Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:47, 8 March 2012

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 223 days ago on 15 May 2024) Discussion died down quite a long time ago. I do not believe anything is actionable but a formal closure will help. Soni (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 78 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

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

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 69 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Needs admin closure imho, due to its importance (guideline page), length (101kb), and questions about neutrality of the Rfc question and what it meant. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And in true Streisand effect fashion, this discussion, quiescent for six weeks, has some more responses again. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

(Initiated 45 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

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

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

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

(Initiated 41 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead

(Initiated 8 days ago on 16 December 2024) RFC is only 5 days old as of time of this posting, but overwhelming consensus approves of status quo, except for a single COI editor. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

 Done —Compassionate727  13:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 32 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Deletion discussions

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

Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 91 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 79 days ago on 7 October 2024) A merge + move request with RM banners that needs closure. No new comments in 20 days. —CX Zoom 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

(Initiated 49 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:JTG Daugherty Racing#Requested move 22 November 2024

(Initiated 32 days ago on 22 November 2024) Pretty simple RM that just needs an uninvolved editor to close. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

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

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

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 57 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Two users with same user picture

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

User:Sarojkumarsahoo and User:Sarozkumar will have same user picture. Is it Okay.--Musamies (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly the same individual, 2 different accounts; probably lost password to first and created second. Neither has edited for years - nothing to see here. Kim Dent-Brown 11:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you a) discussed the policies around WP:Alternate accounts with them, and b) advised them (both of them - even though they are obviously the same person) that you have brought them here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be pointless as the user (in both his incarnations) hasn't edited since 2008. S_peakF_{ree (contribs)} 13:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent activity

Why did it look like it was uploaded to commons today?  ? Nobody Ent 23:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Good question. I figured the answer was that the image had been uploaded and deleted, only for someone else to upload another one under the same name, but the logs don't show any evidence that there's ever been another image (either at en:wp or at Commons) named Saroj.jpg. Saroj1.rout exists, but his only edits are to his sandbox so far. Nyttend backup (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like uploaded the photo on commons Nobody Ent 13:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't explain why the users linked a nonexistent file. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The filename is fairly generic. It's easily possible both users planned to upload the file or just didn't understand how files work. If you've been around enough, you've probably seen people try to use files on their computers and stuff like that. In this specific case, one of them originally used example.jpg and this was in article space before being moved to their user page . BTW I said 'both' users. If you look at the info, I'm not sure either user is the same person (and possibly neither are the same person as the file uploader). While they have similar names, and come from the same Indian state, it sounds like they come from different places in the state. Nil Einne (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Actually it seems clear from the user talk page at least one of them did upload an image under that name in 2006 but it was deleted. Checking the en deletion log or page logs confirms this . I guess this was somehow missed by Nyttend, perhaps they checked out the wrong thing or there was a bug.

From this, it seems what happened is User:Sarozkumar uploaded a file allegedly of themselves in 2006 and used it in their user page but it was deleted due to copyright concerns. They never bothered to remove the link to the image from their user page. User:Sarojkumarsahoo in 2008 created a page in article space where they linked to the image, the page was moved to their user page but the image was apparently never uploaded so was always a red link. Later just recently, User:Saroj1.rout uploaded a file with that name to commons. Whether this person is the same as either of the previous 2 users is unknown but because both user pages were linking to that file, it appeared on their user pages leading to the confusion over the identities. To avoid this confusion and given the lack of editing for a long time, I've removed the links to the images on their user pages. The current picture could easily not be of either user & if it's deleted, so to the next time.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request from Checker Fred

We received an unblock request on the unblock mailinglist from Checker Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm putting the mailconversation (with Checker Fred's approval) here for evaluation. The only change is some formatting for easier reading:

I created an account named Checker Fred but got blocked after being called a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages. So after I was blocked I just left the site, I did not know what I did wrong to get blocked and was following the rules and everything. So I mainly went to tv.com and the iCarly wiki to do my editing. So when this iCarly issue came up I created another account Named Oolith and it got blocked under the same sock. The user did not explain anything to me and just blocked my account. I did request an ip over ride because I do edit from shared ip address like shools and work, but I never created the Simulation12. My edits under Checker Fred are very good and helpfull to the site and I don't see why I was blocked. I have made good edits while I was there, I was able to help inprove pages and other issues no the site. I would like to try and work thigs out with MuZemike and beable to edit on Misplaced Pages. I would love to have a second chance and show you that I can edit in a resonable mannor. (Checker Fred)

Hi Checker Fred,

When I read your unblock request, I read the following:

• You have an account named Checker Fred which was blocked as a sockpuppet of Simulation12 on june 30th
• You have a second account named Oolith from which you requested an IP block exempt
• You are not the same person as Simulation12

Some questions remain open:

• Have you ever created any other accounts?
• What is your relation to Simulation12?
• Have you ever edited anonymously since the account Checker Fred was blocked? (Me)

I have not created any more accounts other then Checker Fred and Oolith on Misplaced Pages. At the time I created Oolith, I forgot that I created Checker Fred on Misplaced Pages because I was haven't been on the site in awhile. I have no relation to Simulation12. On January 28, I open a case on Simulation12 because while I was editing I found a user named Simulation22 and another User named The Cool Kat2 so I reported it as a sock of Simulation12, I have herd of this user while looking at The Cool Kat Archivies and found that about Simulation12. as The Cool Kat2 that account just looked a bit odd to me, so I just went ahead and reoprted that one as well. So after I found out I reported I started using Misplaced Pages on December 29, 2009 to edit pages from my favorite television shows and help out on the site. After I left there, I have not anonymously used the site. I was mainly on tv.com ruffmanfan88 and Ruffman882 (first account can not log in anymore,) and the iCarly wiki under Checker Fred. that I just started using more often on the iCarly wiki. Since the iCarly issue came up again, I wanted to give my input to Misplaced Pages as well, since it was mainly started there. So I ended up creating Oolith. I would love to have a second chance and show you that I can edit in a reasonable manor and work this problem out.. Please ask any other questions if you have any. (Checker Fred)

Checker Fred was blocked as a sockpuppet of Simulation12, though there was no technical evidence (came out as unrelated on checkuser), on behavioural evidence. I find the assertion that Checker Fred has absolutely no relation to Simulation12 hard to swallow, from the support vote on the non-transcluded RfA of Simulation12, though it is possible.

I would also like to point out that this case is from 2010, and that there has been no further disruption from simulation12 since that year. That solidly puts us in standard offer territory in either case. Heavy iCarly interest does give me some competence fears, but nothing insurmountable. I suggest that unblocking, with a clear instruction on what is, and what isn't accepted, is a good idea. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I will note the following users are  Confirmed as each other:

• Oolith (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Billey bob (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• The Master of disguises (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• CookieGrabber (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 1mikie19 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bessie Yeh (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Checker Fred/Simulation12 has been actively engaging in an off-wiki harassment campaign against myself and several other users. User:The Master of disguises was a sleeper sock that was recently used to engage in email harassment; I won't copypaste any emails, but he stated that he has dozens of other sleepers that he will use to continue said harassment until he is unblocked. These socks have been, for the past year or so, been sending harassing emails to myself and others (one of them even posed as his mother).

Some unfounded sock allegations have been made on my talk page on Commons here (as well as via an en.wiki unblock request on an IP here), none of which are true after checking. I feel this is due to failure to WP:OWN the iCarly (season 4) article (amongst all the other articles, including Fetch! With Ruff Ruffman, Simulation12's main target), as evidenced here.

Given the recent harassment, I feel that WP:OFFER has not been met in any way, shape, or form, and that any considerations of unban or unblock of any users here are ill-advised. --MuZemike 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, for some reason I missed those on the SPI. Oolith is Checker Fred by own admission. Could you point to where Oolith is  Confirmed? I can't quickly find it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose CheckerFred is Sim12, that much is obvious to anyone familiar with chasing his endless army of socks. Fred knows perfectly well why he is blocked, because he is one of the 90 socks created by Sim12. OFFER does not apply to a user who creates 90 sockpuppets and won't admit to it, even now. OFFER does not apply to a user who tried to become an admin with a sockpuppet. And it certainly shouldn't apply to a user who created socks and then reported them as socks of another user they didn't like. We don't need these silly games here, and the disruption did not end when CheckerFred was blocked. Ninety chances is more than enough and we shouldn't let this phony "I don't know what I did wrong" act fool us just because some time has passed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The requirements of WP:OFFER have not been fulfilled. If anything Simulation 12 should be community banned. Nevermind, seems he already is banned. Night Ranger (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I received the following email:

I have never created any of those accounts. I have only created Checker Fred and Oolith. I have never sent emails to MuZemike, I only sent emails to some of the users here Talk:List_of_iCarly_episodes#Sixth_season all of it, and Talk:List_of_iCarly_episodes#Request_for_Comment_-_Splitting_seasons to give my imput on the issue, Since my school ip was blocked. When I did edit as Checker Fred, I did edit from shared ip address. I was however able to talk with Jabrona on tv.com and the iCarly wiki about this issue on Misplaced Pages. While talking to Jabrona I did explain to him some of the rules for the site and we have to go by what the site says. He still argured with me as what he is still doing to the other users on this issue. So I did wanted to get involved and try to help and solve this issue. Since it has been going on for years now. I only own and operated Checker Fred on Misplaced Pages and the iCalry wiki. I have not been to any other sites of related projects. I have no relation to Simulation12 and never created that account or any other acounts on Misplaced Pages besides Oolith and Checker Fred. I know creating User:Oolith was wrong, and fully promise to never engage in sockpuppetry again and to abide by wikipedia's guidelines. Before I sent this unblock request, I did ask another user on the icarly wiki to send MuZemike a message, whitch he did, but MuZemike never did send me a email, so I could explain what happened. I saw that MuZemike did reblock Checker Fred for what ever reason and I decided to talk to him. I know that Misplaced Pages is not a playground and needs to be respected in a reasonable mannor. I will be glad to answer any other questions you have or any other issues that may come up.

Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been looking all over the place, but nowhere I can find that checkuser confirmed either Checker Fred or Oolith as a sockpuppet of simulation12. Now I can imagine that we prefer not to unblock because we do believe him to be a sockpuppet, or, seeing the scale of problems simulation12 has shown, we prefer just not to take the chance, but I'm still unsure if there is a checkuser confirmed as implied by the checkuser confirmed post by MuZeMike. Had I known of checkuser evidence, I wouldn't have brought it here , but simply referred to WP:BASC, who, when I mailed of the unblock request, suggested this AN thread. I did miss the trail to Fetch! With Ruff Ruffman, in which the history shows ongoing disruption by simulation socks, and took the last addition on the SPI for simulation12 as the last disruption. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As is noted several times in the SPI archives, sim12 is known to use a wide variety of IPs, so Cu is of limited use in this case. The behavioral evidence is sufficient to tie CheckerFred with Sim12, including the fact that he created six new accounts when it became clear he was about to be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting three admins to close long RfC

This is a second request from four days ago. The RfC on Genesis creation narrative has now run its full 7 days, and we haven't received any new arguments for a while. The subject has been heavily contested in the past, so I agree with others who have called for a 3 admin close. If any impartial admin who hasn't taken part has the time, it would be appreciated. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've closed the RM as no consensus, and it's already taken up further on the talk page. Two other admins are invited to participate, but I really don't see the call for three unless someone is trying to win- in which case, Misplaced Pages is not the place for you. Keegan (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not about winning. It's about establishing that this issue has been reviewed impartially by the community, not just one admin. This issue has come up again and again over the years... it's probably the single most discussed issue on the talk page, and it's an issue that editors on the page feel very strongly about, and which causes a good deal of drama. Having multiple admins review the discussion will calm some of that drama. I'd ask that we wait to close the discussion until other admins are given an opportunity to comment. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point, Jess, and my words were not aimed at anyone in particular. Here on Misplaced Pages it is very difficult to get 2/3 people to agree on anything. This is why it's about the threashhold for promotion on anything here. RfA, FAC, DYK, etc., cannot meet the standard. It should be noted that I did not close a request for comment, but a requested move, which is a different creature. Keegan (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You better stop posting comments Keegan, the PoV warriors are twisting anything you say to prove an abusive close... --86.25.205.193 (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You might wish to get your facts straight; a 3 admin close was asked for BEFORE the closure. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the 3-admin close bit, i'm commenting on the bunch of users jumping on Keegan and accusing him of treating the debate as a vote or popularity content, despite him/her/it providing full rationale with the close of why it was no consensus. WP:AGF? --86.25.205.193 (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Ten minutes ago you were referring to "Typical scumbag wikipedians". Also, considering the scale of the RfC it would be better for the admin summed up (in the text) the various arguments and then arrived at a conclusion of the state of concensus. Instead of merely stating that "There are strong arguments from both sides, but there is no common agreement or acquiescence.". He also needs to clarify why "Neither argument successfully generates an encyclopedic name for the article." IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems irrelevant about 2/3 agreeing since it's not a vote, surely? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I took User:Keegan's statement on it being difficult to get 2/3 people to agree on anything, as being a response to User:Mann jess, the previous editor's remark about having "multiple admins review the discussion". In the light of his previous claims that his decision was not based on votes or popularity, I don't think the "2/3" thing had anything to do with the editors in conflict, but rather, had everything to do with the minimum 2 out of 3 members of a 3 admin close that needed to be in agreement. If one admin favors Keep, and a 2nd favors Move, and a third favors Neither, then there could be no close. A second uninvolved admin has appeared on the talk page after discussion agreeing the discussion was No Consensus, so requesting a third admin at this point is moot. By the way, I was not involved in the discussion, and am only now starting to get caught up on reading all the volumes of hot air discussion. --172.129.70.13 (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you've already performed the close it seems unlikely that another admin is going to step in and overrule your decision. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Reposted from the talk page: With how contentious this issue is it should have been a three admin close. I requested as such at WP:AN though I did so prematurely and so that thread is now archived. Consensus is not supposed to be a tally of the votes but rather a consideration of the strength of the arguments in respect to how well they represent policy and, though I am obviously biased in the issue, I believe that a cursory reading of the !votes show a distinct lack of policy based argument on the side of opposition. I ask that you revert your close and that a three admin panel decide the issue. If that happens and there is still no consensus for a move I believe I can speak for those in support of the move that we will drop the issue, but if the fate of this page is to be decided by a single admin then I'm sorry but I don't think that that can happen. Furthermore, if there is no consensus for a move, then according to the policy WP:CCC this page must be moved to the title used by the first editor after the article was no longer a stub as the title here has been unstable and disputed for a very long time. Lastly, whether editors here think that "myth" or "narrative" is more encyclopedic seems irrelevant in the face of all the sources that non-contentiously use "creation myth" as the designated terminology. To let editor opinion sway the issue is an egregious violation of the very essence of NPOV. Nformation 09:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One other point: you expressed an opinion on the talk page regarding a title and though it was neither narrative nor myth it's a gray area as to whether or not you're WP:INVOLVED at this point. I realize you were not involved previously, but the fact that you entered the discussion makes the situation murky. Nformation 10:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's quite clear, Keegan is not "involved": "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." Nobody Ent 12:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good close. Nobody Ent 12:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I second Ent. WP:AGF - as has been touted by the "move" side consistently in this case - is thrown out of the window when its implications are bad for the WP:BATTLEGROUND? Further comment: bad form. Trying to claim the (completely uninvolved) admin is now involved based on some technicality of where he typed a few words (to try to lessen the acrimonious nature of the entire proceeding by giving a WP:THIRDOPINION after the close strikes me as most egregious WP:WIKILAWYERING. Also, WP:NOTLAW. St John Chrysostom /_my bias 00:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Noone is doing anything other than assuming good faith. An individual can in good faith make a mistake, we are only human. It does not mean we ignore the issues. I suggest you read this section of AGF: Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively, because just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed, and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut. I do not see the relevance of your link to battleground. It seems noformation is pointing out that the admin choose to involve himself in the discussion of the naming after performing the close. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

My citation of battleground has less to do with this specific admin, but to the warzone he got dragged in to when closing a request for move (not RfC) that already has plenty of entrenched warriors on both sides: I believe it is relevant, because it appears that mentality has carried over in to - nay, caused - this entire section. I don't think it's in bad faith - I think that Genesis creation narrative has been a battleground of POV-warriors for so long (years, reading the archives) it's now a razed warzone, everyone is shellshocked, and it's subconscious. (Hyperbole, of course, but I believe I've described my point.) When people start making socks (TCH & Zenkai) to prove their points, I think a battleground mentality has prevailed. St John Chrysostom /_my bias 01:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with John that Keegan was not involved at the time of the close. However, AGF is not in question here. I don't think anyone doubts that Keegan did his best to close the discussion properly and serve the best interests of the encyclopedia. Editors are claiming that, despite his best intentions, he made a mistake. I also don't see any battleground behavior, just users who feel that policy was not followed. I'd urge you to read over those pages again.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You're afraid you have to agree with me - chuckles </sarcasm>. Thank you for explaining the AGF issue, as I suppose, to me (who has not been involved in dispute resolution before) a debate over correct application of policy and assuming bad faith looked similar (at least on the talk page about the close). St John Chrysostom /_my bias 01:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I didn't mean anything by that; it's just an expression ;)   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Since both you and Jess don't think that Keegan was involved I will defer to consensus and drop that matter. You are correct that that page is like a warzone, and closing that RM without a full rational and explanation of how each side applied to policy did not help. Nformation 01:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not speak to whether I think it was a "good close" in terms of the decision reached, but I do not think it was helpful to close the discussion unilaterally when 3 admins had been agreed upon. The goal of the RM was to come to a community decision and put the drama surrounding this discussion to rest. This close has had the opposite effect, stirring up additional controversy on its own. As such I don't believe it was a "good close" regardless of the decision. It's unlikely a second admin will take part now that Keegan has acted, which is why I asked him to revert his close and abide by the requested closure process. It seems he isn't willing to do that, which means this issue won't be settled, and the whole RM discussion was a waste.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You've provided a diff to a request for a 3 admin close but not evidence such agreement ever existed.Nobody Ent 16:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The 3 admin request was initially proposed in the RM discussion and supported by a few editors. No one opposed the idea. It was then requested at AN twice. For an admin to bypass that and unilaterally close the discussion, it would appear, he is doing so in opposition to the wishes of the community, which would seem unhelpful in trying to manage a contentious multi-year long dispute.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." You requested here, on a wider scale, but did not get consensus for 3 admin close. Nobody Ent 18:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand. What community consensus are you referring to? Firm rules weren't established before the RM that 3 admins would be needed for a close, sure, but we're not a bureaucracy; every editor who commented on the issue before the close, both here and on the talk page, supported 3 admins. No one, anywhere, opposed it. It was not an unreasonable request, given the heated nature of the lengthy dispute, and ignoring it has only flared up tempers and caused the discussion to be further polarized. I don't think that's helpful to the encyclopedia.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That we would go for a 3 admin close was explicited stated as a seperate comment within the RfC discussion, 2 agreed (me and Dominus Vobisdu ) and noone objected, that was about 5 days ago. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning given for the close directly contradicts a Misplaced Pages policy that was thoroughly discussed in the RM. That their reasoning runs counter to Misplaced Pages policy is concerning in and of itself, and the comment that gives the impression that the RM was closed by a vote, not a consensus, adds to this concern. It is deeply concerning that the closing admin stated that "2/3 people to agree on anything" is "the threashhold for promotion on anything here." That the comment was made at all in regards to the closing of the RM is troubling, because the number of editors that comment should not play any factor in how a closing admin judges any consensus. Given that this faulty close is based on a reasoning that is clearly and specifically mentioned in a core Misplaced Pages policy (WP:RNPOV), this suggests that the closing admin was not able to properly assess the weight of the arguments presented, assuming that they did not close the RM based on a magic "2/3" number as they suggest.

I would recommend that the closing admin reverse his decision, and leave the RM to someone that is able to properly determine consensus based on Misplaced Pages policy, preferably the 3 admin close that was suggested. Even if the comment left by the closing admin was a mistake, that they understand the policy, the appearance of a lack of understanding that they presented irreparably destroys any appearance of credibility that the closing admin would have otherwise had. (The admin stated "it is remiss to use terminology like narrative or myth" however the comment is contradicted by a core Misplaced Pages policy, WP:RNPOV: "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources" which specifically mentions mythology as an example.) If the admin is unwilling to do this, then I suggest that this close by this admin be overturned, as the close itself was based on a reasoning that specifically runs counter Misplaced Pages policy. If this does not happen, the only result will be yet another RM that repeats the same information yet again, as this is a demonstrably faulty close, and the closing admin has provided reason to believe that the discussion was not properly assessed, and that weight of the arguments given was assessed without regard to Misplaced Pages policy. If the closing admin did properly close the discussion by determining consensus, then a 3 admin close will come to the same conclusion, with the added benefit of a confidence in the closing decision. - SudoGhost 17:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering that admin actions are as subject to community review as anything else and he's had multiple people ask that he reverse his close, one reason being that he didn't actually explain the closure, he should defer to this request and let this be handled by someone who understands the intricate policy issues involved. Admins should avoid even the appearance of impropriety and considering that he engaged in the conversation by offering an alternative solution before he closed, coupled with the comment regarding a 2/3rds majority, and then the lack of explanation, he should reverse and let this be done properly. If it's not done properly then this debate is just going to continue to wits end, so for the sake of the project please drop the ego and let someone more familiar with this side of WP deal with this. It's not a big deal, we're not on a WP:DEADLINE, and it's better that this be thoroughly vetted before being put to rest. Please allow a three admin panel to discuss and close this.

@Nobody ent: Whether his involvement is minor is subject to opinion but the fact is that before he closed the RM he became at least somewhat involved by offering an opinion on the matter, so he wasn't only acting as an admin at that point. Nformation 00:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Keegan appears to be treating this as a vote Diff: The supporters feel that the move falls well within our policy on keeping a neutral point of view relating to religion; indeed the word mythology is mentioned there. However, a vast number of the opposition feel that this application of RNPOV is incorrect and doesn't skirt being inflammatory..

He appears to treat concensus as exactly a weighing up of numbers of votes: 'I'm not allowed to look at the discussion and say "Yep, they're right, that's what RNPOV says so that's what goes" because it the opinions of others in the discussion, not my own, that matter.. If he doesn't try to make objective judgements about the quality of arguments then all we are left with is a vote. This seems completely contrary to WP:CONCENSUS. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I came here to post essentially the same thing as IRWolfie. I don't think Keegan realizes that he pretty much just admitted that he treated this issue as a vote but he did. He might not have simply done a tally of the votes to make a decision but he made it clear that he considered arguments that were totally out of line with policy in order to make his decision and thus this became a popularity contest. Admins are supposed to enforce policy as written and not make decisions based upon what convinces them personally. So what if Keegan or any other single admin is convinced of a given proposition? Admins aren't asked to close because their opinion on the policy/subject matter is important, admins are supposed to be neutral parties that determine whether arguments are in line with policy or not, and then to enforce the policy that has been determined by community consensus. Keegan didn't do that here, he overstepped his bounds as an admin by using his position to make a close that contradicted not just a number of minor policies but a core pillar. Nformation 00:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Twisting words to fit a point. I can respect that.

My point was the shared opinion that RNPOV does not have to apply to the naming of this article, and suggestions that academically this is not settled as a myth by definition. Policies like this naming convention are not hard, fast rules that must be obeyed on every single article and, conveniently, they fit your opinion. Users in the discussion disagree with your application of policy on this page, and they have the right to battle you and not have a policy shoved down their thoat. It's not numbers at all. It's accepting that people disagree with you and have relevant context to disagree. If you read the discussion, you'll find that several users raised other policy points and reference to whether the term myth is common place among academics. I notice that most of these points were not argued with in the discussion. There was no consensus. If the three of you would like to continue on about the close feel free to do so, but I suggest a break from the conversation might be helpful. Consensus is broadly founded on respecting others' opinions before setting on argument, and I'm finding little of that good faith here. Keegan (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It was argued that academically this term is used non-contentiously by an absolute majority of the source and it was pointed out that those who refuse to use the term tend to come from an apologetic Christian POV. Most of those arguments didn't even start coming in until the issue was posted to WP:CHRISTIANITY. This again demonstrates that you don't understand this issue well enough to close the RM. Do you know this subject? Have you read the sources? I'll say it again: the independent sources refer to Genesis as a creation myth non-contentiously. It appears that the only academic environment in which is contentious to call a story about a talking snake a creation myth is Misplaced Pages because at a university it would not be a problematic statement. If you followed the arguments as well as you claimed you would have noticed that there was capitulation on the opposing side that creation myth was the correct academic term but that we shouldn't use it anyway. Right now we are not following independent academic sources, we are following Christian apologetic sources. Nformation 01:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is not numbers at all. then why do you refer to However, a vast number of the opposition .... This gives the very strong impression that the number of people swayed you. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• This precedent effectively means that the word "myth" can now no longer be used in Misplaced Pages (since assumedly all other religions will now also oppose to have their stories labeled with this word (and actually for the sake of NPOV they shouldn't be called myth if Christianity's myths aren't called that)) with no regard to the number of scholarly sources that use the word. Religious fanaticism won the day, and we moved one step closer to conservapedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nah. It would be sanctimonious of me. Edit as you please. Keegan (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I think that reads as sarcastic but it was humor. Admins should read discussions for closure, deletion debates, deletion requests, etc., case by case. It's the reason things like WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST are there. This isn't a precedent for future closings. Things here have gotten melodramatic in that regard. Keegan (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps we might do well to spend as much effort on the content of an article as we have spent on its title, let alone on a meta-discussion about the way of deciding on a title. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Precedent is a legal term and not applicable to dispute resolution process. Keegan's evaluation of consensus is not binding on other admins evaluating consensus in other instances. Nobody Ent 02:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know precedent is also not binding in the legal system, but it stands to reason that both people who will close RfC's and people who would start them would take into consideration previous outcomes of comparable high profile cases.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Binding? No. Is it possible that this decision will embolden other admins to eschew policy for editor opinion? Certainly. If he can get away with doing it then other admins can too. Nformation 02:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Precedent" is an English word, not simply used in the legal system: think of "an unprecedented event." In the US legal system, a precedent may not be, strictly speaking, "binding", but a judge who constantly ignored precedent wouldn't last long on the bench. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It also seems very odd that the admin refuses to give a full rationale: . IRWolfie- (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Especially when the closing admin made references to a discussion that did not take place in the RM ("but it is remiss to use terminology like narrative or myth, which is what the discussion pointed out.") and is contradicted by WP:NPOV. To my knowledge, no one other than the closing admin made a comment in the RM that neither narrative or myth should not be used, the discussion was rather which should be used. The closing admin was the only one to made these statements, and then closed it based on this statement. The closing admin made references to a discussion that did not occur, and stated that "to get 2/3 people to agree on anything is...about the threashhold for promotion on anything here." This was a discussion, not a popularity contest, and the admin's comments show a lack of understanding on this point. That the closing admin refuses to clarify this or discuss it further reinforces the fact that this admin should not have closed this RM. If an admin is going to close an RM, they should at least summarize the views expressed at least half-way correctly, make half an effort to provide a clarification when requested (especially in an RM as long as this one), and avoid giving any appearance of a "popularity contest" close. If those three things had occurred, I would have no issue here. The closing admin, however, failed to do these very simple things. - SudoGhost 19:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie-, you might not like his answer, but Keegan didn't "refuse to give a full rationale." You might not be satisfied with his rationale, but that does not mean he has to expound further until you're satisfied. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ban Aawjgnekr?

All right. I am posting here per an IP's suggestion over at ANI, since the ANI reporting attempt failed. Aawjgnekr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been causing serious disruption to the project and after his indefinite block in 2010 as a vandalism-only account, he has created 47 sock puppets to date. He continually uses these to constantly harass other users and makes contradictory edits to our policies and guidelines and the violations of harrassment and personal attacks are a disgrace. Not to mention that he has participated in a campaign to create hoax and attack articles, as well as mis-nominating articles for speedy deletion. The user's ongoing abuse will no longer be tolerated any further, and therefore I propose a full site ban on Aawjgnekr. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Aawjgnekr. Of course I would consider them de facto banned already, might as well formalize it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Might as well.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Please create talk page

Please create Talk:Lost Nigger Gold Mine with {{WikiProject Mining}} and {{WikiProject Texas}}. Article should be classified and sorted, but page creation is disabled for anyone but admins. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Done (but not without a shiver at the title....) Kim Dent-Brown 11:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• You and I both. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Call for wider review of SPI case -help needed

Hello everyone. I would like to call your attention to this SPI case. Amalthea (and myself, to a much lesser extent) have uncovered a large group of accounts that seem to be connected. To sum up: There are two or more people in the same range making the same kind of edits, thousands of edits spread over those accounts, meticulously using one IP per account and switching/faking UAs, IPs from a hosting provider - this takes effort and money. Would any legit user, whose only intention is to improve Misplaced Pages, do that? There have been over 10,000 edits made by this group of accounts, but I'm at a loss to explain any of the whys, whats, or wherefores. As Amalthea says in the case, AGF breaks down when confronted with an operation on this scale. Since the results were posted, all of the accounts have gone silent. There would seem to be a couple of options here: Organize a review of all contributions (in a WP:CCI-style kind of way) or if the situation is deemed innocent, close it with no action. Other options and discussion would be welcome. TNXMan 14:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I read something about an anonymous (group) attempt to infiltrate/control the project. Not through vandalism but through creating a large number of good hand accounts all under their control. Youreallycan 15:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Just find unbiased authors to write and edit and protect the NXIVM complex of articles they will do no harm. Chrisrus (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Unless they have a decent explanation - I would block them all for sockpuppetry and be done with it. Youreallycan 15:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    • A block by itself does not solve anything, they stopped editing. Are you saying that the edits made by them do not need to be checked? Amalthea 15:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I checked a few of the accounts and didn't find anything to revert - more appeared to me to be the creation of multiple good hand accounts. Youreallycan 16:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I am not convinced that "the NXIVM complex of articles" was really a target of any non-neutral editing. I'm not convinced of anything here. Amalthea 15:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Maybe that's because of the late date at which you got involved. Please check those users I listed for you earlier, U21980 and so on. You kind of came in in the middle of something that had been going on for some time. Look into it and you will see it clearly: this is NXIVM at work. The rest is red herring to throw you off the scent, mix a metaphor. For each username, I can find for you which edits were NXIVM-related. Chrisrus (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Then please do so, that would be very helpful. Thus far I can only speculate on motive, which makes attempting to clean this up (and even deciding whether it needs clean-up) very difficult. Amalthea 16:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
        • What you see above is them gearing up a little army of puppets that would look like real people. If you again would look at the list of previous encarnations that I showed you, you see a progression of increasing sophistication at doing this. The problem is, they were/are under the impression (JW didn't help) that "NPOV" applied to editors, not just edits, so they go to great lengths to hide their fan status and look like regular Wikipedians. First they put up user pages and tried to give each a personality, but they had to make it look as if they had real contribution histories and if to do that they needed automation. They aparently invented bots or some such that they thought would create an editor's history that would be belivable. These edits are mostly to orphan or near orphan articles and consist of mostly paragraph breaks and other 10 to twelve-bit "edits". I don't see why you feel they need clean-up. Except for Questionable Pulse, I can't see where any of these puppets was actually used to whitewash any article. Now this failed so they will have to think of another strategy. If you would just explain to them how they can maintain privacy yet still provide the "balance" they feel is needed on the articles they care about they wouldn't feel they have to create such elaborate ruses. Chrisrus (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
        • The only other NXIVM-related article that I can find that Questionable Pulse and U21980 edited is Emiliano Salinas, who, along with some other Mexican elite such as Ana Cristina Fox, are known Raneire fans and "Espians" as NXIVM people call themselves. Again, the idea was to make Salinas look good and to promote another group for which KR is the "conceptual founder", "IN LAK' ECH". So that's the only other article in the "NXIVM complex of articles" that they edited as far as I know. I don't know if you or anyone else would necessarily object to those edits, so if no one feels they did any damage there then the only thing I see as needing "clean up" are the articles NXIVM, Keith Raniere, and maybe NXIVM Corp. v. The Ross Institute (the decision means that we can tell our readers all about those internal NXIVM documents available at Ross's site even though we know about them from people who'd signed non-disclosure agreements), and there is some sign that recently some editors with some familiarity with the WP:RSes on the subject(s) are already restoring some balance there, but there's a long way to go and I again issue a plea for someone to get those article "right" as JW says. There is no reason I can see to suspect that all the kajillion other edits made by these usernames need reverting, as they seem to be either benign or meaningless, simply intended to give puppets a credible user history. You may have noticed something I haven't, but I see no reason to worry about that kind of edit they've made so many of. Chrisrus (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Did this group always register names or did they ever edit using IP addresses? I find it very odd that there are no IP addresses in these lists. Points to a very organized group - very worrying and I don't buy the "paranoid" explanation. --HighKing (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware of any anonymous editing (not saying it didn't happen, just that I don't know of any). They're using a hosting company's range to edit, so the IP info is limited. TNXMan 15:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Only very little anon editing on the range. Amalthea 15:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

they should all be blocked a constructive user wouldn't waste time or money. I appreciate it does not stop the wider problem as they have ceased editing but doing nothing as said at spi shouldn't be an option. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not to state the obvious but this is quite serious. I'd be inclined to a) block the range of the hosting company for 3 months and all the accounts indefinitely (a litte over reaction now is IMO preferable to inaction) - if there are any actual legitimate accounts they can/will appeal; b) put the NXIVM topic under probation (and maybe even protection for a week) and instigate the CCI style investigation--Cailil 20:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• It took me only a few minutes to discover that the editors in question obviously want to present a certain movement in a positive light. . Whether their gnomish edits elsewhere were in good faith or not is not particularly relevant. Given the impracticality of topic banning an IP range, I think a range block is the only option here. The SPA improvement efforts have been going back for years . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Off-wiki solicitation of vandalism

BBC presenter Jim Hawkins (radio presenter), who objects to Misplaced Pages having an article about him, is again calling for his Twitter followers to vandalise Misplaced Pages: http://twitter.com/jimallthetime/status/176677178199650304 Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Unfortunately he's just advocating general disruption without specifying a target. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that it might be worthwhile for the WMF to get in touch with his employers (BBC Radio Shropshire), to point out that having their presenters advocating vandalism isn't exactly good for their image. I think the BBC tends to take a dim view of such things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In my view, it is actually Pigsonthewing who is being disruptive. He has an apparent fixation, ongoing since 2009, with including Jim Hawkins' birthdate-with the only source being Twitter- against thnobjections of the subject (involving OTRS complaints) and against the consensus on BLPN and on the talkpage of the article. Every year Pigsonthewing, trawls Hawkins's Twitter account for more evidence of birthday congratulations and tries to include the date201020112012 He has been repeatedly told by other editors and administrators to drop it.

BLP policy is clear: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Hawkins has complained repeatedly - and while his calls for vandalism are foolish and he has not been particularly helpful in other ways - his reaction is pretty understandable at this point. Pigsonthewing needs to stop poking of the article subject, and I can pretty much guarantee so will the calls for vandalism will stop too. --Slp1 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

the subjects behaviour is not understandable to call for users to vandalise Misplaced Pages from an enployee of the BBC is totally wrong and the WMF should bring this up. . He is clearly notable. In regards to his age if that's his own twitter page then it clearly is his birthday however we do need better sources to allow inclusion. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, no, sourcing isn't the issue here at all. The subject himself has requested via OTRS that his date of birth be omitted form the article. That's the final arbiter of the matter, even if you go find a dozen iron-clad reliable sources that list his birth date. Apart from that, is there anything currently in the article that the subject objects to? Tarc (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Er no, the subject of a Misplaced Pages article does not have the final decision on what does and does not go into an article. The subject of an article can make the request; and that request should be taken into consideration. How notable is the person? Is the person a public figure or a lone individual who stumbled into notability? How relevant is the age? Does the person try to keep his/her age secret elsewhere? How relevant is keeping the age secret (some poeple have a professional reason to appear older/younger than they really are.) The request can then be considered, but it is not the final arbiter. (Lesser known individuals who are not public figures are more likely to be have such requests honored than major public figures.)---Balloonman 19:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Just reviewed the BLP policy, and birthday is one thing that can be requested removed regardless of notability.---Balloonman 19:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The part of BLP you cite is immediately preceded by "Misplaced Pages includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object.". As has been repeatedly demonstrated, Hawkins has widely published and publicised his own birth-date. However, that - and your false accusations (sources other than Twitter - inlcuding the BBC - have been given) - are irrelevant to the issue raised. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No- the BBC sources give only the year of birth, which is already in the article cited to these. Yhe only sources you have ever provided for the day and month, which you wish to include, are your deductions based on Twitterposts from him and others. But anyway this is moot per WP:DOB as repeatedly been explained. --Slp1 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering why people think this is about the birthdate. The birthdate has not been in the article since April 2010. GB fan 19:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Good question. Hawkins made the following comment on the talkpage just today "You are a sad, sad man, Mabbett. Do you really have nothing better to do than worry about my birthday?". AndyMabbettPigsonthewing then deleted it, as a personal attack.--Slp1 (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Without a specified target for the vandalism, there is nothing we can do about this except maybe urge more people to huggle or otherwise RCP. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

im very tempted as a member of the public who pays my bbc licence to wright to the NBC asking if the think his behaviour is appropriate to someone of his level of standing at the BBC. I doubt they will. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That twitter post is hardly a call for an army of destructive trolls, the BBC will probably ignore such a report. The guy dislikes having a wiukipedia Bio - he thinks its rubbish - he's a local radio host - low notability - get rid of it, give the guy a break, delete it. Hes a radio host in the afternoon on such a station - yes, everyone that needs to know that already knows it. The loss to the educational mission of the project through the deletiuon of this bio would be zero. Youreallycan 19:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's already survived AFD twice. I certainly wouldn't give the argument to "give him a break" any weight whatsoever. Others have commented, and I tend to agree, that this appears to be more about the fact that this is a heavily trafficked website and he is not allowed to control the entry on himself. No resource with any integrity lets article subjects write their own entries, and I'm sure there are many criminals and other folks who would rather not have an entry, we can't let them dictate such things. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It might actually be worth sending the article to Articles for Deletion again. The last AfD was in 2009, and the keep arguments presented were fairly weak. There was quite a few claims of significant coverage in reliable third party sources, yet no sources were presented in the discussion. He has received quite a bit of coverage in BBC, but he works for the organization, so it is a primary source. Currently, there is only two non-BBC reliable sources in the article, and additional sourcing outside of BBC is fairly scarce. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree and maybe it is worth seeing what an AFD would decide now, but I think the Sony Radio award might make it a Keep. --Slp1 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This is all neither here nor there for purposes of this noticeboard. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

backlog at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection

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

There is a backlog at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection if anyone cares to take that on. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This would appear to be a serious breach but I don't know how to proceed

Er, while clicking on the list of Category:People_educated_at_Haberdashers'_Aske's_Boys'_School I noticed that there was a userpage in the list,
User:Prosperoscell
how odd thought I? Click, click, a few checks, this appears to seriously contravene the WP:UP guidelines (even if the person is unaware of what they have done) per:

• "and encyclopedia articles should never link to any userspace pages."
• "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles,"

The article itself, sorry the userspace page, appears to violate wp:spip and so on, wasn't really sure where to go with this, help desk seems a bit weak as this seems to be OTT, couldn't decide if there was a CSD category to nominate it in, some Admin advice and action, please? CaptainScreebo 21:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's userpage promotion, quite a common problem. Secretlondon (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a serious problem, just a misunderstanding. We have categories for Wikipedians to use eg Category:Wikipedians by alma mater - I doubt it's obvious that this is a category intended for notable persons with articles. Just explain to him. Maybe he would like to create a userbox Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Education/United_Kingdom to credit his old school.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It is common to see user pages in encyclopedia categories. I just edit them to comment out the categories. I mark as a minor edit and an edit comment like Don't include user pages in encyclopedic categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As Mike Featherstone already has an article (written by others), I've suggested he move content into that.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

From the comments in the page someone is writing the text on his behalf which doesn't feel appropriate - clear COI. Secretlondon (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Also here.User:Souvikmukherjee99 The existing article might have partially been copy-pasted from here. A copy-vio? Mathsci (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the rapid reactions, I'll let you get on with it then ;-) CaptainScreebo 22:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Back again, did you take a look at Souvikmukherjee99 (talk · contribs) contributions? This is quite wierd as now the information appears once in mainspace and twice in userspace and the aforementioned user has only edited his userpage and the Featherstone article, okay not exactly the same article repeated three times, but the link to the Theory, Culture & Society journal appears three times, which happens to be a journal of which Mr Featherstone/Prosperocell is the editor-in-chief. The said article which is lacking in refs and (oh my brain boggles, too tired to check) perhaps notability. I will sleep on this and see what the outcome is on the morrow. Night. CaptainScreebo 22:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Gmbfj, User:Plusspacere, involved in edit war, probably sockpuppets

User:Gmbfj and User:Plusspacere I believe are sockpuppet accounts of one user who is involved in an edit war at Allies of World War II. I added material that demonstrates that China during the war was divided between the Nationalist Government of the Republic of China under Chiang Kai-Shek, and Communist-controlled areas of China under Mao Zedong, the Chinese Communist Party rejected the legitimacy of Chiang's Nationalist Party-led Republic of China. I even provided an image of the United States ambassador meeting with both Chiang and Mao, that I will show you here. I also added the flag used by the Communists in their controlled regions of China. User:Gmbfj removed the edits I made, including the image on the false accusation that what I added was "vandalism" and removed the picture containing both Chiang and Mao leaving a picture with only Chiang in it.. I said that the edit was not vandalism and posted material in the talk page to address the concerns, then a few days later another user, User:Plusspacere, removed exactly the same material, saying "Restoring vandalism" - I assume the user meant "removing vandalism" - as can be viewed here: . The two users removed exactly the same material, restored exactly the same material, and used exactly the same false claim that what I added was "vandalism", when really it appears that the user has a POV in favour of representing only Chiang Kai-shek and not Mao Zedong. The evidence above indicates abuse of multiple accounts through sockpuppetry.

What I added was not vandalism as accused by the user, and secondly the user is abusing user accounts through edit warring through sockpuppet accounts. I would like an investigation by administrators into abuse of multiple accounts through sockpuppetry involving the accounts of User:Gmbfj and User:Plusspacere and taking action to stop the edit-warring. Since this appears to be a case of abuse of multiple accounts combined with edit-warring, I suggest a topic ban on the article Allies of World War II for User:Gmbfj and User:Plusspacere.--R-41 (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• For content disputes, see WP:DR. For sockpuppet investigations see WP:SPI. Although I agree your edits were not vandalism, the rest of this is really not an issue for this noticeboard. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment: Adoption of new unblock appeals tool

Hello, all; an RFC has been opened at Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Adoption_of_new_unblock_appeals_tool to seek input regarding the implementation of the Unblock Ticket Request System as a replacement for the unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org mailing list. Comments from all users, especially those who have experience in reviewing blocks, would be greatly appreciated. Hersfold non-admin 21:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Kudpung will no longer be active!

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

This is stated clearly in his talk page that from January 25th, Kudpung will not be active in enwiki. He's leaving now? The story looks same like User:Nichalp! I'm confused as to what's happening here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipankan001 (talk • contribs)

He's taking a break. People do it all the time. He may be back, he may not, he put a lot of effort into it while he was here, so it's all good. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting Interaction ban between User:Eagles247 and User:Androzaniamy

Hi Folks. We currently have a situation bordering on harrassment by an administrator, Eagles247. Androzaniamy is a relatively new user, having signed up for Misplaced Pages on December 29, 2011. She has less than 900 edits to her name and I believe she is being harrassed by Eagles247. Don't get me wrong, Androzaniamy has made mistakes and is suffering from a mild WP:IDHT attitude, but I believe the Eagles's handling of the situation is both unfair and excessive. He has been asked to back off by both myself and another editor, but has refused.

Some diff's highlighting problems Eagles handling of the situation since he first commented on her talk page on 17 January (less than 2 months ago, when she had been editing for about 3 weeks).

• Eagles has left 4 warnings and reverted her edits wholesale a number of times.
• Taken the editor to ANI twice - 31 Jan & 3 Feb
• He has personally deleted (or nominated for deletion) every article she has created. Similarly for redirects. (plus variations)
• I would also say he has inappropriately used rollback against Androzaniamy, somthing I brought up with him.
• Androzaniamy has complained about undue scrutiny from Eagles247 in particular twice.

I'm not questioning the deletions, I'm questioning the undue attention Eagles247 is placing on this new user. My involvement comes from WP:ADOPT, as she was trying to adopt other users but it was removed by Eagles. I offered to adopt her, but due to the amount of attention on her page, I believe my comments got lost in the noise. Reading her talk page is very revealing. I formally request an interaction ban between Eagles247 and Androzaniamy for a period no less than 6 months, to allow this new editor to actually learn the ropes without undue pressure. Worm · (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Eagles has made some mistakes in dealing with this user, including two misplaced "edit test" templates. I will, however, say that Androzaniamy is literally and without a doubt the most rude and obnoxious user I have had the displeasure of encountering on WP. She has treated helpful editors like trash (including WormTT, and I commend him for his objectivity considering how he's been treated). I really don't blame Eagles at all, even though his warnings were misplaced, as most of the time I wanted to rant on her talk page as well. Most editors are more forgiving than I am when it comes to rudeness, so please take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I would block her until she agrees to start treating other editors with a greater deal of respect. Just going through her talk page makes my blood boil a bit. Nformation 10:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• In my view, the only thing that should be done here is a WP:CIR block on Androzaniamy. T. Canens (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  And in case it isn't obvious, I oppose the proposed interaction ban as unnecessary given my preferred solution. T. Canens (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

T. Canens, I don't doubt that that might be required in the future, but at the moment I believe that is excessive. I'm not keen on WP:CIR blocks - not least because CIR is an essay. I say this as someone who has applied one in the last week.

Noformation is absolutely correct about her attitude and communication. I should point out that I've also asked PamD to step back here, and explained to Androzaniamy that she needs to change.

None of this changes the fact that 4 editors (Androzaniamy, PamD, Nat Gertler and myself) have seperately pointed out Eagles247 has overstepped a line here. He's an excellent editor and I empathise with his point of view but now is a time that he needs to walk away, and since he refuses to do so (and I do not believe Androzaniamy has reached the indef block point) - an interaction ban seems like the right choice Worm · (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for a formal interaction ban whatsoever. Perhaps at this point, Eagles needs to step back and let others handle things - they might even be too WP:INVOLVED at this point. We have had other admins in the past who simply needed to have a couple of colleagues tell them (sometimes not so politely) to back off. I'm making NO comments on the other editor at this point, as my advice is being given regardless of that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If he is willing to step back, that would be a much better solution than anything formal. His last responses implied he would not though. Worm · (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had some interaction with Androzaniamy as well and have been quite frustrated by the way she interacts with others. Unlike Noformation, I decided to descend into that tempest hoping to nudge her along in the right way. I gave her the benefit of the doubt as she is still quite new, but her WP:IDHT attitude is quite an issue. I left one last post on her talk page, which was probably somewhat uncivil but gentle prodding can only do so much. I have since unwatched her page as her interactions with Worm and others has left me in the same state as Noformation. I think a full blown requirement that she accept adoption is needed at some point in the not too distant future. Might I also suggest that someone ask Dream Focus to stop inflaming the situation? Blackmane (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The question of what should be done about Androzaniamy is a separate issue. No matter if she's good, improvable, or someone who should be gotten rid of, whatever the goal, the methods that Eagles247 has used are not the way to go about it. Having failed to force her off of Misplaced Pages by the official means (although even then with some dubious methods, using the fact that her pages' nominations for deletions as a reason when it included his nomination that was already clearly failing), he has chosen to use very inappropriate means, haranguing her with charges regardless of their accuracy - such as tagging as a test edit an addition on-topic and referenced information (if slightly misformatted, but Eagles has been here long enough to know what a test edit is and isn't) - with the obvious hope that he can simply annoy her off of Misplaced Pages. This is not helpful to either of the two editors - Eagles seems to be a generally good editor who has allowed this one person to get under his skin to an unreasonable degree - and more importantly, it is bad for the community as a whole, as good editors (plus me!) have to waste their time dealing with Eagles's inappropriate conduct and as the use of harassment technique makes us all look worse. And even if we agree with Eagles's goals, it clearly has not worked, and allowing something that is both degrading to the community and ineffective to continue serves no benefit. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I would support dysopping of User:Eagles247 - his overall interactions seem un-befitting of the standards we expect from an administrator. - Youreallycan 15:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Desysop is not the subject of this thread, thus voting for it is pretty much a non-issue. You can recommend a desysop as part of the discussion, but supporting is supporting an interaction ban (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Desyop is always an option, and is no big deal, it should be looked at in that way more. Hey dude, your raising a few issues, take a back seat with the administration for a while and come back in twelve months with a reconfirmation RFA. The User seems unable to comment over his personal bias from an administrative position of neutrality, this is a general problem with humanity, but users wanting to obtain and hold a perceived position of authority here should have the ability to aim for the higher ground. - Youreallycan 15:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• You would need consensus and ArbCom enforcement to do such a thing or a voluntary recall. Besides, this is not the point of the discussion and therefore would say this !vote carries no weight.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,078,266) 22:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban - My comment carries weight , if you reject it - I will move to the support the interaction ban . because of the no thanks comment he made on the 6th to good advice from Nat Geler and the fact that he just still doesn't seem to be getting it, a month voluntary? and then what, a return to the same? Youreallycan 01:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Have you seen even a few of Androzaniamy's contributions/messages here? If not, her talk page might be your first stop. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_assistance/archive115#WILKEPEDIA_PAGE_being_Abused_by_Administrator._Keeps_deleting.21_PLEASE_HELP.21 documents a past action in which Eagles247 approach to resolving an issue seemed, in my opinion, to be overly agressive. The block mentioned at the end of the WQA thread was lifted a short time later another admin. Nobody Ent 15:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• It appears that what we have here is an editor with competence and auditory issues, and an admin who's gotten so frustrated at those facts that he's just continuing to beat his head against the wall rather than noticing that the bricks haven't even cracked. I don't think we need an interaction ban so much as we just need Eagles247 step back from the wall and realize that it's clear that Androzaniamy, rightly or wrongly, feels that he is attacking her, not trying to teach her. At that point where that happens, the intent of your actions ceases to matter, and it becomes, pragmatically, "this isn't working, even if it ought to, so why don't we try something else." So, Eagles, I would suggest you step away, take some painkillers for what's bound to be a humdinger of a wall-beating headache, and let other editors and admins handle the issue of Amy - there are plenty of eyes on her to handle any problems that arise. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• ^Word. I'm nodding vigorously in agreement to everything Fluffernutter's encapsulated above and the solutions proposed.Jezebel'sPonyo 16:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, so did I (not often I find myself physically nodding while reading) - however, this only works if Eagles is willing to take that step back, as I mention above. Worm · (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban per Worm/Fluffernutter; additionally hearing the same message from multiple editors often has a greater power/persuasiveness then hearing it just from one. (It makes it harder for the recipient to believe it's a single person who has it "out for them" that's causing issues). Oppose desysop; lacking a much more detailed documented pattern of missteps from Eagles247 we're not anywhere close to that. Nobody Ent 15:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Is a formal interaction ban really necessary here? How about just asking the two to completely avoid each other? Everytime one sees the other's name just step away calmly? I'm sure Eagles247 was completely AGF at first, and taking measures to this extreme doesn't help. They need reasoned discussion, not a pile of admins arguing about whether Eagles247 should be desysopped. So I oppose an interaction ban. Rcsprinter (state) 16:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Eagles247 has been asked repeatedly to step back, and has refused to. That technique has failed. (and this is not an issue of both directions - Androzaniamy has not posted to Eagles' talkpage in over a month, and has never to my knowledge followed him to the pages he edits). We should stop pounding our head in that direction. The solution is hardly an egregious one; it's not putting too much of a burden on Eagles - he'd be banned from interacting with one user that he has shown an unwillingness to interact with appropriately, surely a very minor cost for such inappropriate activity from an editor wh, with his experience and admin status, has both the knowledge and responsibility to do better. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban. Like Rcsprinter123, I would have preferred a voluntary avoidance, but this comment - which really took me by surprise - makes me feel as though Eagle just flat out refuses to heed the caution. However, I really don't think this will achieve Worm's goal of allowing the editor to "learn the ropes without pressure." If the purpose is to relieve Androzaniamy of pressure, this isn't going to do it. Wikipelli 17:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose any formal interaction ban. Eagles is one of the best young administrators the project has, and one of the most knowledgeable about project-wide policy who is also associated with WP:CFB and WP:NFL. The suggested desysopping is ridiculous; the suggested interaction ban is within the realm of discussion, but a far better solution would be for Eagles to simply agree to remove the subject editor's talk page from his watch list and agree to let one or more other admins monitor this very problematic editor. I have followed the user talk page discussions regarding this editor over the past month, and I have watched as Eagles' normally unflappable cool has gradually eroded. While I believe that Eagles has become involved, and needs to step back, I also believe that one or more other uninvolved admins need to step forward and bring some nee and objective eyes to this problem. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I will stay off Androzaniamy's talk page for a period of one month, so long as others are more aware of this user now. Some users here who have interacted with Androzaniamy have flat out taken her talk page off their watchlists due to the insurmountable frustration it causes them, which is really telling of this user's behavior. I will not be taking her off my watchlist, but before my piling on of warnings yesterday, I tried very hard not to comment there or take administrative action with any of her articles. I thank those who have defended my actions and see what I've had to deal with, and I'm ashamed this has gone to this extreme. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose interaction ban. I'm not going to make this long, but this user is going to be a frequent topic of discussion (that's the nicest way to put it). Sanctioning Eagle247 for "over scrutiny" is not going to solve the user's issue. They've declined adoption in favor of adopting another user themselves. I'd prefer to see this user adopted, but I think their threshold for civility would scare even our harshest civility enforcers and would give heart attacks to our frequent civility...pushers.--v/r - TP 20:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I don't really think that this is necessary. Also Eagles247 has promised to stay off their talk page and I trust this user's word.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,077,651) 22:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban. Not just for a month, but permanently. Dream Focus 00:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed mentorship or block for User:Androzaniamy

While there's some support up above for the idea of Eagles247 needing to back away from this issue, I also see a number of users noting that Androzaniamy (talk · contribs) is floundering around in a disruptive manner. The user has, as far as I can tell, refused offers of mentorship and adoption in favor of continuing to make her own way, which is becoming increasingly problematic. It's reached the point where I think the community needs to force this editor to make a decision: Due to her competence and assimilation issues, Androzaniamy must accept adoption by an experienced editor if she wishes to continue editing Misplaced Pages. If she refuses to do this, or fails to complete an adoption/mentorship program, she will be blocked until such time that she is able to demonstrate that she understands how to edit non-disruptively.

• Support as proposer. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support this proposal. I find this resolution quite necessary given the circumstances. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Better option than above.--v/r - TP 21:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment/Question Can someone speak briefly about precedence for this kind of action and successes? I've had a number of interactions with this editor and my opinion has always been that, if left on her own, there would be an evolutionary process whereby she'd either be blocked via reverts and warnings, or she'd 'get it' on her own and start to contribute in a more productive way... or, honestly, get tired of it and go do something else.... Is the adopter selected (like a public defender for the indigent in the states), do we look for someone to step up and volunteer? Just curious about the nuts and bolts... Wikipelli 22:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that there necessarily is precedent for something like this. I'm offering it now as pretty much the only other option I can think of to just blocking the user for disruption, because I think it's gotten to that point. Any mentor would have to volunteer themselves (Worm that Turned has previously, for example), I imagine, since we can't force an editor to mentor if they don't think they're suited for it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support It would seem that this is quite necessary as this user doesn't seem to know how things work around here.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,077,651) 22:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

She's passed the point of no return in my opinion, and taking up a hell of a lot of time of other editors. I know I'm supposed to AGF but right from one of her first edits, the message in this creation, I thought Trip Trap Trip Trap Trip Trap Trip Trap Trip Trap Trip Trap. Hard to tell. Fluffer, if a person is blocked how do they demonstrate they understand how to edit non-disruptively? Would you give her a holiday for a month (say) and tell her that if on her return she comes up with the same old disruption she is outta here indefinitely, no ifs, buts or maybes? That what you mean? Moriori (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This speaks directly to my thinking.. SHE'S not taking up time with other editors.... Other editors are taking up time with her. If those editors (disclaimer: I'm one of them) stop with the back-and-forth, wouldn't WP's processes just run their course? Revert when necessesary, warn when appropriate, block if need be... and life goes on.. Wikipelli 23:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And on, and on, and on and...... The problem won't go away unless it's fixed. BTW, I have notified User:Androzaniamy of this new proposal regarding her. Moriori (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Oops

• Oppose. Just block Androzaniamy already and be done with her, we have wasted enough time. Salvio 22:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

as I mention earlier, I don't think she is at blocking point yet, though she is heading that way. I'd suggest we give it a month, which I thank Eagles for agreeing to. If she has not made noticeable progress by that point, I'll block her myself. That does not preclude her from being block by natural means or taking up mentorship to ensure she makes progress. Worm · (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am uncertain as to what side I take in this, but it should be noted that she has improved during her time here. She's now doing sourced edits that are reasonably relevant to the material. She has stopped spending her time giving herself barnstars. Some of the objections to her have been overstated, but I would say that we are still at the point where the amount of productive time she costs from other editors more than makes up from what we've gained from her contributions; I'm just uncertain how far we are along the line of getting her to be more of a gain than a drain. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• This edit needs to be reviewed by someone other than me. Last mention from me of any of her edits for a month. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I've undone the edit - for one thing, the edit Androzaniamy made there misses the point of that section. For another, it's somewhat ironic, very concerning, and highly inappropriate that they'd made that edit to the WP:IDHT section while a block ANI discussion is underway at ANI. Hersfold 00:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Pretty provocative edit, yes, but not inappropriate in the sense you give because she made it before she was advised of this proposal. Moriori (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Further irony is that all she has been getting is gentle nudges and prods. No one has given her the mighty stick... at least not yet. Blackmane (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

True, it was made prior to the block discussion, but it was made after the interaction ban discussion had started. Hersfold 03:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Edit: Just re-read what I wrote and realize the issue now. Sorry, I've corrected the line above.

• Oppose All problems are from people being overly aggressive towards her and just blowing things out of propulsion. Dream Focus 00:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Really? All problems are on the mass alone and the center of this problem holds zero responsibility? Feel free to volunteer to mentor her.--v/r - TP 01:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support the proposal. It's way past time. Wikipelli 03:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Salvio. I think mentorship will be a complete waste of time, and we are bending way over backwards to accommodate a user whose very limited positive contribution to encyclopedia building is accompanied by absolutely ridiculous amounts of disruption. T. Canens (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed indef block for User:Androzaniamy

We have wasted way too much time on this disruptive user, who simply is not getting it. I believe that mentorship will be a complete waste of precious volunteer time, time that could be used to engage in far more productive activity than trying to rehabilitate a disruptive user with minimal contributions to encyclopedia building. Why we are spending so much time trying to retain a user whose negatives far outweigh the positives, when established editors with a long history of positive contributions continue to burn out and leave the project, is entirely beyond me. Androzaniamy should be blocked until such time that she is able to demonstrate that she understands how to edit non-disruptively.

• Support, as proposer. T. Canens (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as silly. How could she possibly demonstrate she understands how to edit if she can't edit? Nobody Ent 03:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Back off the Hammer

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is well-known for his huge count of edits. Most of these are deletions: either blocks of content, or articles. The article deletions are getting out of hand and are based on an increasingly dubious interpretation of policy.

This post is as a result of this WP:CSD#G1 List of most highly populated countries, a 30k article with > 60 references. I make no comment on the quality, suitability or future deletion of this article - which is now at AfD. In fact, I've past history with the article's creator (this is how I saw the speedy notice) and I've called for many of their additions to be deleted on quality grounds myself.

What is clear though is that articles of this size, on ostensibly appropriate topics, are not suitable for speedy deletion. They're just too complicated to judge so expeditiously. In this case, it's not only a speedy but a G1 as "patent nonsense". To quote the last summary point of that rationale, "In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply." There is no way that G1 can be applied to this article, even if we choose to delete it very soon. Nor is this a new editor who might not understand such things.

This editor calls to delete what looks like an article a day. We have no limits on such, there is no good reason to have one - a valid deletion is a valid deletion. Yet looking at this vast list (which I admit, isn't easy) they're an unedifying stream of dubious judgement.

WP:Articles for deletion/Wizard (band) (German heavy metal) seems to have been based on searching Gnews (relevance?) by one very common word and not finding the wheat for the chaff, thus claiming that no sources exist. It took me two minutes, and using a band member's name, to find sources. Perhaps WP:BEFORE was indeed followed, but in that case the Hammer's google-fu is clearly weak. There's also a mis-use of WP:BAND#1 to claim that interviews (any and all of them) are not sources, despite what WP:BAND#cite_note-selfpromo-0 actually states. We also see claims like, "If the band's article is deleted, the albums can be speedied via A9." I would remind the editor that the function of an encyclopedia is not to act as a score-keeping mechanism for how many articles an editor can manage to have deleted.

WP:Articles for deletion/Xargs seems to be a clear case of "If I don't understand the topic, it's not notable". Nor is "xargs" a terribly difficult word to search for.

WP:Articles for deletion/List of April Fool's Day jokes (2nd nomination) was one I expected to be a clear deletion as listcruft. Yet it's not - it's quite reasonably sourced (for most items at least) and even if we pruned heavily, there is obviously a list there of large-scale incidents with clear secondary coverage.

Does it matter? After all, the barrage of keeps for April Fool's Day shows the robustness of WP in action. Yes, it does matter - because for everything that happens openly at AfD, there are others like WP:Articles for deletion/Stained glass windows of St Pauls, Clifton that happen "under the hood" and invisibly. In this case, a speedy deletion was applied to an article already at AfD just hours after that AfD and with no time for any secondary discussion. Should that article have been kept? I would argue that its deletion was primarily WP:BITEy, where a new editor has created St Pauls, Clifton, Bristol (itself targeted for deletion) and because they created what should have been sections of an article as separate articles, these were deleted (and deleted rather than the rather more obvious merge). WMF tell us regularly that new editors should be encouraged, and this sort of response does nothing to encourage that. Incidentally, there are few Victorian churches in affluent areas that aren't notable, just on their architectural merits and the coverage that inevitably generates.

I'm bringing this to AN because RFC/U is both complex and toothless, but also because of the volumes involved. I consider that TenPoundHammer is acting outside of generally supportable behaviour, either through policy or consensus, and that because of the volume involved this requires a substantial and speedy response. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, this doesn't require "a speedy response." If it did, ANI would be the more appropriate venue anyway. TPH is one of our more prolific deletionists, but so far that hasn't been a bad thing. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• WP:TL;DR 76.118.180.210 (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Once again, AN is not a place for dispute resolution. I'm sorry you have no faith in our established systems such as RFCU, (despite your claims some real changes have come out of some of those discussions) but that doesn't mean you get to use this board for whatever purpose you want it to serve. This is obviously not an issue "affecting administrators generally " and should not be here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this is a good point, RFC/U has in my experience produced useful results and is clearly the most appropriate venue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• What they said. I won't disagree that I did make a couple mistakes here, but filibustering at ANI won't get you anywhere. There's nothing an admin here can do. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the Stained glass windows of St Pauls, Clifton article, Jimfbleak does quite a few out of policy speedy deletes. I have merged content to St Pauls, Clifton, Bristol. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case, then perhaps he needs to comment here. Admins are supposed to be the line of defense against improper deletions. I have notified him. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U is that way. Seriously. If it is that much of a problem getting a RfC/U certified. Even if TPH doesn't respond that's just fine, because the more advanced (and binding) forms of Dispute resolution really expect that a RfC/U has already commenced and the conduct has not improved since that point. Hasteur (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes a discussion here or at AN/I is a good substitute. The relevant policy is NOT BURO. In this particular matter, a number of TPM's more questionable speedies have been deleted by Jimfbleak, so perhaps this would be a good place to discuss it . not as a dispute, but a problem. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog