Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:03, 7 May 2016

• 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 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for closure review

(Initiated 10 days ago on 16 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 71 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 59 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 46 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 43 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 43 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 41 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)

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 36 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 34 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 18 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Deletion discussions

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 54 days ago on 2 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 54 days ago on 2 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 42 days ago on 14 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 42 days ago on 14 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 37 days ago on 19 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 29 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Initiated 21 days ago on 5 December 2024) If there is consensus to do one of the history splitting operations but the closer needs help implementing it I would be willing to oblige. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 17 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 17 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 93 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 71 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 69 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

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

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

(Initiated 51 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 48 days ago on 8 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 29 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 29 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)

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

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

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

Someone is proposing a community ban

I have moved this discussion from ANI to here because admin user:KrakatoaKatie commented in it below that "Community ban discussions belong at AN". I hope we are now in the correct place. Tradedia 02:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion here with examples provided: . Long story short, User:LightandDark2000 appears to be well versed in Misplaced Pages rules enough to defend himself lawyer style by insisting he acts in good faith and shouldn't be harassed or punitively blocked, but still refuses to engage users' criticism of his editing style. Criticisms include stretching ambiguous sources to support his edits, reverting sourced edits then not undoing that when corrected despite the restriction posed on us by the 1RR, and only engaging in minimal discussion whenever we try to bring up the topic. As I said in the discussion, this dispute dates back to at least June: .

Note this module is subject to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and a 1RR. As I proposed in that discussion, letting an administrator talk to him may be more effective since he doesn't listen to us. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Community ban discussions belong at AN, not on an article talk page. It certainly does seem that this editor is tendentious. The block log is longer than my arm. Katie 16:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"The block log is longer than my arm" - That kind of jaded hyperbole is completely unnecessary, and in this case quite disingenuous. Just sayin'... - WOLFchild 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't CB discussions be at WP:ANI (here)? WP:AN is mostly more esoteric admin notices, and isn't what "the community" rather, the subset of the community with any stomach for these discussions) pays much attention to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

While AN is the better place for these things, it usually gets decided on ANI anyway. Everything happens on ANI. -- The Voidwalker 23:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless as to whether or not ANI is the proper venue for discussing community bans, I have placed a hat on the discussion on the talk page, redirecting users to this thread. -- The Voidwalker 23:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I recently requested to get a topic ban lifted on WP:ANI only to be told toward the end when it was clear it would not be lifted that I should have made the request at WP:AN. While it is clear the article talk page is not the correct place for discussion of bans, we need clearer instructions for editors on where is the correct place. DrChrissy 23:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is deeper and more persistent than the above seems to indicate. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria module. His bad faith, bad source edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#I propose community ban on user:LightandDark2000 editing Syria- and Iraq-related maps, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#Bad Edit: Raqqa Frontline and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000.

He has a habit of deleting complaint messages from his own talk page so that it would not reveal who he really is. Take a look at the history of edits of his talk page and you will discover dozens and dozens of deleted complaint messages from just the last year. Let me illustrate his general attitude by giving as an example, his latest "deletion". A user in good faith writes to him: "Your source: http://en.ypgnews.tk/2016/03/15/anti-is-forces-close-in-on-groups-raqqa-hq.html is a dead link. Please provide another source." You can verify that the link is indeed a dead link since it just leads you to the "main page" of the website (en.ypgnews.com). User:LightandDark2000 deletes the message with the edit summary: "It is not a dead link. Fix your computer." You can even see that in this same edit, he increments his "vandalism counter" ({{User:UBX/vandalized|47}}) by 1, implying that the user's message on his talk page, was vandalism!

Also there was a report about him at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages where he was blocked for one month. The mess he creates regularly takes time to be cleaned. He injects in the map his POV pushing and total disregard for other editors’ opinions, sources and established consensus & rules. He has done nothing but make the map wrong with his POV pushing & unresponsive behavior towards other editors. I am asking for him to be permanently banned from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradedia 17:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC) @bot: do not archive yet. 15:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed that almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me. I see this, as well as this entire proposal, as unfairly biased. You cannot proposal a ban, or a block, just because someone has made a number of mistakes (in good faith, I might add). By the way, a permanent ban is unnecessary overkill (See WP:PUNITIVE). I have never tried to "ruin the map" or "vandalize", or "force my own point of view", I only tried to edit honestly according to the rules of Misplaced Pages, and recently, the localized rules added in in the sanctions. It's true that I have made mistakes. But everyone made mistakes, and I have always tried to correct my mistakes when I realized that I had made some, or at least brought it to discussion. Blocks and sanctions are not meant to be punitive either, so I can't see how this proposal (especially given the bias of the user who originally proposed it) has any legitimacy as well. If we were to follow this line of logic, every one of the users who has been complaining/pushing for me to be "permanently banned" should be banned as well. Not only have I been harassed on the Syria module talk, but I have also been attacked by a couple of users on the talk page, as you can see here. Why should I be banned when I am editing out of good faith, have absolutely no intention of disrupting or vandalizing the map, and there are also a number of users I get along with quite well on the module/article in question. By the way, there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more "POV" edits than those I have allegedly or unintentionally done (some of the mhave also engaged in serious cases of edit warring in the past few months). The users that are biased against be are currently dominating this discussion, and they are ganging up om me in an attempt to kick me off the module; I feel like I am being harassed through this proposal. Also, this "good faith" editor 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E that Tradedia cited is actually a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Pbfreespace3, where there is an ongoing SPI investigation regarding his active user of sockpuppets to cirvumvent his block. The fact that such biased users were cited as "good examples," including a sockpuppet, astonishes me and makes me question the very purpose of this proposal. I strongly believe that the users pushing for this ban want to ban me out of annoyance and punitive motives, not because of any good faith. I have also noticed that the vast majority of users who commented in the recent ban proposal (including the original proposal on the Syria module talk) are the users who are biased against me, so please note this carefully. And pertaining to the Syria module talk, a user there said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." and another said that "I think that not need a ban for editor user:LightandDark2000 he sometimes made mistakes but he said that he will no longer break the rules so I think do not need to judge him so severely. Each of us can make a mistake but it is always necessary to give a chance to mend..." If we were to ban or block a user every time they made a mistake on these "hot/contested topic" areas, we would hardly have any editors left to edit articles in any of those errors. Therefore, in light of the circumstances and the people involved in this proposal, I believe that this ban proposal should be declined. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I will respond to the main points of your defense paragraph:

• You say: “almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me.” I have counted a total of 16 different users on these feeds. So that’s a lot of “haters”! The relevant question is why a lot of these users “hate” you? Did it occur to you that this is because of your edits and attitude?
• You mention the important notion of assuming “good faith”. However after a while, the assumption of good faith can be completely obliterated by months and months of watching you make dishonest edit after dishonest edit.
• You invoke WP:PUNITIVE. However, you have to realize that the ban is not being requested to punish you, but rather to protect the map from your damaging edits that make it wrong and ruin its reputation, therefore spoiling the hard work of many honest editors.
• You claim that you have been “harassed” and “attacked”. However, users criticizing your edits should not be viewed as harassment or personal attacks. These users have nothing against you as a person. They have a problem with your edits. Instead of feeling like you have been victimized, you should instead ask yourself the question of why there is so much negativity around you. Opening a section discussing your bad edits and attitude is legitimate because they harm the encyclopedia, even if the venue should have been ANI instead of the module’s talk page.
• You mention that “there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more POV edits” than you. Other users behaving badly is not a valid excuse. If someone is breaking Misplaced Pages policy, then you should report them, as I have done myself this week, and this has resulted in blocks.
• Your bringing up accusations of sockpuppetry is really beside the point. Whether the IP is a sockpuppet or not is a matter to be determined at SPI. What is in focus here is your behavior and your general attitude in responding to valid questions. As your history of edits shows, you also respond the same way to users you do not accuse of sockpuppetry.
• You mention that “a user said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." However, this is the same user who subsequently opened this section here at ANI. So he must have changed his mind given your continued unresponsiveness… I think that your reaction to the latest section about you on the module’s talk page has been very disappointing to many users who feel that this is now a hopeless case. Tradedia 11:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that he was banned before for the same issue, which is why I did not support a ban. I still don't, I'd rather a moderator gives him a clear warning that if his behaviour persists, he'd see a topic ban or block. To be fair I was gonna bring up the vandalism counter myself, but after reading this discussion of the sockpuppetry investigation I realized it had a good explanation. The rest of the deletions do not, however. I brought this to ANI because I wasn't aware of what the protocol is for someone proposing a ban in a talk page, but it was clear there was a dispute and I figured an admin would be listened to by the user, since he doesn't listen to anyone else.

User:LightandDark2000 I keep repeating this every time, the biggest issue is your unresponsiveness to discussion. All of us regular contributors regularly engage each other in thorough discussion whenever a controversy emerges, you don't. I don't want to project onto your intentions, but your extensive use of Misplaced Pages policy links to defend yourself shows me that you are completely aware of what type of community Misplaced Pages is supposed to be, and this makes the assumption of good faith really hard to maintain. It's true users lose patience and regrettably resort to frustrated outbursts, but that does not erase the original criticism that you seek to ignore.

It is very hard to defend you considering this has been ongoing for a year. If you wish to avoid being blocked, as there appear to be growing calls for that, this is the right moment to show you understand what's wrong and pledge to right it. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And I must add, your claim that people are only criticizing you because they hate you personally is a sign of WP:CABALS and WP:MPOV. The ban proposals aren't to punish you, but to prevent disruptions to the map. You must focus on how disruptions can be prevented rather than on how it's unfair to you as a person. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Enough, I suggest that (although I will probably insert random horrible thing here just for being the one to suggest it) User:LightandDark2000 receive a indefinite ban from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, due to repeated irresponsible editing as described above. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Indefinite ban, for sure. BTW, he continues to misinterpret sources even today, like here, when he uses sentence "With all hilltops around the city captured" to justify changing village (not hill!), as far as 17 km from the city edge, to gov-controlled. If this isn't playing stupid (I don't know politically correct way to say this), I really don't know what is. Please stop this guy, he is really taking everyone's time and he should be dealt with like any other vandal. --Hogg 22 (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks. It's not civil, and it demonstrates poor character and an unwillingness to work with others. You are also confusing vandalism with good faith edits made in error. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How many times a person can ignore what he is told and do it his way before it's obvious he is playing stupid? 5 times? 10? 20? I think You passed all that limits. Assuming good faith doesn't mean letting one person making idiots of 10 others indefinitely. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately despite all appeals User:LightandDark2000 continues to play lawyer and deliberately ignores the subject matter. He does not respond to criticisms while asking detractors to remain civil, he uses the lack of civility as a smokescreen to avoid having to listen to the discussion at all. This is extremely frustrating and is the cause of why too many editors lose their patience with you in the first place. Those that attack you could well be wrong, but your unresponsiveness is itself the original sin. NightShadeAEB (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not addressing this earlier, but I'm quite busy as a person. This is the reason for my lack of participation in many discussions (some of which I regret). I probably could have done better, and I am sorry about by lack of input in many past discussion, but I do try my best to respond to discussions involving crucial issues. I will make more of an effort to engage in future discussions, where or when my attention is required. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So you are too "busy as a person" to "participate in discussions", yet you find the time to make 500 edits in the last 40 days? Tradedia 09:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 continues to disrupt Syria map page. More here: user: LightandDark2000, Qaryatan, Syria tell and al-Mihassah (permalink). Please, block him. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. There is more! Check the talk page with complaints. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Is the ban being proposed a ban from the site, or a topic ban? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: What is being proposed is a ban from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradedia 03:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

SPI is backlogged

Can an admin please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/JShanley98? It's been open almost two weeks, and it's basically a WP:DUCK case. And, no, I didn't file it, but it's incredibly obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked the registered account, but the IP is a little stale so it's simply tagged. Katie 00:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both for this. Lugnuts 16:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Can I hear it for the good folks working SPI? They have a complicated and ungrateful task, and deserves happy things like puppies and apple pie. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

  Do we need more CheckUsers? I'm seeing regular backlogs at SPI and on UTRS and I think I maybe might be able to contribute. Katie 19:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Can more people apply to SPI? It seems that a small fraction of the 38 CheckUsers are working on SPI. KgosarMyth (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is a very underserviced area of the site, sadly. But that's coming from a notorious SPI-stalker like me. There is no need to really apply; you can help there regardless of whether you are a Checkuser or Admin (I'm neither, heh), or you could consider becoming a trainee clerk in the future. GAB 20:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't need more Checkusers, we need more willing admins and Clerks to review and act on the open reports. There are only three Checkuser-endorsed reports open at the moment, every single other entry is awaiting review from willing participants. Another option is to clone Vanjagenije, though I'm not sure he would be open to the suggestion.--Jezebel's Ponyo 19:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Better idea would be to divide me in two, that would also help me with my weight problem. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You could divide me in four to build a quartet of reasonably-healthy men, but they'd probably be slackers just like me. Sorry I'm not helping out more, Vanja. We love ya! <3 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I've long proposed splitting Bbb23. Even at 11.5 they'd be great. Ponyo, well, there's only one Ponyo. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a clerk training in progress: December 2015 clerk training. It has been idle for some time. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Another that needs attention

If an administrator could review Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Никита-Родин-2002, it would be appreciated. The length of the report isn't due to contention; it's because the master is continuing to move on to more and more socks. Having the existing ones blocked and tagged (all of which are very obvious) would be helpful. ~ Rob 21:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The named accounts have all been blocked and tagged, and I tagged the IPs as suspected socks. Nothing more to do. If/when it reoccurs, open a new one. :-) Katie 02:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

section originally titled "Standard offer request", retitled by Salvidrim! on 17:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC).

I typically spend about 1,000 hours a year working on Misplaced Pages. I started out mostly working on energy related topics, but then got interested in becoming an admin and created this alternate username for that purpose, plus for other reasons. While I apparently disagreed with some on some issues that is no way to resolve disputes, but while blocked I simply looked for something else to do and found a home in creating and translating SVGs, which occupies most of my time now (so far I have created over 1000 images, with one that has over 7500 translations). I qualify for the standard offer because I meet all the criteria - over six months, active in another project, never violated the block. In the meantime I made a list of over 250 edits I found that needed to be made, and have worked my way through about 1/3 of them and will get to the rest as soon as I can, but the standard offer will help greatly because there are some edits that the restrictions on my account prevent me from doing. I will actually only be making a few edits each week here (after the backlog is cleared), as there is a backlog of over 6000 SVGs to create and over 6000 that need translations. Each restriction means only one thing - an edit does not get done that would help the project. Apteva (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• You are not actually blocked? Or is this an appeal of a restriction you are under? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Do you mean you want your other account unblocked and/or that you want to be allowed to edit from other accounts? "Per the consensus at the discussion at WP:AN, you are restricted to editing solely from the Apteva account from now on." That restriction was placed in Jan 2013. Why should it be lifted? Fences&Windows 17:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Current restrictions (per WP:EDR):

1. Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion, and from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles
2. Apteva is topic banned from proposing the removal of his existing restrictions, at any Misplaced Pages venue, until 31st January 2014, and is limited to one appeal every six months after that.

They are currently appealable. Technically only the first once is relevant (as the second one becomes inapplicable if there are no existing sanctions). This isn't really a "WP:STANDARDOFFER" both more a simple topic ban appeal. I've (boldly) retitled this section as such. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Apteva, can you give one or more example of "edits that the restrictions on {your} account prevent {you} from doing"? Can you provide specific examples of constructive work on other projects in the topic of dashes/hyphens/etc.? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, the one that I came across the other day is I was updating the SEGS page, and I noticed that there were two types of dashes used and I wanted to consolidate those to the endash and could not. So the best I could do is use the correct one in the section that I added. Another example is if I take a photograph of a location that would identify me, I can not use or add it to a page without revealing my real world location. As such I need to be able to use other account names. We are not talking about a lot of edits, maybe a few a year I would guess. The standard offer removes all restrictions. While I am unblocked, which is hugely beneficial, what I really need is a removal of all restrictions, so that I can contribute fully to the project, without having one hand tied behind my back for reasons that no longer exist. This was a fun file that I fixed. It used both commas and periods for a decimal place and two hyphens and two endashes. Or something. I did not check to see if they were really hyphens (they are). I have seen a file named using a minus sign for a hyphen. Apteva (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Seems to have a clue now. Katie 03:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose "I noticed that there were two types of dashes used and I wanted to consolidate those to the endash and could not. So the best I could do is use the correct one in the section that I added." So, the reason for lifting the topic ban on modifying dashes is so he can modify dashes he thinks are incorrect? I singularly fail to see how lifting a topic ban from someone, that was *specifically* put in place to restrict their editing in an area, to allow them to edit in that area, is a good thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The reason is so that errors do not stay in articles. Sure someone else might notice it but how long has that been there before I noticed it (over two years), and what is the reason for insisting that I can not fix it? I am not going by what I think it should be I am going by what the MOS says it should be. That is why we have a MOS, so that punctuation is not all over the place like that but follows a standard. Whenever I do not know what to use I refer to the MOS to find out. What is the reason for wanting it to stay wrong? Saying I cannot fix errors when I see them is not a good idea. But I want to remind you that two years ago I did have an opinion on what it should be and tried to get the MOS changed to address that. But as that failed I moved on and I ask everyone to allow me to simply edit using that MOS. Apteva (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Template misused in Titles alert—patrol+Bot+Solution needed

Posting this here as the issue needs a long term solution, then bot cleanup to implement. re: This edit & action - Note the subtext comment explaining the problem. (Duplicated here for complete picture, emphasis added):

PROBLEM... Template NOT to be used in Lead... see {{IPAc-en/doc}} page, but needs be avoided in first paras of articles. {{IPAc-en|m|ə|n|ˈ|r|oʊ}}; NOTE, mouse-over hoover on List of Presidents of the United States showed most of the first ten also NOT having the template. Perhaps subst'ing the output will be acceptable, suspect the issue is noprint element or other incompatible generated script control element

• Template:IPAc-en(edit talk links history)

1. Suspect the problem is not to general reader
   1. but only affects those of us which have script assisted pre-peak over wikilinks enabled in our .CSS file, which is to say most computer savvy veteran editors
   2. but... at this point: that is only a hypothesis and guess!
2. That means the scope and exact nature of the problem needs be revealed before any general solution can be adopted... hence this body is best suited to resolve speedily.
3. Problem is use of a template in Lead para, which probably has little use outside leads: but for which the template usage /doc page WARNS PROMINENTLY to NOT use it in leads.
4. I saw the problem by hoovering over the link to President James Monroe. I saw similar malformed... Someone after Jackson.
   1. The hoover issue manifests on these two pages:
      1. James Buchanan
      2. Abraham Lincoln... skipping most back to Washington.
   2. Have to suspect, to believe even, given the format observed there are thousands of biographies and history articles that may be affected; these are likely to use the pronunciation-date range format as MOS preferences.
   3. obviously parsing the 'whatlinkshere' manually will show the same issue I observed.
5. The real issue is resolving how speedily a resolution of this problem is needed, how widespread and problematic, and how it's to be resolved.
   1. If, as I suspect the issue only appears to those of us hoovering a link, IMHO, we can all just learn to live with it, and it's use in the lead can be tolerated; hence the template warning should be altered a bit.
   2. If, as is possible, this also has issues in being printed, or Iphones or other page rendering issues to the general public, then the matter becomes far more urgent.

Need I say more! I leave the matter in your hands. // FrankB 17:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a technical problem. Kaldari added that notice in the doc only recently, without explanation, so it is best to ask him. For me, I can see no fault in its rendering on the page itself. The only problem I see is that the IPA rendering is left blank in Popups. It affects any language, and IPA pronounciations are regularly, if not mostly, used in the lead. If anything, the issue should be brought up there. But it is no reason to remove any IPA template from the lead in any articles. Therefor, I will put it back and remove the notice. Popups is not a core part of the software, threfor never a reason to remove any templates from articles. -- ] {{talk}} 18:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter and Fabartus: The notice I added in the docs says "Per WP:LEAD, do not use this template in the lead section for common English words." In other words, don't add a pronunciation for words like Monday, pub, bean, rose, pencil, mind, bus, Earth, etc. (all of which until recently included pronunciations). My note had nothing to do with technical issues, only MOS guidelines. Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe all parenthetical phrases are stripped from pop-ups and search snippets, but that should not affect use of the IPAc-en template. Kaldari (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, dude! Want to explain how date ranges in the two president examples I linked above ARE NOT parenthetical expressions?
In any case, if this is only an editor popup, I have no beef with it. Otherwise the two leading whitespaces and semicolon left dangling after the '(' are nearly as objectionable as a hanging chad to a die-hard Democrat. // FrankB 17:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Neve-selbert.

I'm requesting that Neve-selbert's indef block be reduced to a 1-month block. The individual hadn't vandalized articles or used sock-puppets & has promised to stay away from the List of state leaders in Year articles & the Israel/Palestine topic. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Somewhat on the fence here Having interacted with Neve-selbert somewhat, I can only say they have a great deal of heart in contributing to the project, which is commendable and with all the good faith in the world, I'd be supportive of the reduction. However, their condition also leads to tricky situations, such as the one that got them blocked. There's nothing to say that the same situation that occurred on the List of State Leaders won't happen somewhere else, simply because there is no way of telling what their compulsion would latch on to. The biggest question would be how those situations would be dealt with? They obviously can't be article banned one at a time whenever their compulsiveness kicks in. Blackmane (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping he could be unblocked on May 17 (2016), which would mark a month being blocked. We should be helping him, instead of throwing him away. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Admins disagreeing on unblock

And I'm one of them, kind-of.

Some days ago, I blocked Hijiri88 with a rationale of WP:BATTLEGROUND (no link, but a link was present in his previous block, so presumably he was familiar with it) because of this edit. It's a two-week block. Hijiri proceeded to request unblock, but his request was declined by HighInBC with statements such as Since you don't seem to realize how this was inappropriate I don't think an unblock would make sense. Yesterday, TParis asked me to unblock, a request that I was inclined to grant (I don't want to reject this kind of request from another admin) until I saw the unblock request and its rejection, but I hesitate unilaterally to unblock someone after learning that another admin is so firmly opposed to unblock.

So basically, you have HighInBC strongly opposed to unblock, TParis requesting unblock, and me in the middle, not quite sure what to do. Sounds like a perfect "ask the community" situation. Unblock? Modify the block? Leave the block unchanged? Your opinions would be appreciated. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Call a compromise and reduce it to a one week block including time served. Blackmane (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I would say since after your block an unblock was rejected by another admin, you can not unilaterally unblock them. I would just leave the matter to the fourth admin (possibly by asking the user to file another unblock request).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• If this is a request for feedback on how to handle things in general, I'd say a reasonable approach is (a) if blocking admin is in favor of unblock, they break the tie, and (b) if blocking admin is unsure or against unblock, then seek consensus here.

If this is actually a request for such a consensus here, then my opinion hinges on whether Hijiri has been part of the feuding that recently led to my blocking MaranoFan and Calvin999 for 1 month. If so, then I strongly favor leaving it in place, as it is already half of the duration I'd have used. If it is not, then I have no opinion. I know it involves Calvin999, but I don't know if it's related to the wider conflct. I don't have time to research, so I'll hope/assume that someone will know and interpret this accordingly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, the edit I linked above as the basis for the block (another copy of that link) was a comment at one user's talk page, which created a new section with the title of ] is blocked for battleground behaviour. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection if another admin comes to another conclusion regarding the unblock request. I have no strong feelings on the matter. My unblock review was part of me going through the unblock queue and was based on my analysis of the quality of the block and its ongoing preventative nature. If Nyttend or TParis(or anyone else) feels that the block has served its purpose then I have no intention of standing in their way. Thank you for consulting me. HighInBC 16:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've no doubt the block was warranted. Grave dancing is just going to sour the situation worse when Calvin999 returns. But this comment pretty much puts the preventative issue to rest. Hijiri88 seems to appear to agree that it's only going to sully the situation and will not engage in further grave dancing.--v/r - TP 17:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about Hijiri88's participation but both Calvin and MF are asking for an IBan but I know that admins are leery of imposing them because they can be gamed. When these editors get unblocked or their blocks expire, they will all have to increase their level of restraint. For some reason, it seems like a herculean task for some editors to just ignore each other. I hope this situation has a more positive outcome. Liz 21:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note This block has since been reversed. Everyone involved with the block and reviews seems to be in agreement. Unless anyone has other concerns about this I think it can be closed. HighInBC 16:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Please help

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

Could someone please paste importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/badimages.js'); into (Redacted)/monobook.js. Thanks for your help! :-)-- ((Redacted)) 10:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

In order for you to be able to utilize custom JavaScript code, you need to create an account and move the code into the .js page under your new account. IP users do not have an editable monobook codespace like accounts do, and even if they did... that area is not editable by any users or accounts other than yourself. ~Oshwah~ 10:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do have an account, but I have found that I am unable to edit that page either though here. I do not want these images to be viewable though my IP. Please help! Thank you. --LL212W (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unregistered contributors cannot use scripts (I know, I tried). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It is for security reasons. Imagine someone putting hostile javascript in the script page of a popular shared IP. HighInBC 18:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested moves backlogged

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

Misplaced Pages:Requested moves heavily backlogged. Baking Soda (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration motion restricting Gamaliel

Per his request, communicated off-wiki to the Committee, Gamaliel is indefinitely restricted from taking any action to enforce any arbitration decision within the GamerGate topic, broadly construed. Any violation of this motion must be reported to WP:ARCA. He may appeal this decision after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.

Support: Doug Weller, Courcelles, Opabinia regalis, Drmies, DGG, Kelapstick

Oppose: Salvio giuliano, Casliber, Callanecc, Guerillero

Recuse: Gamaliel, GorillaWarfare, Keilana, Kirill Lokshin

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz 17:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion restricting Gamaliel

Is this the right place to say there seems to be a gap in the archive for the page Talk:Heat?

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

There seems to be a big gap in the archives for the page Talk:Heat. Is this the right place to ask about that?Chjoaygame (talk)

Looking at the history of the talk page in this time gap, the only difference between the talk page at the end of December 2015 and the version at the beginning f April 206 is the removal of a single section; this corresponds to this edit, which is archiving that section. This would explain the gap. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this. When I look at the top parts of the page Talk:Heat I see only archives up to archive 15. I now see that you are right that looking on the archive pages one is guided to the later archives. Should the top of the main talk page show all those?Chjoaygame (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chjoaygame: You can edit Talk:Heat to include the new links, it is not protected. — xaosflux 20:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

BLP nightmare needs attention

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

See Clinton donors in the Panama Papers and related pages. It's up for deletion but I really don't think this guilt by association attack page should be up and running for another two days (or even longer).--TMCk (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid closing it now for any admin would be suicidal.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the deletion discussion. I considered a snow close but I decided the discussion did not warrant it. Let it run for two more days; I think the result will be clear enough. --MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

With 5 kees and 15 deletes it is not a snow keep by my standards, given that the keep arguments have been provided.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

That was my conclusion also. --MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Always nice to see how BLP policy is not negotiable.--TMCk (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a SNOW by BLP standards. And there's really only 3 keep votes. The other two are WP:OTHERSTUFF (by an IP) and "me too!". And it's 17 deletes now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Need to wait for some admin who is not afraid to uphold BLP policy, one of the very reasons they've been trusted with the tools.--TMCk (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

(ec)You go, girl. We got you covert.--TMCk (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Involved block and revdel

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

Just a quick note for transparency that, despite considering myself WP:INVOLVED, I made an indefinite block and revision deletion for this edit as a serious BLP violation. CIreland (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Good block, the edit has been suppressed also. -- GB fan 01:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

3 editors edit warring on my talk page

Three editors are edit warring with me on my own talk page. User:Clubjustin4, User:JWNoctis and User:Curly_Turkey. I told Curley Turkey three times not to edit my talk page and an admin told them not to do so as well, yet here they are edit warring to restore their old comments.

Talk page.

I'm giving notice at their talk pages now. UPDATE: all three editors have been notified at their talk pages.

2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:F473:80F:6A73:9F72 (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC) You have been blocked. The only one 3rring is you. Throw in some block evasion for talk page access revoked please. Clubjustin (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It was a 48 hour block and it has expired. I'm not evading anything. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:F473:80F:6A73:9F72 (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Clubjustin4 has been notified of this report, responded here and has now intensified the edit warring. Somebody please put a stop to this. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:F473:80F:6A73:9F72 (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, editing others' comments and warnings for purposes other than archiving just because you can is not good form, at the very least. You may also wish to get yourself an actual account, and may that hold your action more accountable. JWNoctis 05:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you cite a policy? I'm not seeing one. Sounds like a bunch of unsolicited opinion. That's not a justification for editing my talk page. Nor edit warring once it's clear your edits are unwanted. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:F473:80F:6A73:9F72 (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You delete messages on the reason 'trolling' yet you refer to 'trolling' as a personal attack. What? Clubjustin (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The editor edited their page with an alternate account after having thier talk page access blocked. The editor has actually used quite a few different IP accounts (both IPv4 and IPv6) to avoid the blocks they've been given. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for 60 h per WP:NOTTHERE. If someone can apply a range block, this would be useful.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

At this point, we need to block both IPV4 &6 range of IP'S. Clubjustin (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblocked 2602:301:C063:EDC0::/64 for 60 hours (reset Ymblanter's block) for block evasion. If you'll list the IPv4 addresses, I'll investigate. Katie 16:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Article redirected without consensus

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

The article on Spy-Fi was nominated for deletion despite having up to ten refs. The result of the discussion was no consensus and now user:Betty Logan redirected without discussion. There are a number of editors still working on the article and an elaboration weather to split sections. I don't know how to bring it back, but it was not done without proper discussion. I don't know how to undo this move. It seems only an admin can do it. Please help undo it. That article is still being worked on by multiple editors and it was moved without any explanation.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• I moved the article because the term "spy-fi" has two distinct definitions: for many years it has denoted "spy fiction" in the publishing industry, but in the last decade the term has been coined to denote a sub-genre of spy-fiction and science-fiction. With this edit Taeyebaar made it clear that he intends the article to focus exclusively on the sub-genre so I disambiguated the article to make it clear which definition the article covers. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Curious about pending changes on talk pages

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

I know it's not for talk pages, and I don't plan on using it there. I was just wondering if it is technically possible for an admin to do so. PC isn't one of the options on the protection screen for talk pages, just edit and move protection. I'd think that a dev would be able to do this without much trouble, but is there any sort of workaround that would allow an admin to add pending changes to a talk page? --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Our current configuration does not support this, see Special:StablePages for the combinations that are supported. I don't see a reason it could not be enabled project wide for other namespaces if we had community consensus for it. — xaosflux 02:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs#Basic_settings shows that $wgFlaggedRevsNamespaces could be updated to include other namespaces, this would be project-wide. — xaosflux 02:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

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

Sorry to be so bold as to delete another person's post, but this is very serious. This edit needs to be blocked out. Whatever your feelings towards Alansohn, NO ONE should have their real identity "outed" on Misplaced Pages. This can be dealt with via email. Can an admin please remove this? This is serious. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You should recommend as well, the deleted post be strickend from this page's 'history'. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Review of ANI close

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

Discussion

I am asking for a review of the ANI close here. The main issue is a specific reading of the rev-del policy by the closer: that the views of the non-admins are irrelevant in considering whether there is a consensus for a rev-del, even when the rev-deled text is available for all to read. This is in contrast to clear direction in WP:REVDEL: Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed. Clearly the views of non-admins can indicate dissent, at the very least. It seems to me that the reading is contrary to the spirit, and quite possibly the letter of the policy.

Discussion with the closer here (permalink). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Overturn close: Per my statement above. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Kingsindian (talk · contribs) is intentionally cherry picking the policy. I've pointed it out twice that the policy says:
  • "RevisionDelete allows selective redaction of posts and log entries by administrators, as well as peer review by any administrator of the correct use of the tool."
  • "They are subject to review by other administrators (who can see redacted material), and to reversal upon clear, wider consensus."
• I can only suspect that the omission of these quotes by Kingindian, after being pointed to those lines twice, is an intentional omission to mislead. I agree that when the material is available on the internet, that review should be possible by editors as well and that an RFC be started. BU_Rob13 (talk · contribs) was kind enough to start one here. At this point, I think Kingsindian needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK.--v/r - TP 01:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Close this as WP:FORUMSHOP. I started an RfC to address the questions surrounding this closure. I heavily disagree with the close because I believe the section of the policy quoted by Kingsindian above implies that no consensus should default to "don't delete", but it's improper to have two discussions running at the same time on the same question. It's much better to address this question more generally with an RfC, because I can absolutely see where TParis is coming from. The policy is not at all clear on this issue. ~ Rob 01:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: There is no forum shopping. The RfC you opened is whether the RevDel policy should be changed. This is whether the RevDel policy, as written, was correctly applied. I pointed out this on TParis' talk page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Brianpeppers123456

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

I'm trying to post warnings to Brianpeppers123456 but it's coming up as a permission error/blacklisted page. Need an admin to assist, though given this user's early edits, I suspect their time here may be limited. Valenciano (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for inappropriate username and vandalism. CIreland (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Oversight block appeals (Oversight-l)

Original discussion

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an oversighter as oversight blocks should be sent to the oversight team via email (Oversight-llists.wikimedia.org) to be decided by the English Misplaced Pages oversighters, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking oversighter as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.

Enacted - Miniapolis 15:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Oversight block appeals (Oversight-l)

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• I really can't make heads or tails of this announcement. I have absolutely no idea what this means and it seems absurdly bureaucratic. New England Cop (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  If a block is designated as an Oversight block in the block message, it is only appealable to the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, as circumstances permit, an Oversight team member may designate a block as only appealable to the Arbitration Committee. Nakon 06:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion please

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

Wasickta has filed a COI complaint against Alansohn on COIN, Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Local Politician Shaping Views Using Misplaced Pages: Conflict Of Interest. I looked into some of the evidence and found nothing there to support the claims. Whatever the merits of that complaint are, Wasickta is, I think, taking my statements as a reason to start disrupting some stuff; within an hour of my first post they thought it a good idea to post some sort of protest statement on the talk page of a VOA account I blocked. This is highly unbecoming and disruptive and I would like a second, third, etc. opinion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is a disruptive edit and inappropriate. This is a newish user; per their edit count their account has been open less than 1 year and they have about 200 edits. Their filings at AN and then at COIN were... ineptly done - too much drama and not nearly enough evidence. The false accusations of OUTING confused things. When they finally came back and presented evidence it was again overly dramatic and weak, and was reacted to negatively. W's reactions to that went from kind of sarcasm here to explicit sarcasm that started to personalize this here; which was followed in time by the wierd edit Drmies brings above, followed by this which really does make it personal.

COI is hard to deal with and there are lots of ways to go wrong. W has gone wrong in almost all of them (no real evidence, too much emotion, too personalized, threatening to go the papers, some personal attack, and doing more of the same in reaction to the negative reactions they received, including the posting at Benjamin02's page that is the specific subject of this posting). That is not terrible if they were to handle it gracefully and learn. So let's see what happens.

Wasickta, do you see that you have handled this badly and that whatever you were doing at Benjamin02's was a bad thing? Please think carefully before responding. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I was upset and it was very irrational/incorrect thing to do. I have retracted the comment since. Wasickta (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wasickta adding an apology to Drmies wouldn't hurt (Drmies is one of the best here, actually. Saucy which can be confusing, but on the money). But don't apologize if you don't mean it. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Drmies are you satisfied? Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As you pointed out, I'm only in it for the money, and a $100 bill (or "Benny") will go a long way. What I care about is that Wasickta knows this was out of line and won't do it again--and that Wasickta will ponder the COI accusations they made and the evidence they presented. I don't need an apology, I just want a more positive, productive colleague on Misplaced Pages. And a nap, which went totally by the wayside today. (BTW, that editor I blocked, the rev/deleted edits had nothing to do with anything here--just vandalism and someone saying disgusting things about a classmate or so.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban requested

At 28 april 2016, Robertinventor (signing as "Robert Walker") requested a citation in the lead of Four Noble Truths. Since then, eleven (!) citations have been given (note 2 in the lead); nevertheless, Robert Walker has filled Talk:Four Noble Truths with walls of texts "arguing" that the four truths are not about ending rebirth. It's a repetition of 2015. When pinged, Drmies adviced to bring this issue here, which Robert McClenon endorsed, so here we are: I'd like to propose a topic-ban for Robert Walker on Four Noble Truths, for WP:DISRUPTIVE by posting WP:WALLSOFTEXT and WP:DONTGETIT by ignoring the honouring of his request for citations. Pinging John Carter and User:Ms Sarah Welch, since they supported "to keep this editor just away from this page" (bottom of the list with differences). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support, as nominee. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Please, admins, when evaluating this, note that
  1. When I do longer posts I collapse parts of them so readers can skip easily.
  2. Please don't judge the number of posts I do from the talk page edit history. I tend to repeat myself and make mistakes, typing quickly. Also not good at spotting those mistakes when the words first appear on the page. Most of the edits in the history are to do with fixing these issues. Please instead look at the talk page itself.
  3. I am not editing the page itself (except for one edit to add a citation needed tag some time back - when the tag was removed I never tried again). This action would silence my voice in debates on the talk page.
  
  All my posts are to the point, respectful and done with the intention of improving wikipedia.
  
  Please also note the context - this action was brought the day after I got a second Oppose vote in the RfC on use of redeath in the article. See RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths. Also notice that yesterday he collapsed the entire section of supplementary material for my oppose vote, mid conversation. He hasn't explained why he did this.Robert Walker (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I was so kind not to mention WP:TENDENTIOUS, but the post above illustrates that point as well: I was about to close that RfC on "redeath" after I removed this word from the lead, and consolidated the refs & notes, in response to user RD64. Surprisingly, user RD64 concluded he preferred to keep the word, after having read my comments. So, I reinserted the term one time, and kept the RfC open. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm here and my username is AD64 not RD64. Thank you. AD64 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

In that case also - I was the one who opened it, and you were going to close it as a result of the first comment response by a disinterested party in the RfC. I was asleep at the time and could have woken up to find my RfC closed already.

Please don't assume that I'm a "disinterested party". In fact, I'm very interested. The number of comments I've made has nothing to do with my level of interest. AD64 (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I want to hear the full spectrum of views on the matter. We haven't yet had any comments by experts in the early Buddhist texts. The RfC is not just to achieve a "yes / no answer"; it is to further understanding and help guide future edits of the article. I don't want to discuss the debate itself here, just user behaviour so won't go into intricacies of our discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I didn't close it, did I, so what's the problem here? And I was about to remove all the uses of the word "redeath" in the lead, as you begged for - and you still find fault with it... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aiming for a "win", but for understanding :). It is just luck that you didn't close it. And your behaviour on the article is erratic. First arguing strongly for this term, then you remove this term from the article, then add it back again a short while later, all based on responses of the first disinterested person to enter the debate on the first day of the RfC. I'd think we need to find out more on this topic for the article, hence the RfC. Robert Walker (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support, conditionally. Freedom to express is a precious thing. It is at the foundation of wikipedia policies and admin-triggered corrective measures. I hesitate on indef, complete topic ban on @Robert Walker. Yet, something ought to be done, given @Robert Walker has repeatedly violated WP:FORUM / WP:TPNO guideline on how to use article's talk page. He has posted hundreds of edits, with walls of post, within a few days on Talk:Four Noble Truths. The posts mostly keep recycling the same non-RS sourced stuff. This is not productive, it is counter-productive. Imagine a hotline for medical services or fire service, which receives 50 calls a day, 7 days a week from the same caller, repeating the same call, in different words, not stopping, despite no fire nor emergency. Such a caller will invite admin/disciplinary action. @Robert Walker has done the same, and continues. We can ignore the walls of post, just like a fire station can ignore all phone rings. But is that proper? The 4NT article has many watchers, is a high traffic article, and has the kind of participation from all sides that will likely keep the article in good shape. Further wikipedia is not a fire station, and there are no emergencies here. So here is what I propose: Limited ban: limit 3 edits per day for @Robert Walker on the talk page; or one month topic ban, or whatever keeps the larger interest of the project, but helps reduce or stop @Robert Walker's behavior, which is to ignore WP:RS and wikipedia's content policies, and keep repeating what is in the non-WP:RS sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and redeath for my comment on this idea that all WP:RS sources use this term. Harvey uses the word redeath once, and death 161 times in a 552 page book. The other WP:RS sources I list there never use it. Robert Walker (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• If Robert Walker would only be more sparing with words and combine edits...but then still, it's a complete overdose of posts, well past, in my opinion, the point of disruption. So yes, I support this narrow topic ban too. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I have just edited those posts above to remove repetition, sorry for being wordy in my replies. I do work very very hard on this, to reduce the word count. Most of my edits in the edit history of the talk pages are to do with this. Robert Walker (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support Ms Sarah Welch's conditions as a compromise in the right direction, since the status quo is untenable. Miniapolis 22:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Since I keep getting pinged about these Buddhist controversies, I will comment. The timing of this request is unfortunate, since the subject editor has now filed a real RFC, which is more constructive than his previous conduct in continuing to go on and one. However, looking over the recent history, he is still going on and on. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - The subject editor says that one of the reasons that he makes so many posts is that he has to go back and correct. I see that is true. At the same time, I see that he never marks those corrections as minor edits, but I also see that he never uses edit summaries. I understand that very lengthy posts may not be perfect on first entry, but I would suggest that he could try composing his lengthy posts in a text window, which would permit him to view and correct before committing. However, if I only make one suggestion, it is that he at least occasionally use edit summaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I am a somewhat infrequent poster to wikipedia talk pages, and for the few posts I usually do on minor matters, this is not an issue. I will collapse the rest of this comment for those who wish to skip it as for discusions on facebook etc.

Robert Walker (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose a long-term topic-ban. Oppose a one-month topic ban. Support a restriction on the number of posts per day, for which 3 has been suggested, which could provide him an incentive to compose his walls of text in a text window. It is unfortunate that he has made this necessary. Restrictions on talk page posting should not become a rule. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - it's not only the length; at the first place it's about WP:DONTGETIT. Robertinventor asked for a reference ont he link between the four truths and rebirth (his one edit to the article); thereafter, altogether eleven references and an extensive explanation have been provided, and the "reference needed"-tag has righfully been removed; yet, he still goes on and on about this point. It's endless. The RfC on the use of the word "redeath" was a good move, but Robert has already announced future RfC's, including on the link between the four truths and rebirth, despite the fact that this point has been settled by reliable sources and approved by multiple editors with a good grip on the topic. What more does he want? Waiting 'till one editor pops-up who also wants to bypass those eleven sources? Does he want twenty sources? Thirty? Hundred? "Discussion" 'till we've all died from old age, and can't discuss anymore? Continued discussion in our next lifes? When does this end? And that's the whole point: Robert doesn't know when his questions have been answered and his requests and "discussions" become distracting, so I want us, the rest, to stop him. That's why I requested a topic-ban. A limit of three posts a day won't stop him from dragging on endless "discussions." And get me clear on this one: I don't doubt his good intentions, and we might get along quite well if we got to know each other personally (I love his photograph! It makes me smile with a broad grin). But he's driving me nuts here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the list of future RfCs. The editors that remain in this topic tend to be ones that are in general agreement with Joshua Jonathan as others get all their edits reversed and eventually give up contributing. See for instance @Dharmalion76: who was opposed to the use of the term redeath, who talks about the frequent bullying in the Buddhism project, and says it makes him want to walk away from the project, which I've also witnessed of other editors such as @Dorje108:, previous main editor of the Four Noble Truths until Joshua Jonathan took over with a massive rewrite in October 2014 (see how in this history page there is an abrupt transition between edits mainly by Dorje108 and edits mainly by Joshua Jonathan in October 2014 ). Joshua ignored Dorje's request to discuss - after that Dorje just left the project (after a long and unsuccessful attempt to deal with the issues by RfCs etc along with me).

Then there's ScientificQuest - a student with an MS in Electrical Engineering and Physics from University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, doing a MBS program from UC Berkeley, and an MA in Sanskrit, and a newbie wikipedia editor doing his first ever edits of the encyclopedia, who had every single contribution to the closely related Anatta article reverted by Joshua Jonathan on the basis that they were not based on WP:RS with JJ lecturing him on what counts as WP:RS in his area of expertise, saying that Bhikkhu Bodhi, president of the Buddhist Publication Society is not WP:RS. He answered politely , but eventually just gave up, with none of his contributions to the article accepted. I think this must happen to many more in this topic area. I have tried to attract the attention of experts in early Buddhist texts from elsewhere in Misplaced Pages for this redeath RfC, but so far with not much luck. Robert Walker (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I want to leave discussion of whether the third truth should be expressed as usually done as a path to cessation of suffering (as in the original wheel turning sutra), or as a path to end rebirth, to the RfC, and this doesn't seem to be the place to discuss details of our long debate on this. I just wanted to make this point, that I do understand that he is using WP:RS sources. But I think these sources do not demonstrate what he claims they do demonstrate and I think there is an element of WP:SYNTHESIS as well as relying on minority academic views. Details are for future discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Also to say that Joshua Jonathan often does 14 posts a day in these debates. So limiting me to 3 a day, even if I do that via drafts in my user space to reduce edits in the edit history would mean he would be able to do more than four posts to any discussion for every one of my posts. Robert Walker (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm a very new editor and still learning the ropes here. I don't know all the history, etc. What I do know is that my own attempts to participate in my first RfC on a topic about which I have some basic knowledge (so I could focus on learning the way things are done at Misplaced Pages more than worry about if I understand the content) got very sidetracked by all of this. I felt like a participant and was following along, until the moment when Joshua Jonathan proposed closing the RfC early. I stepped back once all this began. My suggestion, for this current RfC, is that we figure out how to make space for other editors to offer comments (this could be via some of the bans mentioned above; there could be other ways that I don't know about). Both Joshua Jonathan and Robert Walker have the best of intentions and I appreciate how much they care about this article, but it may have gone too far. The discussions, and the WAY it's being discussed, have created an atmosphere where this new editor just backed up and went to work on other Buddhist articles on the margins. I now have this feeling that the more mainstream articles, even when they need editing, and even when I have knowledge to contribute, and editing skills, are somehow off limits unless I am willing to get in the middle of something like this. This doesn't feel encouraging to this new editor, nor does it contribute to the culture of Misplaced Pages in a useful way. And for all this conversation, I think the article is still lower quality than it could be. I hope my comments are useful to the process and to getting a better version of the Four Noble Truths article published. Best, AD64 (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)AD64

p.s. Please don't just assume that I am a he without asking first.

p.p.s., as I understand it, it's polite to ping a user when they are being mentioned. I see that I was referenced in this discussion without being pinged. To discover this conversation in another way without being pinged isn't good form. Please be more careful about this going forward. I've been quiet, but I'm reading, watching, learning, and waiting. I'm here. Thank you. AD64 (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@AD64: First, sorry to hear about this, I wanted the RfC to be welcoming to anyone who wants to participate! The RfC started on 16:44, 3 May 2016 , and by the same time the following day, it had 18 responses in the discussion threads or other edits by Joshua Jonathan and probably an equal number by me (mine are hard to count because of all the editing) as well as a few by other editors. So that would be probably more than 36 new posts to read in a 24 hour period which is overwhelming for anyone. It does seem a significant issue, I agree.

I wonder, maybe we need an overall limit, not just to me, but to all participants in the debates, to, say, at most than three posts per RfC per day could help here? I'm willing to do that myself for sure. But it would be hard to stay silent if I come back to see a lot of posts by Joshua Jonathan putting forward his arguments and seeing responses in the RfC swayed by his remarks when I think that the opposite case has not been made to them. But if we both had the same limit of three posts, we'd have to choose our words carefully and it would be more equitable. Just a thought. Robert Walker (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Another thought - how about each of the original participants in the discussion that lead to the RfC has one section to present their own arguments in the RfC? Then they step back, voluntarily, for the first few days of the RfC, to let the newbies to the article vote and discuss the topic, just don't enter the discussion at all, so they can discuss the ideas from scratch. Not permitted even to edit your own section of the RfC in response to what the RfC newbies say.

Then can enter the discussion, say after day 7 when the newbies have had time to discuss it if they want to? Something like that, could set down the rules in the statement of the RfC. Again just a thought. We could restart the RfC on redeath using these rules perhaps. Just mark the existing one as closed, start a copy, myself, and Joshua Jonathan present our case in separate sections below it as supplementary material, and then just wait and see what anyone says. And neither I nor JJ can comment on their responses for 7 days. There is no hurry about any of this. Robert Walker (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@AD64: Also, sorry for mentioning your name without pinging you. And sorry for calling you "disinterested" as that was a bad choice of words. What I meant was someone who hasn't been involved in all the previous debates on the topic, so comes to it new. It was the wrong word for that Robert Walker (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the acknowledgement, @Robertinventor and Robert Walker:. That helps. I like the idea that you are proposing here for a variety of reasons. A fresh start with clear rules. Yet, I don't want to lose track of relevant material that was brought in in the current RfC. Maybe a neutral third party (not me, please), could summarize the major topics that have arisen in the RfC (not arguments, topics), and have those available in a summary form for us to review, etc. In order for us to get to consensus, I would suggest that brevity is helpful (at least for now, it creates space for others to respond), kindness, and civility. Using Edit Summary boxes are important too (as I'm learning as a new editor). I don't mind disagreeing; I do mind the lack of good will as we disagree. Best, AD64 (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@AD64: I think the idea of a list of topics, rather than arguments for or against, is a great way to do a new beginning, if we close it and start again. I think it will be hard to find a neutral editor to do this, but can make a stab at it myself. I've prepared a draft of a list here: Talk:Four_Noble_Truths#List_of_topics_for_the_redeath_RfC List of topics for the redeath RfC. Thanks :). Robert Walker (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Robert, are you seriously proposing that I should be limited to three responses a day because you can't limit yourself and WP:DONTGETIT? You requested a citation, you got 10+ of them, and look what an endless list of comments you're posting now here too. If it wasn't for your endless laments and noncomprehension, my number of edits would have been dramatically lower. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we both limit ourselves to help newbies to the RfC. Rather than a limit to 3 posts a day, it might be easier to just step back and not comment on the RfC at all for seven days, then we don't need to worry about whether the other person has done a response that we should respond to. So that was the reason for the second suggestion. To encourage new viewpoints on the discussion. Just a thought. Robert Walker (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to change Wiki-policies, start a proposal at the relevant policy talkpage. But please, stop sharing your endless stream of thoughts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen, Doug Weller, Bbb23, Nyttend, Liz, Floquenbeam, and HighInBC: could you please weight in here (sorry, pinging the admins I'm in touch with most, plus the ones at "Admins disagreeing on unblock")? Take a scroll through Talk:Four Noble Truths, and tell me if you can follow what's going on there. Let someone please stop this nightmare! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Four Noble Truths and its talkpage. Overwhelming and owning the talkpage by force of wordiness is untenable. I want to emphasize that I take Robert Walker to be a good faith editor, but everybody here is a volunteer and he's making unreasonable demands on other editors' time and energy. I'll support any of the narrow topic bans suggested above, including the 3 edit a day limit, the one month ban, and also actually a longer ban, such as 3 months — whatever people can agree on. It's obvious that something must be done. Also, Robert, you say above that you have edited your own posts to remove repetition, both here and on the article talkpage. "Most of my edits in the edit history of the talk pages are to do with this." Well, please stop doing that. It's a bad idea to change your posts after they have been answered, as this wrongfoots the people who have answered. See WP:REDACT. I understand you do it to try to oblige the users who complain of your long posts, but that's not the way. Please make more of an effort to write concisely and coherently before you click save. PS, I have removed the header "Comment" and formatted it like the other comments. There are many comments here, and making a header for one of them makes it harder for others to know where to post, as it implies that anything below yours is a comment on your comment. I hope you don't mind, AD64. Bishonen | talk 18:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC).

Standard offer for Technophant

• Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

The above user has requested the standard offer, which was declined last time. It's been over a year since they've edited outside of userspace - is it time for a second chance? SQL 23:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. It is time for a second chance. QuackGuru (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I agree that it's time. Miniapolis 01:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I have no problem with them coming back under the standard offer. I would like clarification on if they are under any current topic or interaction bans though. It is my assumption that these would stay in place, if still in effect. HighInBC 15:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• The concerns mentioned by Dennis are valid. While I would prefer these be addressed I am not going to withdraw my support at this time. HighInBC 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now Technophant has not addressed the concerns here. They come back and ask for this to be restored but I cannot see any new information provided. This is convincing me that the arguments made below by Dennis and others need to be addressed first. HighInBC 17:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• But HighInBC, it was closed merely for lack of activity, with the possibility of reopening when Technophant was able to participate, and that's now the case. Why should that be relevant? You don't provide new information when you're merely resuming a discussion. Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• This does not change the fact that they have still not responded to concerns brought up weeks ago. Even now they are back they have not addressed those concerns. We are not looking for new information, we are still looking for information asked for last month. Dennis brought up some good points and I have been swayed by them combined with the failure to address those points by Techno. HighInBC 14:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Sure, last appeal was in August 2015, and resulted in no consensus: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant (restored); I've alwayd been a proponent of second chances and rehabilitation, and I certainly think Technophant has been blocked for a long enough time to justify giving them another shot. As for active sanctions that HighInBC asked about: Technophant is still indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture (see WP:EDR for details and links to discussions). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice to actually hear the subject address points 2 and 3 of standard offer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• ?????? I don't actually see any explanation of how they expect to move forward, after bypassing the block last time by editing as an IP. To their credit, they admitted the socking, however, supporting the removal of an indef block requires a bit more explanation by the person requesting the deed. Two short paragraphs would be sufficient. Last time, I had serious doubts about how forthright they were being. Today, I have nothing to judge by. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

From the conversation over the last time we discussed unblocking Technophant I wrote:

I am therefore of a mind, that if Technophant's block is lifted, to impose a six month ISIL ban under the SCW and ISIL general sanctions, to see if Technophant has learnt anything from this block, by allowing Technophant to edit in other project areas of Wikiepdia where he is not so emotionally involved with the subject, or other editors.

If anyone thinks that this is a bad idea please read my comments in full from the last unblocking discussion and explain to me where Technophant has explained how he now realises that his editor interaction had become antisocial and that socking was only the final straw that broke the camel's back. -- PBS (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@user:HighInBC User:Salvidrim "long enough time to justify giving them another shot" the time is not the issue. The issue is does Technophant understand all the reasons that he was blocked? Where during this whole saga (from the initial topic ban up until this unblock request do you think he has given any explanation of how he will modify his behaviour in future? (a couple of diffs would be nice).

@User:Salvidrim as Technophant transferred his antisocial behaviour from the initial ban topic to other topic areas, why keep any ban on him if he is a reformed? If he is not reformed then why let him edit at all? BTW under what user:name was he topic banned? -- PBS (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you quoted the wrong person, I didn't say that. HighInBC 20:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake I should have addressed it to User:Salvidrim -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Support Technoplant has already stated (in his Sept 2015) request I broke my promise I made to User:Adjwilley to permanently refrain from using IP edits and paid dearly for my mistake. I'm willing to put any and all past differences behind me and move forward in a constructive fashion Several comments I made above were very much out of character from my normal professional demeanor. I was going through a time of enormous personal stress at the time however I have recently gone through a great deal of personal growth, psychotherapy, and medication changes and now feel that I am ready to go "back to work" editing in my usual gnomish/elfish fashion., and three components of WP:STANDARDOFFER do not include groveling. (See WP:Editors have pride). Unblock the editor, and if their behavior (as opposed to rhetoric) indicates a problem, block 'em again.NE Ent 21:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support with PBS (talk · contribs)'s 6-month topic ban suggestion.--v/r - TP 00:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Not Yet, per User:Dennis Brown. I'd be inclined to support unless their response to the comments are completely off the wall, but I'd like to hear more from the user to be sure. Lankiveil 06:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose per Dennis Brown. I have serious doubts and suggest if we err, that it's on the side of caution. The socking is too recent and the promises to finally behave are easy to make, hard to keep. Jusdafax 08:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The last socking from this user was in November of 2014. To be fair - that's the 'last socking that we know of', per the user in question. It is difficult to trust someone who's already socked in the past. SQL 09:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support We should show forgiveness when a banned editor has shown that they want to move on from their previous behavior. If recidivism is an issue, blocks are cheap. The Wordsmith 20:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Blocks are cheap" is a hoary Misplaced Pages cliche, but it's not actually true. When an editor goes off the rails, it often takes considerable time and effort from the community to convince an admin that a block is needed. That's time and effort which could be used to improve the encyclopedia, so it does have a definite cost. BMK (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• There are 500 cheap blocks for every one that takes more than a 10 paragraph discussion on ANI.--v/r - TP 03:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Probably so, if you're talking about run-of-the-mill blocks among the general editing population, but we're talking here about blocks based on noticeboard discussions, and that is a different animal entirely, where the ratio -- if not actually reversed -- would most probably be much, much lower. On blocks (or actually unblocks, since it's the unblock discussion which makes up the cost) which are discussed on noticeboard, you're always guaranteed to have a percentage of comments pushing WP:ROPE, WP:AGF, or other supposedly mitigating factors, and it takes time to overcome these and build up a consensus.In any event, I'm simply pointing out that "Blocks are cheap" is a cliche, and not a reasoned argument. BMK (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. At least until Technophant provides a better unblock request than what we have now. I asked him to amend his bare-bones request for unblocking here, but apart from attributing his block to administrator incompetence, he has thus far fallen short of actually providing a satisfactory request. I should note that while his block, as recorded in the block log, was for sockpuppetry, his behavior since then is the main reason for why he is still blocked to this day. He has thus far steadfastly refused to address anything other than the sockpuppetry. I don't think it's too much to ask for some recognition that his behavior was unacceptable.--Atlan (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

touch (so the discussion is not archived just yet) -- PBS (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Unless @Technophant: responds on his/her talkpage within the next 24 hours, I would recommend closing this discussion until they have time to participate. SQL 21:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose for now Per Atlan's commentary, I want to see a WP:GAB compliant unblock request that takes responsibility for their being blocked and how they intend to prevent this in the future. Hasteur (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Relisted

I have relisted this thread from the archive, per Technophant's request. He has returned and is willing to address concerns raised in this thread.--Atlan (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Something seems not wright. User requested unblock on 29 March and then promptly disappeared from 3 April to 6 May, seemingly only to return when the unblock request was fianlly declined. Anyway I will advise the user to make a statement which can then be copied here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. As far as I am concerned their previous request failed due to their lack of participation and this is another request. I have amended my opinion accordingly. There have been some very reasonable concerns raised here and Techno has not addressed them. HighInBC 17:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Technophant:, what is going to be different this time? What do you think you were blocked for? In the absence of any good evidence of learning or change, I would default to maintaining the block. Reblocks are not necessarily cheap, as they require time, discussion, and energy. Although I give my time here free of charge, that does not mean I think it is worthless. --John (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Leaning towards oppose - even after asking to have this conversation reopened, the comments indicate that Technophant wants to use a different venue to discuss this (UTRS)?? — xaosflux 19:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with asking to have it reopened; immediately before dearchival, the closer (unsigned) gave a rationale of As Technophant hasn't responded to any of us - I can only assume that he/she is too busy, or cannot access Misplaced Pages to do so at this time. I'm closing this without prejudice, until such time that the user has sufficient time to participate in the process. This isn't a situation in which there's consensus against unblock, and requesting reopening is a demonstration that Technophant is ready/able to participate in the process. I have no yes or no opinion, but this issue ought not be addressed differently from a month ago. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• I forgot to sign - thanks for the reminder. SQL 03:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• My concern is the lack of response to the concerns raised in this thread. If they were away that is fine, but now they are back and have still not responded. The closer was very generous to close without prejudice, and I accept that closure without prejudice. The fact remains that they are not responding to concerns raised here. In summary we are not addressing this issue differently than a month ago, the same questions are still outstanding. HighInBC 14:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Article splitting - whose responsibility is it to fix incoming links?

When an article is split resulting in two articles whose responsibility is it to fix the incoming links? The issue is fully explained at at Talk:World_Open_(snooker)#RfC:_Proposal_to_split_World_Grand_Prix_results_to_World_Grand_Prix_.28snooker.29.3F. Some of the events at World Open (snooker) have been split out to a new article, meaning that the World Open entry in the player performance tables needs to be converted to two entries. The result of the split is that many of the links are now broken, but the editor who undertook the split is refusing to do the cleanup job claiming it is an "absolutely another problem". While the article obviously needed to be split at some point I think the other editor did have a duty of care here i.e. the other article could have been set up, the links then should have been fixed and then the content content could have been deleted from the existing article. WP:CORRECTSPLIT seems to indicate that checking the link integrity is part of the process. Is the editor who undertook the split permitted to refuse to do any of the cleanup? Betty Logan (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You do remember we're all fucking volunteers, right? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I only fuck paid editors. TimothyJosephWood 15:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes I do recall that. But if I volunteer at an old folks home and take them on a day trip to the seaside do I have an obligation to bring them home? Or am I justified in just leaving them there and telling them all I'm only a "fucking volunteer"? Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

As BD2412 points out below, the ability to revert to the status quo ante changes the moral calculus here. If the editor won't clear up the mess then you're entitled to revert to the pre-mess situation. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't conflate "editing an online encyclopedia" and "life-endangering criminal negligence". You're more intelligent than that. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Even if the split is needed, if it makes a mess that no one wants to clean up (including the editor who split the articles), then I would revert and wait until someone comes along who can do the split properly (i.e., including cleanup). bd2412 T 15:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog