Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:20, 2 February 2015

• 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 18 days ago on 5 December 2024) - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:18, 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 222 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 77 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 76 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 68 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 57 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 44 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 40 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)

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

(Initiated 40 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 37 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 33 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 15 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 38 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 7 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)

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

(Initiated 88 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)

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)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 16#Category:Origin stories

(Initiated 22 days ago on 2 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 14#Template:Support-group-stub

(Initiated 10 days ago on 14 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:06, 24 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 90 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 78 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)

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

(Initiated 69 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 66 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 48 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 31 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)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 26 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 56 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)

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

(Initiated 10 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Review of Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter

The closer wrote:

There is certainly some support for moving the draft to main space, but I still see endorsing the original deletion (and salting) to be the consensus opinion.

The closer's decision to endorse the original speedy deletion was within discretion and reasonable. I do not contest that part of the close.

The closer erred in assuming that salting was the consensus opinion. Not a single editor in the DRV supported salting. In fact, after Draft:Kirby Delauter was posted, five editors commented favorably about the draft. No one commented negatively against the draft.

Because the draft addressed the undue weight and BLP1E concerns present in the deleted article, the original reasons for speedy deletion no longer applied.

Overturn the salting part of the DRV close and move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter.

Cunard (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, most of the material in the draft was not really suitable for a BLP -- it's all local coverage. I support the continued salting of the article title for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• The DRV closer failed to be clear or explicit regarding the salting of the title. Did he overlook it, of did he consider it a question for WP:RFPP? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It was my estimation that the consensus included salting. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is true, that consensus supported the salting, the original action and the indefinite continuation, I rather doubt it. In any case, I think you should have said so, and pointed any desires for continued debate on the salting question to WP:RfPP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the title wasn't salted by the DRV closer, it was salted by the admin who speed-deleted the article in the first place. The DRV was closed as "endorse" which would generally be seen as an endorsement of the close and protection together. Mine was one of the opinions on which the close was based and I can confirm I didn't really consider the issue of salting, in fact the discussion I had with Hobit and Thincat was one about recreation in draft form. The natural next step is for a draft to be moved to main-space. Nonetheless, I did "endorse" the deletion which included salting. RoySmith interpreted my comment (and others) as an endorsement of both and without explicit commentary to the contrary, I'm not sure how he could have done otherwise. It's overly bureaucratic, yes, but I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. Essentially, we all got caught up on the SD/IAR issue and ignored the protection. St★lwart 04:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed, or not, per the consensus of discussion there. The DRV discussion did not reach a consensus on continued salting, in my opinion, due to lack of direct discussion of that specific question. RoySmith did well enough to make a clear decision on the actual question posed in the nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely, "removed, or not". St★lwart 05:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. – RoySmith insisted that the consensus was to maintain salting despite the new article draft. The suggestion that this should go to WP:RFPP does not make sense because that would be asking an WP:RFPP admin to unilaterally overturn RoySmith's close. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Because nobody had specifically addressed the question of whether the protection should remain and so in endorsing the deletion, we were endorsing the protection. Had I (had we all) had the foresight to see it coming, we might have included a line or two ("oh, and un-salt"). We didn't address it and so Roy didn't address it in his close. Self-trout for that one! Post-close, his response makes sense. I don't think that prevents an admin at RFPP reviewing the case and making a determination about protection. I can't imagine anyone would object to them doing so. They are really overturning the original protection (on the basis that it is no longer needed), not Roy's close. St★lwart 09:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd rather not start an WP:RFPP post after starting this AN request since that could be viewed as forumshopping. If you or another editor want to make the WP:RFPP post, that would be fine with me. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Look, it's quite clear that the only possible policy-based outcomes were to redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government if the draft didn't meet WP:N (or, say, if BLP1E is applicable), or to allow recreation of the draft if it did meet WP:N. (On this point, I'd rather not take an opinion - this whole affair has been stressful enough for me). But once the blue shield is down, there's nothing to be done except wait until attention has moved on (or the tech bloggers pick it up, and the whole mess becomes too embarassing to the project). WilyD 10:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this, but I find the blue shield dig offensive. I have absolutely no problem with the community deciding my close was faulty, and I am glad that this discussion finally got started in an appropriate forum. But I do resent the implication that I'm reflexively defending a fellow admin because of cabalistic loyalty. If you take a look at the DRV archives, I think you'll find that I've handed out more than my fair share of trout. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If there's an argument to delete rather than have a redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government (probably the outcome I'd advocate if I weren't already sick of this train-wreck), it wasn't presented during the DRV or in the closing summary. It's a tough DRV to close (and I think you generally do a good job at DRV). But the cumulative effect of endorsing and closing as endorse is exactly how a blue shield works, little misbehaviours/overlooks/blind eyes by everyone to defend their friend/colleague's significant misbehaviour. If the point stings, that's unfortunate, but we can't avoid mentioning our problems because they're painful to deal with - then they only fester. WilyD 10:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion certainly were presented at the DRV. A redirect is a poor idea since it is possible that Delauter might end up mentioned in another article (SmokeyJoe suggested Streisand effect, for example.) If a reader is typing "Kirby Delauter" in the search box, they would probably prefer a list of articles (if any) that mention him, rather than being shuttled off to a specific one. As for your doubling down on this "blue shield" crap, I have to wonder: if someone closes this thread with no action, will they too be part of the blue shield? Is the only way to avoid a charge of corruption to agree with your opinion of what should happen with the Kirby Delauter page? You seem to have ruled out the possibility that the people who agree with the deletion and salting are doing so in good faith. 28bytes (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is in good faith (as assumed) is neither here nor there, it is still admins preventing ordinary discussion by the use of tools and confirmation of the use of tools even where the numbers were against it, and the consensus by those who addressed it was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you might be assuming good faith (and if so, I thank you) but my concern is with people who are not, and who are moreover explicitly assuming bad faith and attacking the character of the people who disagree with them. Regardless, I don't see much benefit to be had in continuing to argue with you about whether the DRV close was correct; perhaps we can agree to disagree on that? 28bytes (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I would not think it helpful to read any of that as you do (if you give him the benefit of the doubt ie good faith) statements like "blind eye" "overlook" and even mis behavior could be negligent, not malicious, but mistaken acts (in this case) would still wind up in the same place as intentional acts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion rather than having a full article were made at DRV, no arguments were made for deletion rather than redirecting to the only page where the subject is mentioned. (The argument that under different circumstances different choices might make sense is axiomatically true, but invariably irrelevant. WP:RFD sorts out cases with multiple possible targets routinely, and never, ever, ever comes to the conclusion that deletion makes sense.) Reasonable, good faith editors can conclude that the draft/subject meets WP:N, and thus should have an article, or that the sources are mostly local, BLP1E and/or NOTNEWS applies, and thus the article should be redirected to the only page on which he's mentioned (as we would with any other politician who doesn't meet WP:N or its stepchildren). I don't believe that anyone endorsing the decision is acting maliciously, I suspect they're trying to protect their friend from having their misconduct exposed and ignoring that we're ultimately here to write an encyclopaedia. Wanting to protect ones friends is an admirable enough trait, but in this context there's no harm in having your action overturned, so there's nothing to protect them from anyways. WilyD 18:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• When I !voted to overturn the speedy the matter of salting didn't occur to me (it isn't a really a DRV issue anyway). Now I re-read the DRV discussion I can't see anyone saying they supported continued salting though obviously if anyone had been in favour they might not have thought it appropriate or necessary to say so. Interestingly, the last !vote was to endorse the deletion and to allow a new draft. Cunard's draft was presented quite late in the DRV and I think it deserves (and ought to have) community discussion. I don't know the best way of achieving this. Thincat (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• For the record I endorse both the original deletion and salting, and User:RoySmith's closing of the DRV, for the reasons I offered in the DRV. And I find User:WilyD's "blue shield" remark above (implying that everyone who disagrees with his opinion is corrupt) to be reprehensible and out of character for an editor and admin whom I've otherwise had a good impression of. The fact is, the only reason there's a draft of Kirby Delauter right now is because of a stupid remark he made on Facebook and the reaction to it. That it now contains details about Delauter's family and career as a businessman and local official does nothing to alleviate the fact that he's known for one thing. If, a couple of months from now, people still think this local politician is of lasting notability and therefore merits an encyclopedia biography, I'd be willing to reconsider my position in light of new evidence of that. Perhaps by then tempers will have cooled and there will be less of a desire to make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks. 28bytes (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the admin endorsements of the IAR speedy were well intentioned but they did give a very unfortunate impression which possibly may not be so obvious to war-weary admins. It was not a good idea to have handled a supposedly "textbook" case in a non-textbook manner. If this is the right place for community discussion about the contents of the draft (is it?) I'll give my views. Thincat (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thincat, the proper place for community discussion about the contents of the draft is AfD. In my view, the draft complies with BLP and NPOV (and no one has suggested otherwise), so there is no pressing reason not to move the draft to mainspace and list it at AfD. If, as 28bytes notes, people want to "make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks" in the article itself, the editors can be blocked and the article can be semi-protected or full-protected as necessary. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And in my view, the draft doesn't show why he passes WP:NPOL. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't have to pass NPOL if he passes WP:N. And the largest newspaper in the state wrote an editorial about him. That's mighty fine coverage. And coverage unrelated to the "one event". There is massive coverage about the one event. Hobit (talk)

• I reiterate that the salting should be undone and there was no consensus to salt, so overturn. I also think Roy Smith was wrong in his reading. He says correctly that there was not numerical strength to endorse, but ignores that fact that non-admin i-voters could not see the deleted article - so of course we were disabled in offering opinions on whatever was deleted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  DRV is not AFD Take 2. We don't need to be able to see the article -- we just need to see if the closing admin read the discussion correctly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And he read it wrong: there was no consensus to salt, there was not numerical strength to endorse, and he incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No one requested to see the deleted article. Presumably they'd either already seen it, or felt that their !vote did not depend on what was the article content actually was. I can email you a copy of it if you'd like. 28bytes (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

28bytes, during the discussion, and still, the deleted version remains here), explicitly cited during the discussion. Final version, without attribution of course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

NB. If it weren't for the speedy deletion, the cached version would carry an AfD notice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SmokeyJoe. 28bytes (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I now see, Smokey Joe linked to that cache version without the attribution in the discussion apparently after I participated or I just didn't see it because I took the speedy for BLP at face value that it had a really bad BLP problem, so we should not see it. None of that, however, changes the fact that the consensus was to overturn the salt, and numerically the !vote was not to endorse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your point is non-responsive and still supporting overturn - the closer incorrectly discounted the numerically strong views of those who wanted to allow a real attempt to write and judge in the ordinary process an article. The consensus was not to salt by those who addressed it, so he was wrong there too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. You say the closer "incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article" but you provide no evidence that there was anyone who could not see it and wanted to. Cunard, for example, stated that he had read the article via Google cache. If anyone wanted to see the deleted text, all they had to do was ask. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense and again non-responsive - we could not see the deleted article and so offered no opinion on it - that is exactly what was said at the time but the closer incorrectly took that as somehow endorsing, and the consensus by those who addressed the issue was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying "non-responsive" like we're in court. What is it exactly that you want me to respond to? 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The closer got it wrong - I've offered why I think they got it wrong. I did not ask you to respond at all but if you do, don't go off on how we could see a speedy deleted article, when the very purpose of speedy deletion is for us not to see it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, there are a lot of issues here.
  • The deletion was out of process as was the salting. Neither the speedy nor the salting could be justified by our deletion or protection rules. The bar for endorsing such action should be very high. There is no way that high bar was met.
  • The draft had unanimous support in the discussion of all those that indicated they'd looked at it. I believe 5 people supported it and no one objected. It's hard to understand how a draft with 100% support of everyone who indicated they'd read it could be prevented.
  • The above two issues are related the (out-of-process) deletion meant that there wasn't time to try to fix the article before it was deleted. If we'd followed our regular process, we'd probably still have this article.
  • Not a single person in the discussion indicated why this article was important to speedy out-of-process. IAR should be used when there is a reason to use it, not just because someone feels like it.

Hobit (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, I think the right way forward is to move the draft to article space and allow an AfD as desired. That's where we'd be if someone hadn't been working outside of process to begin with and that's where we should get to. IMO the draft meets our notability requirement and is well above any speedy criteria--it should get a discussion. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• DRV reviews deletion decisions. Salting is tangential to DRV's scope: we do discuss and review it sometimes but it doesn't always receive the attention that deletion decisions receive, which I think is why this issue wasn't really bottomed out at the DRV. Personally, I think the purpose of salting is to prevent bad faith editors from perenially re-creating material in despite of a consensus. I think the salting should always be removed when a good faith editor wants to create an article in that space.—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• I am not familiar with the intricacies of DRV or salting but I wanted to weigh in here because I have read the draft and feel strongly that it belongs on Misplaced Pages. It seems that bureaucratic/administrative process is interfering with making an excellent article available. Unless I am missing something, it seems that no one can provide a reason for its exclusion from the main space, other than that this is where the process has ended up. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Review Closure of debate : Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact

This debate Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact was closed last night at 8:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC) less than 24 hours after it was opened on 10:43, 26 January 2015. Arguments were presented on both sides.

I'd like to challenge closure on the basis that the debate wasn't given enough time to reach a consensus, or for editors to respond to criticisms of their comments. Also it didn't leave much time for other uninvolved editors to learn about the debate.

The closure was not decided on a policy basis, or on a careful, considered review of citations.

Robert Walker (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn - Apparently the most of the same editors who recently participated on the the supposed article talk page were now arguing on the noticeboard. Such discussions should be avoided but quick closure without that included lack of policy based rationale cannot be justified. Closing admin could've commented in place of closing after adding his point of view. VandVictory (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn A complex discussion like this needs more than 24 hours to reach a valid consensus. --John (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Why wasn't I, the closing admin, notified of this? Anyway, discussions get closed whenever the situation has become clear and it appears unlikely that it will shift further. This was the case here. Buried in the vast volume of talk from a few highly entrenched editors, there was a clear situation that one group of editors had reliable literature to cite in favour of their view, and one or two other editors simply didn't want to hear about it. It was a WP:GREENCHEESE type of situation, it was getting highly repetitive, and it was producing more heat than light by the time I closed itc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Could be closed with a different summary, you could tell that the users must try somewhere else, like Rfc, DRN, in place of copy-pasting same discussion. VandVictory (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. My apologies. Though I'm a long term wikipedian I am not well up on protocol and didn't realize that I needed to do this. As soon as you said it I realized my omission. Robert Walker (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Also - both sides had citations in support of their claims which at least fulfilled the usual criteria for citation sources for wikipedia. This is an example of a paper in the American Journal of Human Genetics by one of the authors BladesMulti cites - Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India. Robert Walker (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where this paper was brought up during the noticeboard thread, but then, I also don't see how it would serve to cast doubt on the finding in question, of general academic acceptance of Indo-Aryan migration. Judging from its summary, the results of that paper appear to be fully compatible with it. Where exactly was this paper discussed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The relevance is that he gave an earlier citation by the same author. I thought better to link to his latest results here, The relevant part of the paper is the Discussion section starting: "It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown" but this is not the place to discuss the content dispute itself, I just mentioned it to show that there are citations on both sides of the dispute. Robert Walker (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. This is not an overturn vote, because in my opinion the basic decision was probably correct. However, the close seems to be mainly based on a judgement that one side consists of "knowledgeable editors who are familiar with the literature". I don't think this is an appropriate way to close because, for this type of discussion, the closer's assessment should be based on the evidence put forward, not on which side gives the best impression of knowing what it is talking about. If the close is overturned, it would be good for editors to concentrate more on sources. Formerip (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Those sources are clear: the IAMt is mainstream theory, whereas the "Out of India" is not even rejected in mainstream academics, but simply ignored. The issue is highly contentious, since the IAMt is opposed by Hindu nationalists. Robert came here by following me, and started to participate, acknowledging that he doesn't know anything about the topic. Which is clear from the sources he's referring to. No hint of any knowledge of the relevant sources: Mallory, Witzel, Anthony. If the closure is to overturned, focus will be on those sources. Two sources:

• Mallory & Adams (2006), The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World:

"Currently, there are two types of models that enjoy significant international currency (Map 26.1). (p.460)

"There is the Neolithic model that involves a wave of advance from Anatolia c. 7000 bc and, at least for south-eastern and central Europe, argues primarily for the importation of a new language by an ever growing population of farmers. (p.460)

"Alternatively, there is the steppe or kurgan model which sees the Proto-IndoEuropeans emerging out of local communities in the forest-steppe of the Ukraine and south Russia. Expansion westwards is initiated c. 4000 bc by the spread from the forest-steppe of mobile communities who employed the horse and, within the same millennium, wheeled vehicles." (p.461)

• Witzel, Michael (2001), "Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts" (PDF), Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 7-3 (EJVS) 2001(1-115):

"The 'revisionist project' certainly is not guided by the principles of critical theory but takes, time and again, recourse to pre-enlightenment beliefs in the authority of traditional religious texts such as the Purånas. In the end, it belongs, as has been pointed out earlier, to a different 'discourse' than that of historical and critical scholarship. In other words, it continues the writing of religious literature, under a contemporary, outwardly 'scientific' guise. Though the ones pursuing this project use dialectic methods quite effectively, they frequently also turn traditional Indian discussion methods and scholastic tricks to their advantage The revisionist and autochthonous project, then, should not be regarded as scholarly in the usual post-enlightenment sense of the word, but as an apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking aiming at proving the 'truth' of traditional texts and beliefs. Worse, it is, in many cases, not even scholastic scholarship at all but a political undertaking aiming at 'rewriting' history out of national pride or for the purpose of 'nation building'."

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Future Perfect's closure note may not have stated it overtly, but the "knowledgeable editors" (of which I was one) were using and citing the most recent and most reliable sources for the topic at hand. The religio-nationalistic argument that was being made was based on a profound repetition of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, using the WP:GREENCHEESE tactic. There was no discussion occurring since the opposing editor's sole argument consisted of "this hypothesis is completely false", despite the fact that it is accepted by virtually every scholar in the field. His sole position was to reject 200 years of scholarship in favor of his thinly-veiled religious viewpoint. Since there was no discussion, there was no need to proceed with the pointless exercise of burning through bandwidth. --Taivo (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As I indicated, my objection was only to the rationale of the close. Regardless of whether the effect was correct, this matters because, in other circumstances, we may get editors eloquently spouting nonsense and favoured by a closer solely on basis of how their jibe-cut looks. I don't think we should be satisfied with closes that leave open the possibility of having reached the right decision only by happy accident. And there certainly were arguments and sources put forward by the other side. They may have been junk, but that's something that absolutely must be addressed in the close. Formerip (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support boxing of thread - As noted below, the closure was not a formal closure, since there is no procedure for the formal closure of WP:FTN threads, but the boxing of a disruptive thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn - Though contentious subjects requires wider discussion, I further agree with FormerIP that it could be closed without any results. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn The neutrality of the article Vedic_Period was being disputed Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute when the debate Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact was opened by closing the debate too soon before other editors could participate including me since I had disputed the neutrality. Many of the points raised in Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute were not even raised or debated. A total of 7 editors in 24hrs debate decided that scholars who do not agree with the Kurgan_Hypothesis are 'fringe'. This is not a fair process of debate. Using the hastily arrived so called 'result of this debate' User:Joshua_Jonathan deleted the WP:NPOV banner and also reverted some of his own previous edits which he had made to bring about some amount of balance in the article as a result of the debate we were having on Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute. Thus closing the debate should either clearly say that there were no result so that we can restore the deleted edits in Vedic_Period and restart the WP:NPOV debate there, else we should reopen the Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact debate.Indoscope (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn. It is grossly unfair to have a discussion for less than 24h and generate a "verdict", either let it run for others to participate or purge it entirely. I am an active editor, with good reputation and I must say I didn't even know of the discussion's existence and it got closed right away -- with a "clear verdict". Now, that is sheer mockery of a discussion and is against the the idea of collaboration! --AmritasyaPutra 09:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - The original thread that was boxed was not a Request for Comments or any other sort of thread for which formal closure is used. Talk page threads that have no formal status are often boxed when they become excessive. I agree with other editors who suggest re-opening the discussion, not because the closer erred, but to permit further discussion, but that the topic be re-opened as a Request for Comments. I note that, in that case, it will run for 30 days, not for a week. If the topic is re-opened, an admin will need to watch it so that any irrelevant comments or personal attacks can be hatted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hatting maybe better. I also think that the better place for an RFC would be the article's talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn Although I seriously expect a fuller discussion would reach the same conclusion, a minimum of a week is what is generally required. Collect (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

In looking at the thread whose closure is being reviewed, I see that the thread had been open for only 24 hours, and that it appears to consist of one author supporting the fringe "out-of-India" on Indo-European languages theory and multiple editors, citing established scholarship, dismissing the "out-of-India" theory. However, the discussion was lengthy and heated. The discussion was then closed by administrator FPaS. The thread was not an RFC, and was not in any other way a thread having any sort of formal status, and so it is not clear to me whether closure review applies. There did appear to be a snow consensus against out-of-India, but the discussion was not one for which consensus needs to be identified. If anyone thinks that consensus does need to be determined as to "out-of-India" as opposed to the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis (IAMT), then the mechanism to do this would be a Request for Comments, for which formal closure is appropriate. I think that FPaS was justified in boxing the thread, not so much because consensus had been determined, as because the thread was becoming disruptive in itself. For that reason I support the closure, and am not sure what the requester wants to have overturned. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I will note that the originator of this "closure review" thread did not participate in the original thread. Why does he want the closure reviewed? What does he think needs to be discussed at more length? The thread was noisy and unproductive. If the requester wants a longer discussion of IAMT vs. "out-of-India", RFC is available. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd suggest reopening the debate. There's nothing wrong with Future Perfect's close in itself, but the close hasn't stopped the argument. It's just moved the argument here. Send it back to the appropriate place, let them wrangle for a week and then re-close it. Sure, the close would very likely be exactly the same, but if we go through fair process, users will no longer be able to argue that the close was arbitrary or premature.—S Marshall T/C 11:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree. But then a RfC, at the FTN, with notifications at the relevant noticeboards (India, linguistics, history, etc.). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "fair process" is mandatory not optional. A "clear conclusion" and closure in less than 24h is undeniably premature. --AmritasyaPutra 15:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

So, that would be at Talk:Indigenous Aryans, wouldn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC opened

I've opened an RfC at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Let's keep it civilised. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a good idea because that wasn't even a question in the FTN section which I had started. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bladesmulti the original question raised by him was "Should we regard Indo-Aryan Migration theory (IAMt) as a historical fact? In terms of making references to it, or using the hypothesis as the actuality for generalizing the historical events.". This has been turned in this RFC to is "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Which was not the original question at all.Indoscope (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Bladesmulti asked a question at the Fringe Theorioes board has no bearing on whether or not a different editor can propose an RFC on a different (albeit related) question. Why do you think it should? Paul B (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a different, though related, question to me - original question was about mass migration and had the Indo-Aryan migration theory article as its prime focus. Since Indo-Aryan is a language group if I understand right - and since languages can spread without mass movement of people (examples include trade, temporary conquest by a numerically small group with superior technology, missionaries, many other reasons). I am saying that not to re=open the debate here - but to say how the two hypotheses are clearly independent. Logically they could be both true indeed (you can have simultaneous mass migrations in two directions at once, or at different times), or both false, or one or the other true. Robert Walker (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing RfC closure : Battle of Chawinda

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

None of the sources supported the victory results that were recently added to the infobox, except one source primary source. The closure was based on the vote count, while one of the editor who voted is now indefinitely blocked for block evasion and other 2 editors were topic banned. I am not very sure if topic ban actually effects here, but it all happened during the RfC's run. That alone puts the "support" votes much below compared to the "oppose" votes. Some of the comments were actually riddled with faults, one of them goes like:

Comment: After taking a glance at the sources, I cannot figure out that the term Major is supported on a wide scale except The Canberra times. I think the best way is to reach a consensus; I suggest the term should be The largest tank battles and Pakistani Victory. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Now if the consensus is to mention victory of Pakistan here, while none of the sources actually support it, I find it better to say that the RfC closure was inappropriate. Kindly share your opinions. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just rechecked, there were 8 "oppose" and 5 "support". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Closer: I gave the Canberra Times little weight in the close, as I said in my closing statement. When I checked the book sources they did appear, unambiguously, to say that Pakistan won the battle.—S Marshall T/C

• An interview of a Pakistani Military general, that's a WP:PRIMARY source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• ...which is one of several reasons why I didn't give that source much weight.—S Marshall T/C 01:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• WP:Milhist notified.—S Marshall T/C 01:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support close - The real question is whether the closer used appropriate judgment, and whether the close result could reasonably be derived from the RFC and the sources. It should be noted that the closer downgraded the degree to which the battle was categorized as a Pakistani victory from "major Pakistani victory" to "Pakistani victory". No one argued that the battle was an Indian victory. The battle could have been referred to as: indecisive (which the war was); as a Pakistani victory; as an Indian defeat, which the closer notes is a Pakistani victory; or as a decisive or major Pakistani victory. The closer split the difference among possible options, using reasonable judgment. Some of the participants could have been taken to arbitration enforcement under WP:ARBIPA for personal attacks, but that has nothing to do with the close. The closer used reasonable judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support close. The previous commenter has this right, I think. It appears hard to argue that "Pakistani victory" is not supported by the sourcing. "Major" is harder to call, but I think the call made was well within reason and to continue arguing about that would be to argue over almost nothing. The suggestion made here that the close was unduly dependent on a head-count also appears false to me. Formerip (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• I had mentioned the vote tally below. It was 8 - 5. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support close. I will mention that I did make a couple of brief comments during the RfC, but did not engage in any of the to-ing and fro-ing that went on. The "Pakistani victory" close is entirely consistent with the Osprey third party independent RS mentioned by several editors in the RfC. Weighting the arguments appropriately based on the reliability of the independence and reliability of the sources raised on the RfC completely justifies this close. Votes are only tangentially relevant here. The quality of the sources and arguments IAW policy is what should carry the day. Well done to the closer on sorting through the chaff. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• You were also involved in the RfC, and which third party source actually mentioned "Pakistani victory"? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• None of them used those words. The exact words they used were "bloodbath... for Army", "debacle", and "the Pakistani forces... defeated their ... foes". Are you seriously arguing to overturn the RfC on this basis?—S Marshall T/C 14:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• They are not equivalent to victory or defeat, and your other quotations talks about the 25th regiment fighting other small force, not between the nations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support close - it may well be that none of the sources use the term "Pakistani victory" but they use sufficiently similar words and descriptions to ensure that such a conclusion is not original research. That's like every news outlet describing a two-man foot-race in which a participant "lost to his opponent". That's sufficient to draw the conclusion that "the opponent won". The arguments on that basis were deemed stronger than anything numerical from those who disagree (though that is their right) with the arithmetic. St★lwart 15:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Contested claims requires better sources, and correct representation. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, within reason. You can't simply contest any claim you like and demand better sources because existing ones don't agree with your POV. I could claim the Earth is flat and demand better sources than the Hubble Telescope's images and the confirmation of astro/cosmonauts on the ISS (those are primary sources, are they not?). You can't accept that it was a Pakistani victory and at the same time oppose it being described as a "Pakistani victory". And you don't seem to be suggesting it wasn't a Pakistani victory. So if the result was a Pakistani victory and the sources confirm as much, what are you contesting? St★lwart 05:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I believe that OccultZone's desired outcome is to describe the battle as inconclusive, or to remove the "results" parameter from the infobox entirely.—S Marshall T/C 13:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, now at this point I do have a valid objection to deal with. First, OccultZone challenged my close saying it was based on the vote count, although in fact I closed with the numerically smaller side. Then he challenged my close saying it was based on a primary source, although in fact I had specifically disregarded that source in my close and I removed it from the infobox when I implemented the consensus. Thirdly, and he's persisting with this one, he claims my close is wrong because although the sources call this battle a "bloodbath" and a "debacle" for the Indian army, they don't specifically call it a "victory" for Pakistan! Because of this objection, the statement that the battle was a Pakistani victory was tagged with "failed verification", and is described as a "contested claim" by OccultZone above. This line of argument needs no answer from me.

  However, fourthly OccultZone says that the Zaloga source which says the Pakistani army "defeated" the Indian army is not actually talking about the Battle of Chawinda. According to OccultZone, Zaloga is actually talking about the Patton tanks of the Pakistani 25th Cavalry commanded by Lt Col Nisar in their engagment with the 17th Poona Horse (who despite their name were actually armed with Centurion tanks, a considerably superior vehicle). This was one particular engagement in the Battle of Chawinda, not the whole battle, and this is actually a reasonable concern about that particular source.

  However, I'd say that the other two book sources are enough to put the matter beyond doubt. Pakistan won the Battle of Chawinda.—S Marshall T/C 12:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Although an RFC is not a vote count, I would say that the closer honored the vote count well. The vote count was 5 support, 8 oppose, after deleting sockpuppet votes. Now a requester wants the close reversed because the majority opposed the original statement. The requester appears not to have read the question correctly, or to be reading it oddly. The original question was whether the battle was a major Pakistani victory. A majority opposed that statement. Therefore the closer, while giving a more nuanced reasoning, did what the majority wanted, and changed the characterization from "major Pakistani victory" to "Pakistani victory". The majority got what they wanted, even if they have to read every word to realize that. No one said it was an Indian victory, and I didn't see any arguments that it should be characterized as indecisive or a bloody draw. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse close - well reasoned reading of the discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse close - Majority is not always right, the facts are facts and an RfC is not a referendum. As per Robert McClenon. Faizan 15:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Request immediate TfD closure

I would like to request the immediate closure of Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division. This TfD was originally initiated as a delete TfD on November 29, 2014; was re-opened as a merge TfD on December 8, 2014, and remained open for 25 days until it was closed as a "keep" by a non-administrator on January 2, 2015; it was re-opened pursuant to a DRV for an inadequate/inappropriate NAC on January 22, 2015, and it has now been open for seven days since then. During the last seven days, four more discussion participants have evenly split 2–2, adding to a cumulative !vote of 13–7, or 65% opposed to the proposed merge. It is time that this TfD be closed: it has been open for a total of 32 days, and has attracted 20 participants -- more than all but a handful of TfDs in the past year. It is also evident there is no consensus to support the proposed merge; it's time to draw a line under this one. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No, "this TfD" was not "reopened on December 8"; the December nomination was a new one. This has been pointed out to you previously. Also pointed out to you, more than once, has been the fact that TfD is a discussion, not a "vote", so the concept of a "majority" is irrelevant. A closer acting properly will weigh the arguments presented. Your attempt to sway the closer in your closing statement is a further breach of WP:CANVASS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy, there is no breach of WP:CANVASS here. What is stated above is a factual recitation of the history of this process in which you (1) have nominated the template for deletion on November 29, (2) renominated it for merge on December 8, (3) took it to DRV on January 8 to re-open a messy non-administrative close, and (4) the merge nomination was re-listed on January 22. As I stated above, the present merge TfD nomination has now been open for a total of 32 days (25 + 7), and has attracted 21 participants. As for your false allegations of "canvassing," those have been refuted in the TfD itself, but I do note for the record your active lobbying campaign to get previous discussion participants to change their !votes (see here). Perhaps not exactly "canvassing," but it would seem you have little lobbying campaign of your own underway, eh? BTW, if you're going to make false accusations of canvassing, I suggest you take them to WP:ANI, rather than WP:AN. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Protonk

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

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Protonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Protonk (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

24 hour block and 3 month topic ban pursuant to GG sanctions, logged here

Administrator imposing the sanction

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Statement by Protonk

Please bear with me through a somewhat indirect appeal, as the justification for my block is so Kafkaesque I cannot diagram the single sentence which provoked it to defend my actions without inviting further sanction.

I was blocked under the GG discretionary sanctions for this edit (admins can review the diff). The justification was (near as I can tell) "advocat ignoring policy" and "repeat an egregious BLP violation" (diff) while doing so.

The statement that I made is unambiguously true, sourced to multiple reliable sources in the gamergate article, and central to the dispute at hand. Further, the only way to read defamation or denigration from that sentence is to rip words out from the incredibly limited context I provided. I'm not even making the half-assed claim that you have to read that sentence in light of my entire oeuvre or even a whole paragraph in order to gain context--you just have to read the entire sentence. Like I said above, I can't diagram said sentence here, so forgive me an analogy.

We have on Misplaced Pages an entire article devoted to a scurrilous accusation, one which is obviously provably false. An accusation which not only violates BLP it caused the BLP policy to come into being. In it we state "The article falsely stated that Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy." We recognize that the embedded statement "...Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations..." is a BLP violation. It's a false, unsourced claim about a living person. The encompassing sentence is not a BLP violation because it is a true, sourced claim. It cannot be one regardless of the awfulness of the original claim. There is no transitive property of BLP.

Further, the same basic idea is already present in our current article: "Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "rambling online essay", containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." Snipping out the meandering clauses we get "...Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post......Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." I'm really struggling here to see the substantive difference between that and what I wrote. If the distinction was that I didn't cite my source, a 3 month topic ban seems a bit harsh.

As for the charge of advocating ignoring policy: fuck that. The interpretation of BLP which I decried in that edit is perverse and nonsensical (see this redaction for a good example, paying close attention to what was and wasn't retracted). If our policy is arbitrary enough that an admin (admittedly one who is pretty intemperate and not very smart) can get topic banned for three months over a single edit for content that is already in a wikipedia article then I have absolutely no regrets in advocating we ignore it. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by HJ Mitchell

Statement by CIreland

I am an admin and I saw the deleted edit in question. I am involved.

Contrary to Protonk's remarks above, the edit makes a false and defamatory assertion about a living person. Gjoni never made the conflict of interest accusation about Quinn that Protonk attributes to him; that accusation was made by "others" with their own reasons for doing so. This attribution is agreed by multiple first-rate reliable sources and by Gjoni himself. Our own article describes these events with an abundance of supporting citations. By repeating the misattributed assertion, both Gjoni and Quinn are unfairly treated.

That being said, I think the sanction, in particular the topic ban, is unduly harsh. I do not doubt that Protonk was acting in good faith and simply fell into a trap that has caught many otherwise careful and thoughtful individuals; Gamergate is quagmire of rumours, innuendo, agendas and half-arsed journalism. There are a number of second-rate sources floating around the internet (particularly some written when the controversy was fresh) which could easily lead one to the same erroneous statement as that made by Protonk. However, an error is all it is. CIreland (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Statement by Strongjam

Way out of my depth here I know, but I do want to highlight that HJ Mitchell has been very active in patrolling the page I personally do appreciate it. I think the block here was over-zealous, but no matter what the outcome I hope HJ Mitchell continues to help out in the topic area, and that more admins would join him in doing so. — Strongjam (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note, @Strongjam: moved from AE, consolidating requests. Courcelles 04:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken

Which is the operative appeal, this one or the one at AE? BMK (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• This one is older. I've closed the AE discussion and linked to here in the hatnote. Courcelles 04:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Protonk

• Comment The wide latitude given AE administrators to block other users when they are judged to have violated discretionary sanctions means that I think we often stray over into WP:PUNISH territory. Is it a possibility that this happened here? jps (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I recommend lifting this sanction. Protonk is undoubtably a good faith editor, and there has to be some room to discuss things that are all over the press and in our articles without getting whacked with the BLP block hammer and the GG topic ban club. Jehochman 04:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Our GG article currently contains a quote from Quinn about the accusation against her: "... the same accusation everybody makes towards any successful woman; that clearly she got to where she is because she had sex with someone." Can someone help me understand why it was necessary to redact Protonk's comment? Did it contain sensitive information not already present in the article? I'm straying into foreign territory here, but this seems very odd to me. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why in particular it was redacted. However, the comment by Protonk incorrectly attributed that view to her ex - he did allege that she had engaged in affairs, but didn't comment as to why. - Bilby (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Protonk's comment, in its entirety, was: "IMO any policy that requires the statement to be redacted is perverse and should be ignored." Can you point to the part where he attributed something to her ex? - Dank (push to talk) 05:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

In the bit you redacted. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The bit I redacted wasn't said originally by Protonk, so he's not attributing anything to anyone. - Dank (push to talk) 05:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Time for bed, so: looking at everything so far, I recommend lifting the sanctions, and in particular, lifting the block before it expires. Having said that: Harry, I have no doubts about your effectiveness, diligence or cluefulness. Protonk's opinion might easily be seen by some as objectionable and even unhelpful, and I'm sure you were doing your best to be impartial. That said: it didn't contain sensitive information and it was an opinion concerning policy, and we're on a slippery slope if we start penalizing people for having the wrong opinions. - Dank (push to talk) 06:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the issue is that Quinn's ex never stated that he believed Quinn engaged in affairs to try to gain a professional advantage. Attributing this view to him without sources to back it up is indeed a BLP violation. If Protonk was aware of the distinction and knowingly misrepresented the ex's views, the topic ban is justified (and other editors have been blocked for similar chicanery). If Protonk made a good-faith mistake the topic ban is excessive (that said, I am dismayed that any admin would advance the argument that IAR / "fuck that" applies to WP:BLP, ever.) TotientDragooned (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Really? Even mentioning what one of the central starting accusations of Gamergate actually is is now worthy of a three-month topic ban? That's an absurdly overzealous reaction, and the fact that the actual statement is talking about how needing to redact exactly that sort of statement is nonsense is a kafka-esque bit of nonsense. Sure, 24-hour block, whatever, smack him on the nose, but the article itself says "Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson.". To turn around and say that it's a massive BLP violation to combine that with the next sentence of the article is absurd. For fuck's sake, no wonder so many admins are refusing to come anywhere near this disaster zone, no matter what mealy-mouthed statements our glorious arbcom overlords make praising them. --PresN 06:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Protonk

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Noting above two administrators commenting as "editors" - do you wish your comments to be considered as reviewing administrators? Risker (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  Sure, if that helps. Jehochman 04:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• This seems too aggressive; I'd like to hear from HJ to see if I'm missing something. The down side of short AE blocks is that it's almost impossible to get a consensus to overturn them before they expire; one reason to be extra careful making them. If a consensus here determines that the block was incorrect after it expires, we should make a 1 second block to note in the block log that this was the consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC) addendum: to be clearer, I think the block and the topic ban were too aggressive, not just the block. (again, barring an explanation from HJ on something I'm missing.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Risker, I got lost in the headers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Noting that the sanction applied here is not just a 24 hour block but also a 3-month topic ban. The discretionary sanctions for this case are very expansive and include not only any edits related to GamerGate but also any edits related to "any gender-related dispute or controversy" and are not limited to GG articles. Also noting that HJ Mitchell posted his interpretation of the applicable issues on the talk page of the relevant article. Risker (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• As a retired admin who saw this mentioned on Twitter, I came by to see what the story was. If this sanction is justified, the admin involved has done a very poor job of making that clear. Despite attempts to keep up with the saga, and despite reading everything from ArbCom on this, and despite a decade of inside knowledge the heavy-handedness of Protonk's ban is incomprehensible to me. Misplaced Pages is already getting a black eye with the public on this, so any ban like this should be, at minimum, explained so clearly that the general public can easily understand. -- William Pietri (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decision of appeal: There is pretty uniform consensus that, while Protonk's edit likely did cross the line into BLP territory, the sanction is excessive for the nature of the offense. Therefore, the block is converted to time served and the topic ban is lifted.

  Protonk made an unnecessarily inaccurate paraphrase of information that has repeatedly been discussed; that Wikipedians (most in good faith, a few not so much) seem to feel the need to keep repeating this information is unhelpful in maintaining the integrity of the project, at a time when every activity related to this topic area is being carefully watched by those who may interpret any editorial action in a manner that would be out of step with the interpretation of experienced users. We can all afford to be a bit more careful here. At the same time, within the last 24 hours the sanction regime has changed for this topic area and everyone (including patrolling administrators) could benefit from starting at the lowest reasonable level of behavioural remediation. In this case, a redaction and warning/explanation of the problem with the edit by a longtime contributor (as opposed to a reanimated but previously dormant account) would likely have resulted in the editor taking a step back; if not, then the bigger sticks of blocks and topic bans would remain available. It is difficult to go wrong in starting off with lighter interventions.

  TLDR: Protonk, you can do better, please don't paraphrase, and especially don't paraphrase incorrectly. HJ Mitchell, your identification of the edit as being problematic is supported by your colleagues, but the consensus is that the administrative action taken is more than is appropriate to the sanctionable activity. Risker (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to request further explanation of the sanction from the imposing admin and if extant, history of Protonk's behavior in this area which may have been problematic. I did not find Protonk amongst the evidence section of the recent case in a quick search now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup in aisle 1

Can an admin please delete all the Talk:Miranda Cosgrove/Archives/ pages created by the bot starting at 1:05? The archiving parameters weren't quite correct. --NeilN 03:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if I missed any. 28bytes (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. --NeilN 03:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

ROFL! Poor bot, he's just doing what you tell it to do... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

While muttering "stupid humans!" all the while. --NeilN 03:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Review Block of DarknessSavior

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

I'd like to request a review of the block on DarknessSavior. DarknessSavior made these three edits: , , , and was subsequently blocked indefinitely. There was no attempt to communicate with the editor, no warning, no prior misconduct not even a temporary ban/block. The reason given for the indefinite block was WP:NOTHERE. The user then made an unblock appeal which was denied for the reason: "Looking over your edit history, you appeared after 2 years to edit a gamergate ANI thread and then you proceeded to mess with Ruylong. Ya, no." and was then blocked from editing his own talk page without notice.

I fail to see any evidence supporting WP:NOTHERE. He seemed polite, his edits were minor translation issues that had minimal prior discussion and he has a history of translational edits. WP:NOTHERE itself seems very subjective in general. To use this as cause for an indefinite ban after only 4 edits would imply at least a lack of WP:FAITH. This block does not seem reasonable. TyTyMang (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• All the gamergaters are remarkably polite—they have learned their lessons well. Arbcom have left an ugly mess by banning the editors who were defending the encyclopedia, and gamergaters are now picking over the spoils and enjoying attacking Ryulong. Welcome to Misplaced Pages, good block. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What constitutes an attack on Ryulong? What criteria is required to label an editor a "gamergater"? Are editors labeled as such, topic-banned from editing anything Ryulong has touched? TyTyMang (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• The block is absolutely unreasonable as I see it, bordering on malicious. User:DarknessSavior did many good faith edits in the past. Sure they stopped contributing at some point, but have you considered that it could've been because of editors like User:Ryulong who WP:OWN articles and prevent reasonable edits from coming through? User:DarknessSavior's change of "Condol" to "Condor" is reasonable to anyone with a minute knowledge of Japanese and was, in fact, implemented after a short Talk discussion. The admins who banned DarknessSavior (User:Courcelles and User:Guerillero) have committed a grave and glaring WP:FAITH violation in this case.  Grue  06:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Regardless of this editor's motives that you shouldn't even be speculating on per WP:AGF, being indeffed for these particular edits is ridiculous. Even a short block would have been overly harsh. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• I thoroughly agree. If fixing language translation isn't attempting to build the encyclopedia, what is? Where is any evidence of disruption in January? And even if the previous edits were problematic (I've not checked them), the January edits demonstrate that a WP:NOTHERE block is completely out of place. Then, he requests unblock by saying "I was just doing this helpful thing", which gets him immediately shut down. I thoroughly endorse the "bordering on malicious" bit: Courcelles and Guerillero have completely failed to assume good faith, so blatantly that they have done a good job of demonstrating bad faith here. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is against procedure, but while you are at it could you also look into User:Fidsah and User:FlossumPossum which were also blocked indefinitely for related incidents, but even less action on their parts. User:Fidsah was blocked for this shortly before the editor that reverted him agreed that this is a sensible change and did it himself . From what I can tell User:FlossumPossum didn't even make any edits to any articles, but was solely banned for his interaction on related Talk pages. 79.247.112.157 (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:FlossumPossum was blocked Indefinitely by the same admin citing the same reason as above. It appears Flossum did post on the talk page of the same article that DarknessSavior had been blocked for editing. Again, I can't find any WP:NOTHERE evidence. In fact, I have no idea what edit(s) might have given any cause for action.

User:Fidsah was a blocked a long time ago as a vandalism-only account and hasn't been active since 2011. Though it may be of note that the only edit made since then by this user was on the same article as the above 2. And, as noted in this dif ended up being in line with the consensus. However, this user was blocked without any notice or reason. This appears to be a big deal in WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. Is this article under some sort of Secret Sanction?TyTyMang (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of the admins are providing short leashes on articles Ryulong has edited in the past. They are basically running on the rule "If you have edited GamerGate, haven't been really active lately, and then edit and article Ryulong has edited, you're gone.". I am not sure I agree with that as while Ryulong was a prolific contributor the articles he edited should not be treated differently than any other editor. I don't see articles edited by other editors that have been banned treated with the same respect as his. I think it isn't calming the situation at all post-gamergate. Hipocrite also seems to be fanning the flames as well patrolling the GG area. My two cents. Not worth much. 129.9.75.252 (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• endorse block. The off-wiki coordination on 8chan, reddit and elsewhere makes clear that there is an intentional effort to focus attentions on Ryulong's former articles in an effort to irk him; the increased sensitivity around them, as a result, if entirely sensible. I really don't care if gamergaters are being "polite", and anyone who does needs to look up the term "sealioning". Ironholds (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So everyone who uses those websites are equally guilty, are they? It is far more likely that this user is from a particular 4chan board that has nothing to do with GamerGate whatsoever. Your argument is as ridiculous as assuming all Misplaced Pages editors are the exact same. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Xezbeth: why would a user from board that has nothing to do with GamerGate be posting this in October, after taking a two-and-a-half year break from editing? Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The board in question has had run-ins with Ryulong completely independent of recent events, and the subject of this particular article is of interest to them. I'm not even suggesting the edit is correct, the correct response is to revert and raise it on the talk page of the article, which is what you did. Why then does an admin have to steam in and indef block over such a minor edit. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying this user spent those 2.5 years just quietly watching Ryulong, and when they saw him do something questionable they sprung into action to oppose him - it wasn't about gamergate, it was about defeating Ryulong, who they let their hate smoulder for 2.5 years without a single edit? Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

They let their hate burn for an editor they had never interacted with prior to the edit smoulder. Hipocrite (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The user has spent 2.5 years doing things that are none of my business. They've decided to edit this article for reasons that are none of my business. The edit included changing the romanization of the word "condor". This is enough to warrant an indefinite block, apparently. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Never edits, returns to edit gamergate articles, shifts from there to an article notable exclusively for being written by someone off-wiki coordinators around gamergate have encouraged people to screw with? Yes, that is enough for an indefinite block. The host of supporting characters appearing in this thread reinforce that it was almost certainly the right call. Ironholds (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• If I had a group of Wikipedians going "YEAH, LET'S GO TO HIS BLOG AND LEAVE TERRIBLE COMMENTS", I'd probably treat Wikipedians commenting on my blog with extra scruitiny for a period. DarknessSaviour hadn't edited since May 2012 and then suddenly cropped up to chip in on specific, pointed discussions around GamerGate topics. Are you really telling me "oh, well they're clearly not involved in any of the gamergate discussion areas, it's all just a COINCIDENCE"? I'm not advocating for "all 8channers are bad people" or "all redditors are bad people"; I'm saying that increased sensitivity around articles which have been targetted by off-wiki groups for coordinated attacks is perfectly understandable, and that DarknessSaviour is not so much fishy as he is a bagged and tagged Smithsonian specimen. Ironholds (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As was pointed out above, the article isn't "Gamergate related" and Ryulong was a well known entity among said communities for a long time. Even if the editors were what you call "GamerGaters" though, is it some sort of crime or does it impinge on any Wiki policies to hold a specific opinion on a contentious topic that immediately requires an indefinite block of any editor editing any articles upon finding out? You are arguing for overturning WP:OWN (you are explicitly stating that Ryulong "owned" said articles and editing them constititutes some sort of harassment) and overturning WP:FAITH on all articles Ryulong has ever touched in the past and continuing to enforce the very reason he was penalized and blocked at ArbCom for with a zero tolerance policy by proxy. 79.247.112.157 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a firehose of SPAs who are being pointed at the obscure articles that Ryulong used to edit in an attempt to bait him into socking. Admins should be able to use reasonable means to deal with off-wiki disruption; AGF isn't a suicide pack --Guerillero | My Talk 14:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't the whole point of blocking Ryulong exactly to get rid of his chronic edit-warring and battlegrounding in the places he edited, so that new editors could come in rework things? It seems to me that this kind of administrative action after banning Ryulong is about the worst possible outcome for the pages in question-- their zealous caretaker has been removed, and now users who make entirely innocent edits to improve them are summarily banned for their temerity. I don't get it. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block. It is predicated solely on the argument that conducting minor edits to a page amounts to harassment of an editor who previously conducted edits on the same page. Given that said editor has been banned for a minimum of one year, for acts which cannot be described as other than harassment towards fellow editors, the charge is doubly ridiculous. Triply so with editors attempting to drag GamerGate drama into the discussion, given that there is no connection between the two articles save the aforementioned banned editor having made previous edits to both.Calbeck (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  You're right, there's no gamergate or off-wiki coordination going on here around it! Hey, so about that "not edited for years, then suddenly turns up on gamergate-related discussions" thing. Soo... Ironholds (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The article in question isn't a "gamergate-related discussion", aside from your insistence on invoking that controversy... and that, strictly on basis of who one of its previous editors was. Your entire argument for defending said editor is that several minor language-related edits are supposed to comprise harassment. These claims do not become any more reasonable by your above citation.Calbeck (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm interesting claim. The only people here using the word harassment are you and 79.247.112.157.©Geni (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block. I don't understand how indefinitely blocking someone for fixing basic translation errors is fair or called for. Even if there is off-wiki discussion of the page, can these edits not be considered based off their own merit? Furthermore, predicating this on the idea that this is "dancing on someone's grave" implies that the person in question WP:OWNed the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aflyingkitten (talk • contribs) 14:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse straightforward WP:NOTHERE block. Trout complainer. Misplaced Pages isn't anybody's battleground. --TS 14:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block 1. Draconian solutions to non-problems do not seem wise. 2. If there were a suspicion of socking, then a pro forma note should have been made at WP:SPI or the like. 3. The edits at issue do not appear to be prima facie evidence of much of anything at all. 4. The edits do not appear to be evidence of "battleground behaviour" as far as I can tell. 5. If evidence is later found otherwise, then do a block - right now there are four solid reasons not to block. Collect (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block, as the user doesn't appear to have done anything wrong. When you are blocking someone for making a good edit, because you think that good edit, while superficially innocuous, might somehow, due to some convoluted background of past petty arguments, be intended to antagonize another editor...you've just lost the plot completely. This isn't what admins are supposed to do. If the user causes clear disruption and will not stop when warned, then you block. Antagonizing other editors is bad, and when it's really bad we can block, but the antagonizing needs to be clear and straightforward. You can't take a normal, uncontroversial edit and twist that into evidence to support a block. To put it another way—if you have to read tea leaves to justify the block, and other people can't see what you see in the tea leaves, then you made a bad block. Everyking (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block. Let's get something straight here; if the block had come when DarknessSavior posted in the AN thread in October, or when they posted in the GamerGate topic in December, then this block would have a point. However... their return this time around came to an article that had a translation error. An error that was pretty obvious, and even someone with very little experience in that area (namely me) could verify that this was indeed a mistranslation. The block itself was understandable (wrong, but understandable)... but Guerillo's decision to revoke talk page access and email access after ONE good faith unblock request, with no other commentary on their talk page at all from this user, is frankly disgraceful. What is the evidence that this user was going to vandalize Misplaced Pages, or generally detriment it? Answer; none. This block is clearly punitive, not preventative. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The evidence is that they are behaving in a manner entirely consistent with a group that has continually acted to the detriment of wikipedia. It is fairly preventative because when the gamergate activists next swing through they will have one less account to be detrimental with.©Geni (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Not really valid. Again, had this happened in October or December, you'd have a point. This time however, there is evidence that they were 100% right in these specific edits, and given that they were blocked for actually doing the right thing, in a topic area that had fuck all to do with GamerGate... we have a clear punitive block on an account that was almost entirely positive in its history. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I will unblock DarknessSavior because because of the pretty clear consensus that this block was unjustified/overly long (12-4 by a quick count). I did not give much weight to the argument that this is gamergate-related since the articles concerned are about Japanese TV shows, and the blocking admin themselves said as much on AE. — east718 | talk | 16:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

General questions:

• Do we assume that every edit on one of Ryulong's pet articles is automatically meant as harassment towards said user?
• Do we spefically agree that changing "loid" to "roid" - which is totally justifiable if you know japanese kana - is worth a perma ban?
• Do we assume that every edit made by Ryulong is representing community consensus and his pet articles must be defended at the cost of banning users in disagreement with his edits?
• Is it in agreement with guidelines that blocked users may control article content via unblocked users?
• Have we thought about the possibility that many users wishing to edit japanese culture pages are now coming back because they previously tried to avoid clashes with someone showing tendencies to own pages?
• As far as i am concerned, every article is open for consensus-based changes. If people can convince the community to change content, then they are free to do so. Let the community decide what to do. If vandalism happen or edits are made in bad faith, then correct it afterwards.

On a different note, people wishing to start editing japanese culture pages again might have wanted to wait a little bit until the dust had been cleared of course. But anyway, to sum up, i dont think its contributing nicely to the creative atmosphere of a wiki, that is interested in acquiring new editors, especially with the vacuum Ryulong leaves behind, if editors are blocked by default if they dare to put hands on former pet articles of a former editor. Just my 0.02. Rka001 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It is difficult to "automatically assume" anything, but while there might be people who come to edit in good faith, there are also people looking to "fix" stuff just out of spite and being distructive.GreggHamster (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That statement requires an automatic assumption. The actual proof remains in the pudding: edits which are clearly of merit belong in the Wiki and are inherently not destructive, and are of benefit to the page. Ascribing malice to such edits is both presumptive and a breach of good-faith tenets, which are particularly something to be considered regarding accounts believed to be SPA in nature (per WP:SPA).Calbeck (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No assumptions are being made, action is being taken on the basis of previously determined behavioral problems.

WP:AGF doesn't mean "Assume good faith now and forever, amen", it means "Assume good faith until there is a reason not to". For any subject area in which the editing has been contentious enough to have become the subject of ArbCom sanctions, reasons have already been found to mitigate normal AGF procedures, and admins can therefore make judgments without having to jump through the normal hoops. In doing so, they are simply acting to protect the project from behaviors that have already been found to be harmful. BMK (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The articles at hand had nothing to do with GamerGate, but Ryulongs previous behavior on Wiki and his tendency for ownership and edit warring. The very reason for which he was just recently penalized and blocked by ArbCom. Since he is gone, the Power Rangers Dino Charge article could for instance be created and worked on, and there is a recent Arbitration request linked to his previous behavior . While User:DarknessSavior might have edited GamerGate related topics, nearly none of the other blocked users, including User:FlossumPossum, User:Whymy and User:Fidsah have or have objectively done anything wrong, even more so two of them haven't even made any attempts to edit any articles but just engaged on the Talk pages of said, the third was blocked because of a single edit attempt to correct the spelling of one word. What is the basis of ignoring WP:FAITH and WP:BITE entirely while trying to enforce WP:OWN on Tokusatsu articles by proxy? It kind of looks like jumping at shadows and continuing to enforce Ryulongs reign over his domain beyond his time, the very reason he seems to be so infamous among said communities by involved admins. 62.157.54.253 (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The specific articles in this instance may have nothing to do with GamerGate, but they are an obvious extension of the GamerGate behavioral problems which ArbCom laid down sanctions for. BMK (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I know off-wiki behavior is generally not considered but I just wanted to bring up that on some pro-GamerGate forums, users have suggested reverting Ryulong's edits on every article he worked on. Since he was a very productive editor (over 200K edits), this is an unrealistic goal (especially with intervening edits) but admins should be aware of SPAs who are focused purely on undoing work that has been done, not on improving articles. I realize that these general statements aren't particularly helpful but it is not unwarranted to question accounts targeting articles that some users believed Ryulong "owned". Liz 20:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

RevDel

I had reverted this few days back. Perhaps it may require RevDel. --User:Vigyani 08:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Resurrection of long-dormant accounts

We have recently seen a significant number of dormant but autoconfirmed accounts suddenly appearing to make edits in various controversial topic areas, and in particular in topic areas the accounts had not edited in their earlier incarnations. This has been happening frequently enough in recent months that it is probably time to start treating these as possibly compromised accounts. Does anyone have other thoughts about this? Risker (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Compromised indicates that the initial user is not the current user. I think that's a jump. With that being said, it would appear that an outside influence is encouraging editors who left WP for one reason or another to return. Personally I don't think we should treat them any differently unless they actually cause a disruption. They might not be considered "new," but WP:BITE should probably still apply. If there is reason to suspect malfeasance on a case-by-case basis, that should be acted on then. Ries42 (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm not sure these are compromised accounts; I suspect many are just sleeper accounts, saved for a rainy day. I've blocked one such account recently, but am considering modifying it to a permanent topic ban. The problem is, if 19 out of 20 of these are weasels gaming the system (compromised or sleeper), what do we want to do with the 20th out of 20, who left for a long while but came back and picked the wrong subject to get involved in? A topic ban seems a slightly more reasonable injustice to do to that 20th person, even if 19 should be blocked. If they really are being used in an organized way to dive into a contentious area, the people behind them aren't as likely to be willing to edit other things instead, so a very quick topic ban might be as useful as a block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A number of these accounts are following a pattern that makes it extremely difficult to believe they've come from anywhere but where editors are being urged to follow that particular pattern for disruptive purposes (for instance, two sections up we have sleeper accounts that resurrected suddenly to edit gamergate, and then just as suddenly jumped to obscure anime episode lists connected to gamergate only through Ryulong, coincidentally at the same time as a subreddit began urging its users to go to articles Ryulong had edited and make just enough edits to antagonize). I don't see these accounts as compromised so much as acting on an outside impetus for reasons other than building the encyclopedia, but both compromised accounts and accounts not here to build the encylopedia are handled by doing the same thing: blocking the account until a reasonable and plausible unblock request is submitted. We should be open, however, to unblock requests from that one or handful of people who really did hit the bad-luck lottery and got taken to articles following an off-wiki pattern by hitting "random article". In those cases, I agree with Floquenbeam's suggestion: they're welcome to return to editing if they're willing to operate under a topic ban from ; the specifics of each topic ban could be handled by the unblocking administrator as an unblock condition. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A lot of people with have web activity have registered accounts over the years then left. Thanks to various plugins they can probably still enter their passwords as thus bring the account back to life.©Geni (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Why would any of this even be relevant? Who cares if they were dormant, or which topic they go to upon return? Why don't we just judge editors by the quality of their edits? (Also: "Gamergate" didn't exist in years past, so it's pretty meaningless to say they didn't edit about Gamergate before they disappeared in 2011, or whatever...) Everyking (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I take no position on GamerGate-related silliness (other than a world-weary sigh) but I'd like to refer to my own "dormant" account history. Very few edits in the first 3-4 years of using my account, then I got properly into editing Misplaced Pages, helped with AutoWikiBot jobs and eventually became an admin. Ah, but I'm not like the bad people whose dormant accounts have been reactivated to cause trouble? Maybe not. But the way that is judged is by reference to their current behaviour, not by how long their account has been dormant. Not just on Misplaced Pages, but there are a lot of people who register for accounts which they leave dormant for a long time and then dive in only when they feel they have something to add. Being a lurker is something we should allow: there's a camera forum I lurk in because I learn interesting things about my particular brand of camera by reading the posts there, but I don't feel comfortable posting. Getting comfortable in a community can take a long time, or it can take meeting other people who are involved in the community who help induct you into the community's practices and ideas. I'd rather we not harm gentle, well-meaning lurkers in an attempt to chase out alleged wrongdoers. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Of course there is something going on, whether they are compromised or not. Other than running a SPI with cause, we are left with what ArbCom gave us. This mess isn't going to go away, and will now change Misplaced Pages. Or whatever is left of it. Dave Dial (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:SPA, even without the recent ArbCom addition, the standard is "Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time." For some of the recent bans handed out for minor infractions, on the assertion that these were conducted only to "antagonize" a recently-banned editor, these have failed good faith, fairness and civility altogether. While we are mainly speaking of dormant accounts reactivating, the only real concern being levied is whether or not these (including mine) are here solely to conduct advocacy, which is a case-by-case matter and not the blanket-condemnation some appear willing to leap to. The reality is, there had to be an ArbCom because virtually everyone involved was advocating for one side or another, and both sides were organizing both on and off wiki to do so. For some editors, it seems this decision and its basis may not yet have sunk in. Calbeck (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If editors start showing up to tendentiously edit articles in which a editor has been recently forcibly topic banned (or worse) it is reasonable to assume that they came with the purpose of antagonizing the restricted editor. It becomes a domino effect of how far do we extend the heightened scrutiny of edits in related topics from an initial topic of disruption. In this case (with the evidence presented) I would give one formal warning to any editor who has recently come back from an extended period of idleness only to concentrate on edits of questionable value to topics that were of interest to the editor in question. It seems a reasonable assumption that these editors are moving to pages that the editor had extensive interest in a form of retribution for the editor's own actions. Hasteur (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the hostility and off-site coordination in this area, this point is especially true. Ravensfire (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the hostility and on-site coordination in this area, its a bit pot calling the kettle black at this point. Especially given the outcome of the case. I'm with Everyking, follow policy, judge the editor by the quality of the edits *NOT* by crystal-balling their possible motives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a cottage industry in setting up and selling accounts on sites such as Misplaced Pages. They may be compromised, they may have been sold, but frankly to assume good faith any editor arriving out of long hibernation to pile in at a controversial article would go beyond the optimism of Mary Poppins. Of course they are not here to help, banninate them promptly and be done with it. We used to be good at fighting off the /b/tards, we need to re-learn our old robust behaviours. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Another area where mystery accounts are appearing is Landmark Worldwide, which is now under Discretionary Sanctions. A number of accounts have come from nowhere, and yet have detailed knowledge of a subject and sources that spans 30 pages of archives. One recent editor managed to expand the article by 50% and use a dozen sources without ever commenting on the talk page and having never worked on the article before. I guess, I'll just AGF and assume some editors are just that good. Otherwise, I'd have to think some of them might be any of the many editors blocked or banned or topic-banned over the years at that article - in which case it sure would be nice to see Guy fighting the /b/tards :) --Tgeairn (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to report them, and let's have a look. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to interject (I'm just following a link from a page I was mentioned on) but i feel that Tgeairn is being less than honest in his motivation and comments here. As the editor that allegedly expanded the article by 50% (it was 25%) which was a reduction in size by 40% of a section that was being deleted/reverted in and out of the article. It was my third edit on the article. I have replied elsewhere in more depth on Drmies

There is real life outside Misplaced Pages, I was active for a 5/6 month period 2009/10 and occasionally thereafter until I lost my password in a hard disk partition crash (windows & programs). I have never had any other user account other than my old and new replacement account and have linked them on the user page so anyone can see. As a graduate of the 70's and a professional I have to admit to having gone from a right wing viewpoint to left. I trust that when people return to WP that editors and admins should AGF. ThanksCathar66 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ban them even if the edits are good? Why? We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to play whack-a-mole or pretend detective. (Also, let me observe that our resident detectives suck very badly at "detecting", but they are excellent at building ill-will and driving good people away.) Another point: controversial things are popular editing topics in general, and returning from hibernation to edit one of them is meaningless as evidence. Everyking (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I have no idea abut the Gamergate activity, but in the EE editing areas (‎in particular, Russian-Ukrainian conflict) there are too many suddenly resurrected dormant accounts, editing disruptively and often supporting each other. There should be some way showing them the exit at the early stage, before they manage to disrupt the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all, let's stop pretending it is a wiki-tragedy that Ryulong was site banned; their chronic failure to contribute in a manner consistent with our WP:CIVILITY pillar was such that I suggested to another editor they start a RFC/U almost a year ago, long before gamergate .

Pokes at articles previously edited by Ryulong are being suggested off-wiki. That should not cause us to abandon our principles, including:

• Main_Page: the 💕 that anyone can edit.
• Wikimedia:Privacy_policy: we believe that you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement
• Wikimedia:Terms_of_Use: You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities.
• Edit buffer banner: Work submitted to Misplaced Pages can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—
• WP:PERSONAL: Comment on the content, not the contributor.

The best solution, is to simply monitor the new editors for disruptive behavior. FlossumPossum exhibited uncollegial behavior very early in their edit history , so I don't have a problem with the block per se; but it would be better if, except in the many cases of obvious vandalism / trolling account, blocking admins cite specific reasons for blocks rather than a vague WP:NOTHERE. DarknessSavior, on the other hand made no recent edits justifying a block. They briefly and calmly participated in a prior AN request for a Ryulong topic ban, a discussion that well illustrates Ryulong's unsuitability for Misplaced Pages as validated by arbcom's subsequent site ban. DarknessSavior edit history suggests they simply took the rather reasonable approach of waiting until Ryulong inevitable separation from the project before attempting to improve Kamen Rider OOO (character) -- an article which hardly approaches the BLP importance of actual Gamergate controversy articles.

The well meaning but flawed suggestion we simply block all the SPAs and make them prove themselves via unblock request only makes sense from the Wiki-insider point of view. A reasonably self-confident adult who inadvertently stumbles onto a unmarked "forbidden" article is not going to jump through hoops, they'll simply say: Huh, I guess these Misplaced Pages folks are a bunch of assholes and go find something else to do. Remember, the con is to try to get folks to work for free writing the encyclopedia. Continuing to put up every narrowing wickets -- too clueless and we WP:CIR block you, and too capable, like maybe someone who RTFM, and we block per WP:DUCK -- is not healthy for the encyclopedia.

If this all too much, if we simply must "protect" Ryulong's legacy, then simply pick some number -- a month?, identify the sacred Ryulong articles, and full protect them. It's an abuse of wiki policy, of course, but at least it's least it's less damaging than blocking any new editor who shows up. NE Ent 16:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Uncontroversial speedy deletion backlog

Hi all

There's a bit of a backlog of pages at Category:Candidates_for_uncontroversial_speedy_deletion.

In particular, I requested deletion of Jatiya Party and Hector Monsegur yesterday, following my non-admin closure of two move requests, and these have not yet been deleted.

Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've done the two you requested. Perhaps another admin can help with the others. 28bytes (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

UAA backlogged

Just a poke, thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 17:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Review block of FlossumPossum and WP:OWNING/WP:PROXYING by Hipocrite

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

A loose thread from the block review from above, FlossumPossum was also blocked on the grounds that (presumably, the admin didn't give a clear reason) he edited pages formerly edited by banned user Ryulong and thus exhibited a WP:NOTHERE mentality. However, he has edited quite a few other topics since his account creation a few days ago, and I can't actually find any diff of them editing anything remotely controversial aside from for a semi-edited protection request to change the grammar of a sentence. Further, the reviewing admin cited first test edit on his user talk page as reasons for upholding the block. For lack of better words, that's ridiculous.

Hipocrite has seemingly made it their goal to continue protecting Ryulong's watched pages , asking for reliable sources for changing the language of a sentence. Other edits: I don't see how Hipocrite is doing anything but continuing the same WP:OWN mentality that Ryulong exhibited. Users can't substitute for blocked users, and there's no independent reasoning here, just a denial of changes and asking for reliable sources even for minor grammatical edits.

Courcelles, while trying their best to protect Misplaced Pages from vandals, shouldn't be indef blocking editors like DarknessSavior and FlossumPossum for making incontroversial edits. The admins denying their appeals were also rather harsh. Maybe just a reminder to assume good faith and not bite, and to be more considerate when blocking.

Gamergate editors shouldn't be gravedancing over Ryulong's past edits, but Ryulong's friends should not be picking up their watchlist and preventing any changes whatsoever to those articles, and admins shouldn't be indef blocking editors for the audacity to contribute. -73.163.74.228 (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

My only response to this is that I was not solicited offsite and I will continue to make only edits that are verifiable and productive, and that I have independent reasons to make. In consoling a departing editor, I was attempting to make their transition away from something they contributed a great deal of their life too less painful. This helps both them, as a human, and us as an institution, as it makes Ryulong less likely to sock and disrupt, and more likely to spend the year distancing themselves such that they can request a lightening of the ban and return as a productive contributor. I would ask for everyone's support in doing this. Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best if the community took up the reigns rather than someone acting as a banned user's proxy. The implication of impropriety would be entirely avoided thusly, unless the consensus is that the community writ large is unable to maintain the pages adequately? But that implies directly that ownership is acceptable in this case (that the community is incapable of doing better). Again, problematic. Bearsfordays (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, how do you expect one to take a series of anonymous IPs, freshly created accounts (such as yours) and sleeper accounts suddenly taking an interest in this topic area? Resolute 00:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to ping PhilKnight, just because he declined at a few unblock requests (including FlossumPossum and this resurrected sleeper) and he might want to chime in if there is review of administrative actions. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I still think FlossumPossum is along the lines of Salvidrim's comments on Whymy's talk page, I'd be willing to unblock under WP:ROPE and see what happens. Courcelles 20:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Good to know that the Gamergate supporters learned that they can submit these with throwaway IPs every time an admin acts against them. They truly absorbed the lessons of the arbcom case- spam bureaucracy and feigned ignorance with as many people as possible as hard as possible. Parabolist (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we please for once try to stop pretending that everything is connected to GamerGate? Its getting boring, really. The project has lost valuable contributors, and wasted valuable resources on this silliness, already, and now people are still throwing around their buzzwords ("throwaway IPs") like its the most important thing in the world. Move on. Rka001 (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I mean, the IPs only contributions are this AN posting. What else would you qualify a "throwaway IP" if not "someone clearly familiar with wikipedia bureaucracy using an IP avoid scrutiny" Parabolist (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

And? Are there any points auto-invalidated by this behaviour? Rka001 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Links to FA demotion information on Madonna article

Need link to 1) previous featured article of Madonna (entertainer) and 2) Talk pages that discuss why the reasons it was demoted to Good Article. Not accessible from article's Talk page. thanks! --A21sauce (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be on the talk page under article milestones, look for featured article review. By the way articles are not demoted to good article status.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As Wehwalt said - the article was demoted from FA status as per the FAR, and later promoted to GA after a GAN. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:MFD backlog

WP:MFD is horribly backlogged. More than half of the nominations are over a week old, with at least one dating all the way back to December 24. A lot of them seem like they can be closed as delete without opposition, such as this one. Can some admins kindly get to work here? Ten Pound Hammer • 23:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree, it requires more attention. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

ASAP Yams recreation by IP

Could an Admin please take a look at ASAP Yams, it has been recreated after AfD said delete ASAP Yams AfD, but an IP recreated and removed my CSD tag. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I should have also said that the creator Soxxfan320 was blocked for being a sock... JMHamo (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Redirected and semi-protected in accordance with the AfD outcome. 28bytes (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you JMHamo (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Banning policy

About a month ago, I made a post on the policy village pump basically asking Wikipedians on their opinions of the banning policy, whether ban evasion can ever be excused, etc. I did not receive as broad of a response as I had hoped for, and seeing as we're in the midst of discussing reforms to the BASC and UTRS, I figured there shouldn't be much of a problem in reposting this to a wider audience.

I'll basically repeat what I said at the time, but in simplistic terms. Let's say someone was banned for particularly egregious offences, such as death threats or doxxing another editor. They subsequently make a new account and begin editing constructively for the next ten years, amassing several thousand edits throughout that time. Their past identity is later exposed to the community. As it turns out, they were around 12-13 at the time of their initial ban and have expressed genuine remorse for what they've done. Would it be appropriate to immediately block their account indefinitely without any further discussion, and should they be required to appeal their ban through the proper channels just like everyone else? Is their age a mitigating factor, even considering the behaviour for which they were banned?

The last question is the one I'm most curious about, seeing as it calls into question the editor's maturity at the time of their actions. This all boils down to one central issue — does age matter in dealing with cases of unbanning or ban evasion? I'm of the opinion that it ought to be taken into account when deciding whether or not to uphold a ban from so long ago, but I may be in the minority there. Thoughts? Kurtis 09:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe not age in and of itself, but time passed? Sure. Someone banned years ago and who managed to (unbeknownst to others) come back and prove he's an asset to the project shouldn't be automatically shown the door when his past is "uncovered". At the very least, it warrants a new discussion to see whether editors agree to overturn the ban or are adamant about enforcing it. But strictly speaking, age is less relevant (and more personal) that personal growth over time. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that in a case such as described here, discussion is warranted instead of instantly perma-blocking. Blocks and bans are meant to protect WP from harm. If a user has secretly been evading a sanction literally for years and has not caused any more disruption of the sort that got them sanctioned, that's a win. It's a rare scenario indeed but it can happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Concur with above, but. I've observed over the years that Misplaced Pages doesn't do abstract well -- we have a WP:IAR pillar that strongly implies policy isn't absolute, anyway. So I don't see any benefit to discussing the hypothetical, but if / when an actual case occurs there's just going to end up be a very specific discussion about that particular editor. NE Ent 18:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It depends. Some folks have such a strong agenda that they are prepared to play a long game, others are banned for going nuclear over a single incident. There is a difference. Consider a spammer who has learned how to do referenciness so is now a less controversial spammer, or a proponent of a crank theory who is prepared to spend a long time waiting to quietly weasel his crank theory in. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific case in mind? As I said in my response to the original discussion,

Such cases seem to be sufficiently rare that they can be handled as they are now: on a case-by-case basis. Circumstances vary so much from one banned individual to the next...that trying to create a firm rule now will either result in an unsatisfactory outcome when we try to apply it, or require us to create a complex and over-engineered policy to try to capture every single possible hypothetical. And even an over-engineered and hyper-detailed policy might still break down when today's hypothetical discussion crashes into real circumstances (and an evolved community) some years in the future.

Further to that, if we identify one specific mitigating factor – say, age – in policy will we then be inclined to over-rely on that, and to disregard other mitigating (or aggravating) factors? If we try to enumerate a complete list of mitigating factors, are we creating a checklist or too-rigid framework that will lead us to dismiss valid (but unanticipated) classes of appeal? (Or worse, creating a framework to guide future gaming of the system?)

We already seem capable of having discussions (citing WP:IAR or what-have-you if need be) when a case of ban evasion is discovered that isn't cut and dried, and where returning the individual to good standing on the project would be in line with the community's values. Trying to codify specific exceptions and loopholes seems to be inviting problems in an area where we don't actually seem to have a problem now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

For example, imagine that DGG, registered in 2006, is a reincarnation of Isis, permabanned in 2003 for making legal threats. We aren't going to go off and get rid of the guy because he's a banned user! It's never right to apply the policy without thinking of its ramifications: in most cases, the encyclopedia benefits when we get rid of the guy that's already banned, but there can be exceptions. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking is to spur discussion. I was thinking about proposing an overhaul of the entire banning process, but my ideas are probably too convoluted to gather any real support. Kurtis 19:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• So if i can paraphrase your question: "Should there be a statute of limitations?" I believe the answer is yes. Of course, the hypothetical you proposed has some issues regarding the current status of a block. But then again WP:INDEF says "Indefinite does not mean Infinite." In fact to further quote that section: "As with all blocks, it is not a punishment. It is designed to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Misplaced Pages's policies and to stop problematic conduct in future." Which means, if the user has learned from his block, has been contributing, and has not been disruptive then, by the spirit of the policy, the block has been carried out successfully. Remember it's not Punitive. However, in the case of death threats and doxing, there may be more to the issue than just WP policies. In any case, it appears the current policy already covers issues like the one you brought up. Unfortunately, like most policies, this one may be up to the personal interpretation of an admin. But that's why we have AN.

I actually do have a recent example of something similar to this, and I'm a little torn about it. Here's the block log . The user was banned twice 8 years ago as a vandalism only account. They came back and made one edit. And they were blocked. Now there's a few things to note that makes it a hard call. 1st: The article did become a source of contention and controversy, but this edit and ban were before that started. 2nd: Their edit was made at 1:33, it was reverted at 1:39, they were banned at 1:44 but there was no discussion started about the edited content until 3:54. 3rd: The edit ended up being in line with the consensus, so there was actually no misconduct. 4th: The editor was given no notice or reason. They were not contacted, they were not allowed to dispute, there's not even a note on the block log.

In this case, the editor does not have a good history. But the admin's actions don't seem to be exactly justifiable either. What do you guys think about this one?TyTyMang (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that ban ≠ block. Also, the edit was Ryulong-related, which is as you can imagine a very touchy subject with the ArbCom decision and all. ansh666 06:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Do edits being "Ryulong-related" give cause to make such actions? Do all edits by Ryulong have special rules/sanctions. You know though, it really does go to show you. Even after him being blocked the amount of influence (as noted by you and others) he has on WP is amazing. TyTyMang (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

What a surprise—another SPA attacking Ryulong. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems pretty ironic to me that you assume I'm attacking Ryulong by merely asking questions or by making the statement that others have alluded ,including you, to his continued influence post-ban. I had made no comment regarding him in any way. He was brought up to me. And frankly I don't care about him. Though I very much don't appreciate being accused of attacking someone.TyTyMang (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You all allowed Ryulong to WP:OWN these articles for years, driving away countless new editors. Now that his reign is ended you're once again shutting the door to these editors, not just reverting as he did but abusing your admin powers to ban them. It's disgraceful. The reason for policies like WP:BITE and WP:AGF is that new editors are essential to the encyclopedia's survival. It seems you've lost sight of that. Lincoln T. Logs (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am sure that the two (or it might be as many as three) examples that exist, can be handled on a case by case basis. Absent credible evidence of a problem demanding solution, I see no point. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Aside: I blocked TyTyMang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a drama-only account. We have enough shit-stirrers who have substantive contributions to the encylopaedia, we have absolutely no need of new ones who don't. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for admin oversight

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International opinion on the South Atlantic sovereignty dispute

This is a topic that always produces a rather toxic environment. I would appreciate a few admins keeping an eye on the discussion to keep a lid on problems with incivility. WCM_email 11:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2015: Announcement

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Courcelles, DeltaQuad, and Thyrduulf. This year, the usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process.

The Committee is bound by a Wikimedia Foundation policy that only those editors who have passed an RFA or equivalent process may be appointed, therefore only administrators may be considered. The Committee encourages interested administrators to apply, and invites holders of one tool to apply for the other.

The timeline shall be as follows:

• 1 February: Request for candidates to apply.
• 17 February: Candidate submissions close, vetting begins.
• 17-27 February: The Arbitration Committee and current Functionaries will vet the candidates.
• 28 February: Vetting ends, successful candidates contacted by 1 March
• 4 March: Candidates published on-wiki, community feedback invited
• 18 March: Community comments end.
• By 31 March: Appointed candidates announced

At the same time, the coordinating arbitrators will undertake to contact inactive functionaries, encouraging them to become more active or alternatively to resign if they are unwilling to commit to increasing their activity levels. If individuals do not respond, or respond in manner that is not indicative of increased activity, removals will be announced at the same time as the new appointments.

For the Arbitration Committee; Courcelles 01:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Appeal of topic ban

A little more than six months ago I was topic banned (link). I hereby appeal for lifting this ban.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

How will it benefit the interests of Misplaced Pages to do so? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It is always beneficial for wikipedia to have more editors constructively editing all articles on wikipedia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you feel that your past editing in the area concerned has been constructive? I ask this because that appears not to have been the consensus when the ban was enacted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I know nothing whatsoever about Antidiskriminator or previous incidents, but "I just want to edit" is not a productive argument for lifting a topic ban. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply which really makes sense. Is there any guideline which presents some kind of list of arguments to be used in discussions about ban appeals? If not, what do you think could be such argument? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any guide specifically related to appealing topic bans, but the advice given at Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks#Composing your request to be unblocked is also relevant to topic ban appeals. Generally speaking, an appeal wont be successful unless you:

• show you understand why the topic ban was imposed
• point to examples of where you have been constructively engaging in collaborative editing in one or more other topic areas
• have abided by the topic ban for at least the last 6 months without incident.
• state why you want to return to the topic area - is a particular article/problem you want to fix, for example?
• promise that problems will not reoccur

Deliberate boundary testing, wikilawyering, poor conduct in other areas, and a general lack of editing will typically be looked at unfavourably. I have not looked at any of the details of your ban or your contributions since, so I don't have an opinion on the merits of this specific appeal and I'm not implying that you have or have not done anything here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Here it is:

• The ban was imposed because the community reached consensus to ban me
• For example The Fault in Our Stars (film) and bringing it to GA level together with its nominator (link to my GA review). Since my topic ban was imposed I created 40 articles and developed 27 of them to start class and 4 to C class, alone or with other editors. I had 12 of them approved as DYK articles and still have 2 nominations. One nomination (Paškal Jukić) was done jointly with another editor (link) (link and link). I also created one template (link) and most of its content.
• I have abided by the topic ban for at least the last 6 months without incident (with one minor unintentional breach when I added one comma to text about Albanian partisans near Tirana in article about Kingdom of Albania - link)
• I want to return to the topic area because the subject of my particular interest (Ottoman Empire) is frequently related to post-1900 Serbs and Serbia and because sometimes I simply am able to constructively contribute to it, but can not due to restriction.
• I promise to take very good care not to violate wikipedia policies while editing articles related to the topic area from which I was banned as well as other topic areas.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think that first bullet point may be a killer to this request, so I suggest you expand on it. Can you explain what actions you took that caused the community to give you a topic ban? In particular, can you explain what you did that was problematic? You don't need to apologize for past behavior. Rather, you need to show you really understand what the problem was and have a solid plan for avoiding similar problems in the future. As written, I don't get that sense at all. Hobit (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion that resulted in the topic ban is here, and the first appeal of it, five days later, is here. It's been about 5 1/2 months since that appeal, and as far as I can tell there hasn't been another appeal since. A short discussion regarding the boundaries of the ban is here. Several of the people in that discussion were of the opinion that Antidiskriminator's October 21, 2014 edit to Albanian Kingdom (1943–44) violated the topic ban, but there was no consensus declared. BMK (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, Since that appeal has been 191 days, or 6 months and one week, if I am not wrong.
• Hobit, Thank you for this question. It is indeed good to clarify if I have a solid plan for avoiding problems in this topic area in the future. To put it briefly: The community reached consensus to ban me because of my talkpage behavior. I had numerous content and conduct related disputes with a group of editors. My communication with them was seen as disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....). Yes, I do have a plan to avoid similar problems in this topic areas. I plan to strictly follow wikipedia policies and avoid both content and conduct disputes with other editors. If some dispute happens anyway, I will strictly follow WP:DR and limit my talkpage comments to 1) opinion and 2) wikipedia policy or reliable source in which they are grounded as much as possible. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I'd be hard pressed to call the ban discussion a consensus in any way, shape or form, despite Drmies concluding that sufficient evidence of disruption had been presented to warrant a TBAN. The number of editors that !voted in that ban discussion was distinctly suboptimal. Six editors !voted all but two having had some sort of contact/dispute with Antidiskrimnator. I definitely couldn't say there was a sufficiently uninvolved consensus for a TBAN. Be that as it may, perhaps a probationary period of say 3 months during which the TBAN is lifted but any transgressions would result in a TBAN under WP:AC/DS? Blackmane (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This seems a good idea to me. The discussion above of what brought about the TBAN in the first place doesn't exactly reek of contrition, but avoiding the topic for six months may be grounds to AGF and lift the topic ban, on the understanding that it comes straight back if the misbehaviour continues. How do we administer this, so that admins are aware of the probation condition? GoldenRing (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest allowing proposals of edits on talk pages, and see how it goes from there. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Can some one investigate this?

Can an admin see if it was correct for the article on pornstar Tory Lane to be deleted when it was nominated by a known sockpuppeter. This was the second time it was put up for deletion, the first time it was found in favor of keep (not even no consensus, it was keep). I don't like any article (even porno related) being put up for deletion more than once, especially if the first one was not "no consensus" which at least would mean maybe a second one eventually would be ok. It smacks of sour grapes of "losing" when a keep on deletion is nominated a second time. Add in the known sockpuppeter who is "retired" around the same time as the nomination closing... Just think some investigating is warranted.Camelbinky (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog