Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:07, 11 June 2013 editDominus Vobisdu (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users8,436 edits →E-Cat topic ban ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:08, 11 June 2013 edit undoOmen1229 (talk \| contribs)947 edits →Norden1990 Harassment: new sectionNext edit →
Line 143:		Line 143:

	*'''Oppose''' lifting topic ban. Editor is clearly here solely for the purpose of promoting a fringe idea and product, and has not shown the slightest whiff of a hint of a trace of intent to edit constructively and collaboratively. Has wasted lots of editor time already. Enough is enough. ] (]) 20:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)		*'''Oppose''' lifting topic ban. Editor is clearly here solely for the purpose of promoting a fringe idea and product, and has not shown the slightest whiff of a hint of a trace of intent to edit constructively and collaboratively. Has wasted lots of editor time already. Enough is enough. ] (]) 20:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

			== Norden1990 Harassment ==

			I feel threatened and intimidated, ] behavior make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for me. This user also wrote some dubious nationalistic nonsense on my Talk page, Norden1990 has done a lot personal attacks against me (''frustrated, chauvinist etc.'') and a constructive discussion is really very difficult with this user. I wrote recently also ANI about his harmful speech, but now he is trying to discourage me from editing entirely. His last work in the 8th June 13:17 - 17:42 was the deletion step by step of my contributions. So let's analyze his undo-edits:
			*Rajka > ] wrote: ''they are Slovak citizens and not the Slovak ethnic minority in Hungary (so they are not Hungarian citizens)'' His statement is like from the end of 19th century or communism. Norden1990 is trying to make second-class citizens or some refugees. ] policies aim to ensure the free movement of people + we have Schengen Area. Slovaks do not need Hungarian id cards or passports. Only nationalists from ] have problems with Slovaks in Rajka. I used 2 sources where is clearly written - Slovaks and the term "Slovak citizens" has a logical error too > Hungarian citizens where 19.4% are Slovaks + "Slovak citizens" where 50% are inhabitants of Rajka, so total Slovak population is ??%. Ridiculously. '''They live and pay bills there, they are owner of homes and estates.''' Yes, they are all Slovaks in Hungary. On the WP is not the place for first-class citizens and second-class citizens or for discrimination.
			*Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1538) > this is clear bad faith, I reverted questionable "newbie" IP editor - 178.164.179.152 back to stable version. ] did not use citation needed template, but he deleted very well known fact which has thousands of sources.
			*Adam František Kollár > I edited dubious edit of questionable "newbie" IP editor - 178.164.161.19 and then ] reverted my contrib back to IP 178.164.161.19 version. User Norden1990 used anachronistic dubious POV names. I used according to NPOV in good faith accurate historical names in the multilingual and multiethnic country. My version: ''Kollár's parents moved to ] (Neosolium) where he attended a ] middle school. He later used the town's Latin name (''Neosolium'') as an appendix to his own name in some of his Latin publications − ''Pannonius Neosoliensis'' ("]n of Banská Bystrica").'' Norden1990's version: ''Kollár's parents moved to ] (Besztercebánya) where he attended a ] middle school. He later used the town's Latin name (''Neosolium'') as an appendix to his own name in some of his Latin publications − ''Pannonius Neosoliensis'' ("]n of Besztercebánya").'' My version has logical etymological content and name "Besztercebánya" was valid and used only in 1863 – 1913 in the period of ]. And another Norden1990's names: Selmecbánya 1863 - 1873, Nagyszombat 1863 – 1913, Liptószentmiklós 1863 – 1913.
			*University of Trnava > ] wrote: ''English name is enough in this article'' - He added only anachronistic names for Trnava, other terms this user deleted. '''NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages.''' All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. According to NPOV in good faith I added latin name for Archbishop of Esztergom and Pázmány, because Latin was official language. I added Pázmány's Slovak name because the article is about University of Trnava in the Slovakia. I also added neutral correct historical names for Slovak city Trnava. ] recently wrote that ''"The mention of other name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid."'' in the article Giglovce (with typical editing habits against my contribs), where 0,00% Magyars live, Norden1990's added name is totally unknown, unimportant, it was used in the period of Magyarization + there are also other names, but he added only this one. And this is aftermath. Indeed quality of the article first.--] (]) 20:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:08, 11 June 2013

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

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)

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources, Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction. "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Assume no clue.

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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.

Shortcuts

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.

Technical instructions for closers

Technical instructions for closers
Please append `{{Doing}}` to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with `{{Close}}` or `{{Done}}` and an optional note, and consider sending a `{{Ping}}` to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with `{{Not done}}`. After addressing a request, please mark the `{{Initiated}}` template with `\|done=yes`. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with `{{Already done}}`, `{{Close}}`, `{{Done}}` `{{Not done}}`, and `{{Resolved}}`.

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 14 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for closure review

(Initiated 11 days ago on 16 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 80 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 71 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)

~~{{doing}}~~ voorts (talk/contributions) 23:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Oops; I put this in the wrong section. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 60 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 47 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 44 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)

Closed. Soni (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 44 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: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 42 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_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 41 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Closed – 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 37 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 34 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)

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

(Initiated 18 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)

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	24	24
TfD	0	2	2
MfD	0	1	1
FfD	1	4	5
RfD	4	56	60
AfD	0	0	0

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#List of Chalcolithic cultures of China

(Initiated 58 days ago on 30 October 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Done —Compassionate727 15:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 17#List of Neverwinter Nights characters

(Initiated 58 days ago on 30 October 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Lu Tianna

(Initiated 55 days ago on 2 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Done —Compassionate727 16:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Shen an calhar

(Initiated 55 days ago on 2 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Done —Compassionate727 16:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21#unmentioned suikoden characters (episode 1: a-h)

(Initiated 43 days ago on 14 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Done —Compassionate727 16:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21#Clock/calendar

(Initiated 43 days ago on 14 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Done —Compassionate727 16:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 14#File:The badge of the Military Order of the Serpent.png

(Initiated 38 days ago on 19 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Done —Compassionate727 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 November 27#File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg

(Initiated 30 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 2#File:Batman superman.PNG

(Initiated 24 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT

(Initiated 22 days ago on 5 December 2024) If there is consensus to do one of the history splitting operations but the closer needs help implementing it I would be willing to oblige. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 9#File:Golden Lion size.jpg

(Initiated 18 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 9#File:Ang Panday 1986 animated series.jpg

(Initiated 18 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Done —Compassionate727 17:11, 27 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 93 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 72 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 70 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:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 59 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 52 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Move_review/Log/2024 November#Carousel (film)

(Initiated 49 days ago on 8 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Done —Compassionate727 19:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 30 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 30 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)

Done BusterD (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 2#Rafael de Orleans e Bragança

(Initiated 25 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Using Help me, blocked users and proxy editing

I have removed Apteva's talkpage access. Whilst no-one is ever going to bat an eyelid if a blocked editor posts a "helpme" template pointing out a BLP violation or other egregious problem, that is clearly not what is happening here. Asking editors to post comments to ongoing debates? No. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

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

A keen editor is blocked for a month. They make unblock requests, rejected twice. They also continue to use their talk (about 40 edits in two weeks) to solicit other editors to make edits at their suggestion. These edits are numerous and wide-ranging, it's not just "tidying up an old issue", "avoiding going rudely silent in mid discussion" or somesuch. They have now taken to using the {{help me}} template to actively solicit other editors to do their bidding.

Is this reasonable behaviour for an editor sitting out a month's block?

No names (I'll post that tonight) as the editor concerned is well-known and their name itself could polarise opinions. An objective comment on this behaviour would be useful first. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As I suggested to someone else recently, this kind of discussion should be held to relate to the talkpage and blocking policies (✉→BWilkins ←✎) 09:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this no names thing because you can't be bothered to notify them? Lazy bugger.

Anyway, I do seem to remember when I was up to those sorts of antics I got about as far as the fourth template if I was lucky before the talk page was salted. I recommend blocking their talk page access immediately.--Laun chba ller 10:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am also unsettled by the use of talk page stalkers (and others via use of a template once stalkers dry up) to de facto circumvent a block. It's time for this to stop, enforcement by removal of talk page access if necessary. Blocked means blocked. Basalisk ⁄_berate 10:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've not notified them because I don't want overspill from there arriving here to bias comment on this general principle. Also I "haven't mentioned them at WP:AN" yet. I haven't commented on their talk: (their last comment there was a doozy of self-deluding cluelessness), so that it's not obvious from my own history to whom I refer. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain how requesting productive edits is bad for the encyclopedia? Last time I checked, you're trying to put in place a rule that's designed to prevent us from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages; such a rule has always been against policy. Of course, if the edits they're requesting are not productive, that's a completely different situation, but your description makes it sound as if you wouldn't object to the editor making these changes before the time when the block was imposed. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I would note that we are incredibly uneven in enforcing the limitation on proxy editing. I'm happy to enforce whatever the community thinks is proper in regards to proxy editing, but policy seems vague and each case seems to be handled ad hoc. This is less than fair and less than optimal. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If they're a "productive editor", then why did they get blocked in the first place? We also have a policy against sockpuppeting, I wouldn't like to see that suspended because "it was only being used for productive edits" either. Editors with 1 month blocks are a mixed lot: not 24 hrs, nor indef as incorrigible. Clearly a 1 month means that they have some positive contribution, yet also some serious incompatibility with activity here. I've made proxy edits for other editors myself - even long-banned sockers, where I've (per policy) seen this as an objectively good edit I'm happy to put my own name to. Yet this situation is instead turning into far too much of a route for continuing to edit in new areas, even during a block. As already noted, it's the person that's blocked, not the account. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I know who you are referring too and I'm also not entirely happy with this. Blocked should mean blocked, not blocked from doing your own edits but you can ask someone else to do them. That said, at least this arrangement avoids the problems that led to the block in the first place. Spartaz 13:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The logic of that approach completely escapes me, assuming of course that our purpose here is to create an encyclopedia. Eric Corbett 13:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Our purpose isn't though to create an encyclopedia single-handed. We also have to co-exist with other editors. Some editors are incapable of this and their own contributions become dwarfed by the disruption they cause to other, equally productive and equally valued, editors – hence the block. Production should be respected (I don't believe it is adequately), but it shouldn't become a get-out-of-jail-free card. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Forcing a problematic editor to make a request for every edit is not a get-out-of-jail-free card; it's quite the hassle for the editor involved. Just remember that people get blocked for reasons unrelated to their content changes; they can be productive content editors and yet cause interpersonal problems bad enough to be blocked. This is a good way of ensuring that all edits are productive, because edits that aren't helpful are a good reason to shut down talk page access immediately. If we start following Spartaz' ideas, we're putting bureaucracy ahead of creating an encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
What idea is that? I thought my comment indicated a certain lack of clarity around my thinking. I have taken no steps to prevent Apteva from posting their edit requests. Andy asked for thoughts about whether this is legit. I think I'm allowed to express a qualified opinion without becoming the focus of today's 2 minute hate. Clearly nuance is dead. Spartaz 19:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Responding to "Blocked should mean blocked, not blocked from doing your own edits but you can ask someone else to do them." Nyttend (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Apteva (talk · contribs), notified. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
It's proxying, plain and simple. Remove Apteva's talk page access, and warn any editor that proxied for him that they will be blocked if they proxy again.—Kww(talk) 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What part of WP:Block#Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors " unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. " will they be blocked under?

If this was such a clear-cut issue, it wouldn't have been raised at WP:AN, but at WP:ANI requesting immediate withdrawal of talk page access. This is a grey area – there is no policy against GF editors following such a request (see my last comment there!), but is the requester abusing their leeway? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"and they have independent reasons for making such edits" is the relevant clause. Would any of the editors responding have edited the article without the prompting from the blocked user?—Kww(talk) 19:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Prompting and reason are not the same thing. If an editor is made aware of a useful potential edit at a blocked user's deliberate prompting, then they may then have reason to wish to make just that edit – even though they would never have had such reason without the blocked editor's prompt. This can be an entirely GF action and there is no reason to avoid them acting upon it, certainly not to block them, or even to threaten to block them, for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A distinction without a difference. Under your interpretation, the "independendent reason" clause would have no impact at all.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You are anyway far too ready to threaten blocking of other editors. I recall you threatening to block me for adding sources to a contested article, because you claimed that a contested statement now had to meet your personal OR definition, and that you would block editors who added anything that didn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Asking for a source that supports the characterization of the content as "unusual" for a list with the word "unusual" in the title is not the result of any idiosyncratic definition of WP:OR.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You might like to consider the concept of synonyms, rather than demanding a text string match. Even Google is smarter than that. We work by consensus, if a source is raised it's entirely reasonable to debate it on the article talk and either accept or reject it, with discussion, with understanding. Instead you prefer admins as omnipotent arbiters, with the power of blocks to back up questions of content. That is not how we work here.

In today's case, you're re-writing a policy that states quite specifically that editors can make proxy edits (in some reasonable circumstances), and you're threatening to block them on sight. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You might like to read what I actually said, Andy. Notice that I didn't use a synonym of synonym, I actually said "synonym".—Kww(talk) 22:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoosh. That one went clear over your head. 8-( Why do you think I not only quoted synonym, I even linked it? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"You are anyway far too ready to threaten blocking of other editors." He is indeed. Eric Corbett 21:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Apteva's response

There is likely nothing that I could add that any other intelligent editor could not add. Blocks are never punitive, and solely preventative. My block is inappropriate because it is solely punitive and is not one iota preventative. Contributions are welcome from everyone, regardless of their status, and however they are received. This includes from a sockmaster that has been blocked a thousand times as well as from someone who never registers an account. We learn about some edits that need to be made from reading about them in the Daily Post, and some from someone making the edit. All that matters is that this is a world class encyclopedia, and we accomplish that through the five pillars, which is why the welcome notice with a link to them is displayed always on my talk page. There is much that I would be able to contribute but that I can not both because of being blocked but also because of being under silly sanctions which will be appealed soon. Apteva (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A couple things:

If you believe your block is entirely inappropriate and punitive then you should post an unblock request or email WP:BASC.
You are flat out wrong about edits from sockmasters being welcome. Some people are not in fact welcome to edit here at all, even by proxy.
You may think the sanctions you are subject to are silly, but the community imposed them on you, as I recall, after becoming completely exasperated by your behavior. If you expect an appeal to be successful you might want to try owning your own mistakes instead of blaming others.

Good luck with all that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(posted before the comment above)

Remind me to notify Arb that some of our admins are unaware of our purpose here. What "and they have independent reasons for making such edits" means, plain and simple, is if a blocked editor sees that Misplaced Pages misspells the word "book" somewhere, say, as "bork", a quick consultation of a dictionary reveals that the word is misspelled. That is what independent reason means, not that you have to independently ''discover'' the error. No further action is needed, and the thread can be closed. Apteva (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Geez, can we cut off the source of all the damn drama, take away Apteva's talk page access, which he has been blatantly abusing, close this discussion, and forget about this guy for a while? If he wants to be unblocked, he can take it to BASC, but there's no reason we have to keep putting up with his disruptiveness. He's managed to be tendentious even while blocked!! Someone shut the freaking door, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Amen to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Template:WikiProject United States needs updates done

Request responded to by Orlady. Shutting this down before the heat goes up. Blackmane (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

There is a massive list of updates that need to be implemented for Template:WikiProject United States. All the changes are done in the templates sandbox, they just need to be implemented. These changes have been building for a month and I have twice removed an edit protected request template from this template after it went unanswered for a week. There are quite a few more edits that need to be done to this template still. Its bullshit that I have to even ask for these to be implemented. I should be able to do it myself and get credit for the work I perform. If some admin can find the 11 seconds time it takes in their busy lives to implement these changes it would be greatly appreciated by an editor who is wondering more and more why I even bother editing anymore. Its so hard just to contribute I really don't know what the hell I'm still doing here since its clear my time isn't appreciated. Kumioko (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are not getting a response from the {{Edit protected}} template, the simple solution is to flag down any admin on his or her talk page and ask for the edit to be performed. Orlady (talk · contribs) has implemented the changes you requested. --auburnpilot talk 04:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, I didn't see the request on this page before making the edit. I saw your template-talk-page request while scrolling through a couple of days' worth of watchlist activity. As I noted on the talk page, the complicated way that you presented the request was a deterrent to making the edit. The edit itself was simple, but it took me a lot more than 11 seconds to figure out what you wanted to have done (and verify that I was interpreting the request correctly). In the future, I suggest that you package your request as a simple statement of what you need an admin to do (and please omit the editorial comments about "bullshit", etc.). That's likely to get much faster action. --Orlady (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change but the easy and best way would be if I could make the edit myself. Someone with 400, 000 edits and over 6 years on the site shouldn't have to ask for someone else to implement their work. The reason I phrased it the way I did was so the admin would be able to verify the changes were correct and that is how it has been asked to be done in the past. Ironically, it took over 30 days for the changes to get done, less than 3 hours after the bullshit comment so it would seem that comment actually helped. I shouldn't even do the change at all, I should leave it to the admins to do the work rather than take the credit but it won't get done at all if I do that. So you'll excuse me if I have a bad attitude that I am required to do the work that admins refuse to do or don't have the technical ability to do, while the admins take the credit for that work and then am told I can't be trusted because I don't do any admin related work, because I never get credit for the admin work I do. Its extremely frustrating, insulting and stupid. Kumioko (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm Kumioko, if you want people to react positively to you, you might want to consider being a paragon of good behavior regardless of any past history. Hasteur (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

UAA Overflow

WP:UAA has many bot reported and user reported issues that need resolving one way or annother. If a Admin could see their way into mopping the reports up, that'd be great. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Move review

I noticed today that Misplaced Pages:Move review has very few watchers. Could we get a few more people be it admins or not watching this page. I dont care if anyone joins the current debate(s) - just thinking that a page like this could (should) get some more editors looking over it. Misplaced Pages:Move review - watchers 55 - 6 are new. I have been here many many years and had never seen the page before - I believe this may be the same reality for many people.Moxy (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I am now watching the page. Might I suggest that you contact the editor of the Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost and ask if they are interested in featuring the move review process? That is just the sort of thing they like to cover. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Need advice/help dealing with an IP

184.20.209.241 (talk · contribs) has been bugging me and several other editors regarding the My Little Pony tv + comic series, specifically begging "these must be for children, so they can't be dark stories", or "if this is going to be dark, they can't be for kids, and should be marked as adult stories." I don't know whether the user is trolling , a poor English speaker, a child, or the like, but this is all the user has done and is starting to get to a point of bothersome. I do note that this user has apparently been aggravating people on an MLP wikia and is trying to bring that "fight" here. His actions certainly aren't disruptive, but they are annoying.

I don't know what action can be taken here, since by good faith I would think the user is just confused, but this has been going on far too long. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like normal trolling to me. My Little Pony is a common target for trolls as its fans tend to be young and easily riled. If they seriously have issues with the show's plot (or whatever) they'd stop watching or write in to the people who actually make the show, not bug random wiki editors. I see they had a final warning already last month so if they're still at it it's block time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

With a splash of AGF, I'd expect that the IP is someone very young who is mixing up Wiki for WikiA. On a lot of Wikias forum like discussions are pretty common and generally allowed. Blackmane (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Kafziel has blocked the IP. Blackmane (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Not possible. One of their edit summaries specifically references some kind of feud with another editor on MLP Wikia (who is, in their words, "crazy and dumb"). It's pretty clear that they're trolling the MLP Wikia too, presumably with the same or similar material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a strong belief that the editor is trolling. As I commented on their page, their claims seem to be inconsistent and they keep going back and forth. Furthermore, at one stage they kept adding nonsense to the article claiming the comic series featured extreme violence, gore, sex etc. Perhaps they could have really been so confused once, but after it was pointed out to them it did not have this, they appeared to briefly accepted this before adding the claim again. Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

E-Cat topic ban

I wish to appeal the topic ban shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Parallel#Topic_ban_from_cold_fusion_and_low-energy_nuclear_reactions

What I object to is Andrea Rossi being declared guilty before being found innocent. I have no interest in advocating Leonardo Corporation products. I will be eighty later this year so even if the E-Cat works it is unlikely to do me much good. I objected to the editors refusing to correct referenced errors and the piece as it stands has factual errors as well as those of Misplaced Pages’s policy of neutrality. Any normal person reading the piece would conclude that the E-Cat doesn’t work and Rossi is a criminal pursuing fraud. This is unfortunate as I read up to 7000 people seek guidance from Misplaced Pages on this topic per day.

It has been suggested I don’t understand what argumentum ad hominem means. I do. AndyTheGrump denies it, but he still has not answered the various points I brought up, in particular the referenced errors about Rossi still believing nickel and hydrogen combined to form copper(1), the cherry picked quotation from the stale dated PopSci article, written before the third party tests, and possibly libelous defamation of his character, suggesting he is a criminal and a conman. Instead he goes after the messenger saying that I am clueless, a sock puppet, have threatened others (which I haven’t), that I should “go away and learn about how science works,” asking I have some connection to Rossi or the testers (I don’t) and accusing me of using the talk page as a soapbox.

My major complaint is that the article is not neutral. Give mainstream views prominence, but at least give something from the other side. Don’t cherry pick the most negative bits from the articles quoted as was done for Featherstone’s piece, giving an erroneous view.(2) This is not even the current article from PopSci that is much more favorable.(3) AndyTheGrump gives much weight to LENR being fringe science, but I believe it to be emerging from this category when Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at the NASA Langley Research Center says LENR is proven beyond reasonable doubt, as does Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson and others.

There have been two independent tests of the E-Cat funded by the reputable Swedish Elforsk R&D organization equivalent to our EPRI(4,5,6) It might have been better to call them engineering tests in order to avoid the misunderstanding by some editors, who felt it should have been a scientific test to determine the physics of the reaction. The test was never designed to do that and was conducted properly as an engineering test, as I know from firsthand experience with scanning IR instruments. These tests showed the E-Cat worked with a high degree of confidence. Secondary reports by Engineering News(7) Forbes(8) A further continuous six month test to start this Summer has been funded by Elforsk.

AndyTheGrump made much of me posting a long excerpt from Engineering News. To start with, I have permission from Kenneth Creamer, CEO of Engineering News to do this and secondly, like the piece I wrote myself, these were trial balloons floated in an effort to reach a compromise through discussion. I had no intention of showing Leonardo Corp’s address in the final piece, this was an attempt to show the E-Cat was real and not “fringe science.” You may indeed order a 1 MW plant from there with four months delivery and currently they are offering a 1 MW plant free to a user in Europe on the understanding it will be open to the public.

There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers at LENR-CANR.org. I find it likely that the group-think conclusion here that it is impossible to overcome the Coulomb barrier will prevail over the experimental evidence, but of course it shouldn’t. I am more interested in getting the article corrected than being an editor.

References. 1. Rossi’s blog http://www.rossilivecat.com/all.html 2. Old Popular Science article http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box?single-page-view=true Used in Wiki, written before the 3rd party test. 3. Current PopSci article http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says 4. Elforsk Primary source http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://www.elforsk.se/&prev=/search?q=Elforsk 5. Test Report by Dr. Levi http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf 6. Test report by Penon pdf file. http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf 7. Engineering News http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/interest-in-lenr-device-resurges-as-independent-report-is-released-2013-06-07 Secondary source 8. Andy Gibbs Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/30/rossis-a-fraud-no-hes-not-yes-he-is-no-he-isnt/ Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I oppose any modification of the topic ban. It seems clear to me that Parallel is here to push a fringe viewpoint. This appeal shows that the editor has every intent of continuing on the same path. Cullen Let's discuss it 19:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Any normal person reading the piece would conclude that the E-Cat doesn’t work and Rossi is a criminal pursuing fraud" - that's because it doesn't, and while fraud is an unacceptable word to use due to WP:BLP, 'completely unscientific woo woo bullshit' is perfectly fine. When and if (never and not gonna happen) Rossi actually submits the device to real peer review--that means no restrictions--that will be the time to discuss this snake oil as being useful.

Here's a thing for you: the whole basis of science relies on replicating results. Every single scientist in the world who has discovered something publishes their results so that every other scientist in the world can replicate or disprove them. That is how science works. Rossi does not work this way.

Obviously I oppose lifting this topicban. I said on ANI, every single person who advocates for this spammy scammy bullshit should just be banned from Misplaced Pages on sight. NPOV doesn't mean swallowing crap. — The Potato Hose 19:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose lifting topic ban. Editor is clearly here solely for the purpose of promoting a fringe idea and product, and has not shown the slightest whiff of a hint of a trace of intent to edit constructively and collaboratively. Has wasted lots of editor time already. Enough is enough. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Norden1990 Harassment

I feel threatened and intimidated, User:Norden1990 behavior make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for me. This user also wrote some dubious nationalistic nonsense on my Talk page, Norden1990 has done a lot personal attacks against me (frustrated, chauvinist etc.) and a constructive discussion is really very difficult with this user. I wrote recently also ANI about his harmful speech, but now he is trying to discourage me from editing entirely. His last work in the 8th June 13:17 - 17:42 was the deletion step by step of my contributions. So let's analyze his undo-edits:

Rajka > User:Norden1990 wrote: they are Slovak citizens and not the Slovak ethnic minority in Hungary (so they are not Hungarian citizens) His statement is like from the end of 19th century or communism. Norden1990 is trying to make second-class citizens or some refugees. European Union policies aim to ensure the free movement of people + we have Schengen Area. Slovaks do not need Hungarian id cards or passports. Only nationalists from Jobbik have problems with Slovaks in Rajka. I used 2 sources where is clearly written - Slovaks and the term "Slovak citizens" has a logical error too > Hungarian citizens where 19.4% are Slovaks + "Slovak citizens" where 50% are inhabitants of Rajka, so total Slovak population is ??%. Ridiculously. They live and pay bills there, they are owner of homes and estates. Yes, they are all Slovaks in Hungary. On the WP is not the place for first-class citizens and second-class citizens or for discrimination.
Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1538) > this is clear bad faith, I reverted questionable "newbie" IP editor - 178.164.179.152 back to stable version. User:Norden1990 did not use citation needed template, but he deleted very well known fact which has thousands of sources.
Adam František Kollár > I edited dubious edit of questionable "newbie" IP editor - 178.164.161.19 and then User:Norden1990 reverted my contrib back to IP 178.164.161.19 version. User Norden1990 used anachronistic dubious POV names. I used according to NPOV in good faith accurate historical names in the multilingual and multiethnic country. My version: Kollár's parents moved to Banská Bystrica (Neosolium) where he attended a Jesuit middle school. He later used the town's Latin name (Neosolium) as an appendix to his own name in some of his Latin publications − Pannonius Neosoliensis ("Pannonian of Banská Bystrica"). Norden1990's version: Kollár's parents moved to Banská Bystrica (Besztercebánya) where he attended a Jesuit middle school. He later used the town's Latin name (Neosolium) as an appendix to his own name in some of his Latin publications − Pannonius Neosoliensis ("Pannonian of Besztercebánya"). My version has logical etymological content and name "Besztercebánya" was valid and used only in 1863 – 1913 in the period of Magyarization. And another Norden1990's names: Selmecbánya 1863 - 1873, Nagyszombat 1863 – 1913, Liptószentmiklós 1863 – 1913.
University of Trnava > User:Norden1990 wrote: English name is enough in this article - He added only anachronistic names for Trnava, other terms this user deleted. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages. All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. According to NPOV in good faith I added latin name for Archbishop of Esztergom and Pázmány, because Latin was official language. I added Pázmány's Slovak name because the article is about University of Trnava in the Slovakia. I also added neutral correct historical names for Slovak city Trnava. User:Norden1990 recently wrote that "The mention of other name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid." in the article Giglovce (with typical editing habits against my contribs), where 0,00% Magyars live, Norden1990's added name is totally unknown, unimportant, it was used in the period of Magyarization + there are also other names, but he added only this one. And this is aftermath. Indeed quality of the article first.--Omen1229 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Categories: