new talk page section and copy-paste both my and Jon's continuing arguments into that? This really all seems rather pedantic, and not to mention, it will result in connected discussions being spread all over the place on the talk page, for really no sound reason. As policy appears to dictate Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment.

92.251.172.194 (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

What you should probably do is brush up on WP:How to lose, and then let things settle for a while. WP:There is no deadline for getting a given word into the article. Try working on something else for a while, and come back to this later. Generally speaking, if you open a new discussion on the same subject immediately, you get not only the same unfavorable response from the same people disagreed with you before, but you even get other people yelling at you and insisting that the old discussion was right (including people who would have never commented or who might have agreed with you under other circumstances). Take a break, and let it calm down. Misplaced Pages will still be here a few months from now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap on libertarian articles

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

Steeletrap is currently subject to a topic ban from all matters related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute as a result of the Austrian Economics arbitration case. Despite this, Steeletrap has recently been involved in a series of edits on libertarian articles, including BLP edits, that not only repeat the behavior for which Steeletrap was topic-banned, but directly violate the topic ban:

• Edits to article on Reason magazine.
• Edits to article on Justin Raimondo
• Edits to article on Stefan Molyneux

On the Reason article, Steeletrap created a sub-section for existing information about Holocaust revisionists writing for the outlet that was primarily sourced to pieces in the outlet, while removing more mundane material cited to secondary sources on the basis these incident were not notable. Some of the material in the Reason article explicitly involved Gary North a member of the LvMI. Additionally the edits to Justin Raimondo and Molyneux's article continue the highly inappropriate BLP editing for which Steeletrap was previously sanctioned by ArbCom in addition to, on the Raimondo article, removing material cited to Murray Rothbard, another member of the LvMI.

This editing suggests to me that Steeletrap either needs to subjected to some sort of lengthy block or be subject to an extended topic ban that covers all edits related to libertarianism, since the same policy-violating behavior is leaking onto articles less clearly covered under the Austrian Economics case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please explain to me how any of the subjects relate to Austrian economics or the Ludwig von Mises Institute. (On raimondo, I removed a huge amount of unsourced content, a sentence of which included a mention of Murray Rothbard. Once this was pointed out, I happily re-added Rothbard to the article. I did not alter any of the statements regarding North.)Steeletrap (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Reason shouldn't have published and praised Holocaust deniers if it didn't want to be criticized on these grounds. Steeletrap (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, Raimondo shouldn't have speculated that Israel had advance knowledge of 9/11 if he didn't want to be labeled a conspiracy theorist. Sometimes the truth about a BLP is inflammatory; that doesn't mean spreading that truth is defamatory. All my edits to these articles are accurate and you can't point to any that aren't. Steeletrap (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not see these edits as a violation of the LvMI topic ban. However, it appears Steeletrap, instead of moving far away from LvMI and considering what led to his topic ban, has instead moved to the closest topic area possible and continued with the same types of edits that led to the ban. Even the modus operandi is the same - adding edits to show connections between the subjects and extremism such as holocaust denial. In one of the edits linked to above, he added that the subject "is also a conspiracy theorist" and cites the an article on 9/11 on the subject's own website. In fact nowhere in the source does the subject claim to be a conspiracy theorist, that is Steeletrap's synthesis, and something to be particularly avoided in a BLP. I would suggest an overall topic ban on right-wing politics in the U.S. and a site ban if the same type of editing continues.

Also, Steeltrap, who argues the subject "Raimondo shouldn't have speculated that Israel had advance knowledge of 9/11 if he didn't want to be labeled a conspiracy theorist" should read WP:LABEL. It says labels should be avoided unless they are frequently used in sources and then we should use in-line citation.

TFD (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, while not technically a violation of the topic ban, it's the exact same pattern of negative behaviour. A topic ban isn't an invitation to continue the problematic behaviour in a related subject area, it's a warning to improve one's editing patterns lest a full ban be imposed. In this case, the BLP editing is definitely problematic for the reasons outlined as above, and such edits should be reverted on sight. Lankiveil 02:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC).

This community is composed of hyper-sensitive half wits. ("Revenge of the C students," I like to call it.) That's the essential problem. People are incapable of understanding what NPOV means; it doesn't mean "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." It means "accurately describe all facts regarding BLPs." Arguing that the Jews were somehow at fault for 9/11 happening--insofar as they knew about it and let it happen--is a conspiracy theory according to reliable sources. Misplaced Pages's own article on 9/11 truth says that 9/11 truthers (and by implication, Raimondo) are conspiracy theorists. (Nor is the label "conspiracy theorist" a value-laden label comparable to "racist" or "cult leader." Many people take on the term conspiracy theorist as a badge of owner.)

In any case, now that we've resolved that this isn't a "topic ban violation," can we take these charges to the BLP forum? Steeletrap (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Earlier today, I noticed the editor in question made this series of edits to our article on Elizabeth Warren. He also accused her of "credential fraud" on the talk page. -- Calidum 03:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I made no such accusation. I said that the accusation against Warren is one of credentials fraud (she was accused of lying about being a racial minority in order to get affirmative action). I don't know whether the allegation is true. Please read more and write less. And my additions to the preposterously biased Warren page are sock solid. As my previous edits make clear, I am a liberal who is sympathetic to Warren's positions. And I voted for Warren over Brown. But the article mischaracterized the accusations and evidence against Warren. Steeletrap (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Insert: On the Molyneux article I initiated a BRD and Steeletrap reverted without engaging in discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the arbcom decision, ``Steeletrap is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased.``

The third edit posted in the start of this thread, , is an article which mentions and links to Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Therefore, per the terms, I suggest Steeletrap be blocked for a short time. Igor the bunny (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

LOL. The notion that a page that links to LvMI is inherently related to it is absurd. By your naive, literalistic logic, I should be topic banned from commenting on this page (i.e. from defending myself), because the term "Mises Institute" is used here. Steeletrap (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No, this page is not an article.

You seem to think you can step around the conditions. You cannot. Igor the bunny (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you read my topic ban? I was not just banned from editing "articles," but was also banned from "other pages" related to the Mises Institute. By your absurd logic--which I can't believe you thought about for more than half a minute--I cannot defend myself on this page, because LvMI is mentioned. Clearly, a more restrictive definition of "related to" has to be adopted. Steeletrap (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Steeletrap's edits are a direct violation of her WP:TBAN. The ban extends to Mises.org-related persons. (In the Raimondo case her edits involved both Rothbard and Rockwell – founders of Mises.org.) When she edits anything involving such a person, she violates bullet number 4 in the TBAN example list. This is disruptive, and disruptive behavior is not excused by "Oh, you could undo my TBAN-violation edits" or "Oh, I happily reverted 1 of the 2 violations." Her edits surrounding Gary North are problematic as well. The North material is there in context with other sources. When she says "Reason shouldn't have published and praised Holocaust deniers ..." it strongly suggests that she wants to use WP:RGW as a justification. (Her edits have been on articles that I've followed for years and I've admonished her as best I could since the TBAN was imposed. And per her talk page, admonitions for various editors were posted in May, June, July, August, and then in November and December.) Her recent responses to me have consisted of taunts about my competence, knowledge of fringe science, and law school experience. Setting the taunts aside, I recommend that her TBAN be expanded to libertarian-related (and BLP) topics. Also, she might be given some time to contemplate her actions. – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"Time to contemplate" is not a permissible block reason. However, accusing other editors (ie me) of "naive, literalistic logic" is. Igor the bunny (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor, I think you misunderstand my comment. "Time to contemplate" is not given as a reason to block Steeletrap. I am suggesting a block so that Steeletrap will consider what the aspects of her editing have lead to a block of a certain period. – S. Rich (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Steepletrap, are you able to edit Misplaced Pages without editing any articles that are at all linked to the problems leading to your TBANs?

Yes, that's a vague statement. But Misplaced Pages isn't a bureaucracy; either you can or you can't, it's a straight question. Igor the bunny (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Since I've come to Misplaced Pages, I've been hounded by Srich. He is a nice guy and means well; I certainly wouldn't feel threatened by him if we met in real life. But he has had issues in effective interaction with female users. He is very heavy-handed as an editor and comes across as a bully. This form of communication has led him to have a lot of poor interactions with WP Women. Steeletrap (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that the background to these allegations--That Srich (and TFD, who has repeatedly called me as biased for characterizing white nationalist and former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke's 1991 gubernatorial campaign as racist) have hounded me for over a year--should be taken into account arbitrators, in the arbs' evaluations of their allegations against me. Steeletrap (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You just blew any last vestige of 'good faith', for me. Support block. Igor the bunny (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO was topic-banned from LvMI in the same ARBCOM case as Steeletrap. (See WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Proposed decision#SPECIFICO topic-banned.) I suggest he stop editing this discussion. If it is not a clear violation, it is not a good idea. TFD (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Query: Why has this not been referred to Arbitration enforcement? Isn't this precisely what AE is meant for? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Steeletrap are you actually denying that you have have been engaged in pseudohistorical revisionism? Bladesmulti (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• I'm looking through Raimondo's article, and I can't see why his article is relevant here. It looks like he's written a few articles for them, but he's a writer: as far as I can tell, they've just published some columns that he's written. Unless I'm missing something, edits to this guy's article aren't inherently a topicban violation, just as edits to the JRR Tolkien article wouldn't violate a hypothetical topicban from Houghton Mifflin-related subjects. With that in mind, chopping unsourced information isn't a problem, and objecting to its removal on ban-related grounds is cutting off your nose to spite your face: putting back an unsourced statement (the result of this series of diffs) is improper, and the removal improves the encyclopedia: policy says that we ignore a rule that prevents us from improving the encyclopedia. Meanwhile, how is Molyneux related to the Mises Institute or otherwise covered by the ban? I'm left concluding that the only ban violation was the removal of the following Gary North-related text from the Reason article: In response, ''Reason'' received several letters condemning Martin and North's articles, but also some letters expressing admiration for the issue.<ref name="MA">{{cite web |url=http://pando.com/2014/07/24/as-reasons-editor-defends-its-racist-history-heres-a-copy-of-its-holocaust-denial-special-issue/ |title=As Reason’s editor defends its racist history, here’s a copy of its holocaust denial “special issue” |first=Mark |last=Ames |work=] |date=July 24, 2014 |accessdate=14 November 2014 }}</ref> Final note — people, please read WP:BANEX. When you're banned from a topic, you are most definitely not banned from discussing the ban itself. Any ban violations by SPECIFICO have occurred elsewhere. Given the fact that the problems are being greatly exaggerated, and that this looks like what the lawyers call a case of unclean hands, it seems to me that everyone ought to be given a stern reminder to drop the matter, to stop editing stuff about active Mises members on one hand, and to stop hounding people for non-violations on the other. Nyttend (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend, the user made this edit . That article says, "Jeffrey Tucker of the Ludwig von Mises Institute has described Molyneux as...". The TBAN says ``Steeletrap is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute...``. Is that not a violation? If it's not, then pretty much any breach can be side-tracked so the TBAN is toothless. Igor the bunny (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Read WP:TBAN. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as...weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not. Steeletrap is banned from editing weather, and Molyneaux is New York. Stop creating violations. Nyttend (talk) 07:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

While I believe the way Steeletrap's edits touch on various LvMI individuals violates the topic ban, my objections are not strictly to the topic ban violations, but the overall pattern of editing. Since the arbitration case applies to Austrian Economics rather than libertarianism in general, not all the relevant edits would fall within the purview of the discretionary sanctions. I believe those edits are just as objectionable as the ones that were cited in the original arbitration case and, as others have noted, this is effectively Steeletrap moving just one step outside the topic area to engage in the same pattern of editing. That some of these edits violate the topic-ban as well only makes it more pertinent.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. So what admin action are you requesting? Igor the bunny (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing here would warrant a sanction without the ban, and aside from Gary North, there aren't any ban violations: we can't just go and sanction her because her editing pattern resembles the banned subject. Are you suggesting that we expand the topic-ban to include everything connected to libertarianism? If so, you'd do better to create a new section, so that it's separate from this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor, I see from this page that "I have edited previously under another account". Let me remind you that WP:SOCK unambiguously states that "Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project". Since your userspace does not identify your other account, you are already in violation of the sockpuppetry, even though your other account is in good standing. Further participation in discussions internal to the project will likely result in a block for sockpuppetry. Nyttend (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we ban the sock before proceeding? He also makes absurd arguments, such as saying I should be banned for calling his arguments absurd. Steeletrap (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sure, admins will ban this sock without any evidence, just because you asked. Um. Igor the bunny (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend, Misplaced Pages:Clean start allows editors to retire an account and open a new one, without disclosing the first, provided there are no continuing sanctions attached to the first account. WP:SOCK allows editors to use different accounts at the same time, provided there is a valid reason and no cross-over. And btw, improving the encyclopedia is never a valid reason for violating a topic ban. TFD (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for closure

The large majority of editors do not believe a TB violation occurred. The relevant concern of most of the anti-Steele editors is a vague, unspecific accusation of "BLP violations." (Igor the bunny thinks I should be banned for calling his arguments naive.) With that in mind, I request an admin to close this thread; TDA is free to open this on the appropriate thread, BLPN. Steeletrap (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a funny majority you've drawn up. Igor the bunny (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Users who allege a TB violation- Igor, Srich, Devil's Advocate. User's who reject the charge of a substnative (non-technical and bannable) TB violation: TFD, Lankiveil (admin), SPECIFICO, Nyttend (admin), myself. 5 to three is a large majority. (Other users have commented on the page but have not made their views clear.) So far, you are the only user who supports banning me for calling your arguments weak. Steeletrap (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt I said "ban"? Igor the bunny (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Both TFD and Lankiveil agree that you are repeating the same behavior for which you were sanctioned on a closely-related topic. That they don't think there was a clear topic ban violation does not somehow mean this should be closed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this AN be closed without action. The proper forum for Steeletrap's violations is Arbcom Enforcement. They can resolve both issues: 1. those edits involving Mises.org-related persons, and 2. the BLP violations. – S. Rich (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I also agree this AN should be closed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for ALL emoji flags

Hello! First of all I want to warn you that the following characters won't render on all platforms, I am talking about the regional indicator symbols.

Currently 🇯🇵, 🇰🇷, 🇩🇪, 🇨🇳, 🇺🇸, 🇫🇷, 🇪🇸, 🇮🇹, 🇷🇺 and 🇬🇧 already exist for the flags already supported on iOS. But now all flags (for example 🇳🇱 (NL, Netherlands)) are also supported on Android 5.0 "Lollipop".

I think we should add redirects (with a bot) for all ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 two-letter country codes to the appropriate flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin0van0der0vliet (talk • contribs) 13:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The first copyright plea of 2015

Happy New Year. :) The copyright corners of Misplaced Pages are growing (more) backlogged again - we have a few stalwarts working at WP:SCV, but it has a backlog of almost a month, and WP:CP is not much better. WP:CCI is just depressing. Anybody have time to pitch in, even a little? "Many hands make light work" and all that. I am so willing to talk to anybody about how this work is done, but the basic process is pretty simple. SCV is generally the low-hanging fruit - brand new articles, copying is generally obvious. CP and CCI can be a little more challenging, but you might be surprised how often obvious issues pop up that have been unaddressed for years. There are annotation templates created for easy review at WP:SCV and WP:CP, but please don't be intimidated by those if you don't like annotation templates. They're so not the point. They're only a tool. :) That the work gets done is the key thing. --Moonriddengirl 16:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Need more admins to monitor GamerGate sanctions

Per this discussion, we could use some more admins to help enforce the GamerGate sanctions. We currently have 6 open RfE's, 4 of which not a single admin has commented. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Close review please

My RfC close at Template talk:Infobox person is being questioned, so I'd be grateful for some independent views on whether I accurately summarised the consensus. Please see my talk page for further information.—S Marshall T/C 14:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)