Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:33, 31 December 2017

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

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

Requests for comment

Wikipedia_talk:Find_your_source#RfC:_Bypass_Paywalls_Clean

(Initiated 100 days ago on 17 September 2024) everybody has forgotten about that discussion, but it needs closure. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 79 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 70 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 42 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 42 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 40 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 39 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 33 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 17 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

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 92 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 58 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 50 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk: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)

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

2018 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 01 January 2018:

• Alex Shih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Callanecc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the checkuser and oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2017:

• Casliber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining CU & OS)
• GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining CU & OS)
• Keilana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (retaining OS)
• Kelapstick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

• Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2017 at their own request:

  Checkuser: Casliber, Keilana, Kelapstick

  Oversight: Casliber, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin

• Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
• All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list, with the exception of Casliber and Kirill Lokshin at their request.
• All outgoing arbitrators will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list, with the exception of GorillaWarfare and Drmies at their request.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2018 Arbitration Committee

• I can't believe it's almost over. It's like a dream. :( Drmies (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Every November/December, I consider running for a seat. But, my refusal to hand over personal info, gets the best of me. Oh well, I wouldn't get many support votes anyway :) GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Not sure what personal information you think you are expected to turn over GoodDay, you don't even have to provide committee members your real first name if you don't want to. --kelapstick 15:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Kelapstick: I believe he is referencing the requirement to identify to the WMF. --Izno (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
      • You haven't had to provide any personal information to the WMF in at least two years (it was a requirement when I became an oversighter, but not when I joined the committee). It has all been converted to signing a non-disclosure-agreement. It's all covered at Misplaced Pages:Access to nonpublic information, even the identification noticeboard at Meta has had it's name changed. --kelapstick 16:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
        • I won't sign anything. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Well that is clearly a different reason than handing over personal information, which was the reason you said you would not run. Regardless, whatever you wish to do or not do is of course your prerogative. This is not the first time I have heard people saying they don't want to run because they don't want to email a copy of their identification to the WMF (which in the past was used to verify age, then destroyed), a practice which is no longer used. I just want to make sure that people understand that they no longer have to do that. --kelapstick 16:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• At least we can't blame Putin for this result. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Wordpress subdomain blacklisted

The below note was posted on the Commons admin noticeboard:

A notice to admins that I recently globally blacklisted files.wordpress.com due to a ferocious and broad WMF-wide spambot attack. There will be consequences with that while it is blacklisted. I am unsure whether it is just a temporary measure, or whether it is has anything more than occasional inconvenience. At the moment there seem to be about 4000 links to that domain (special:linksearch/*.files.wordpress.com, 2000- links and special:linksearch/https://*.files.wordpress.com, 2000+ links). If this blacklisting is seen as not acceptable to Commons needs then we should whitelist some or all of the sub-domains in Mediawiki:spam-whitelist. If you are prepared to wait some days to see whether the spamming stops/has stopped then we need do nothing. Look forward to hearing your opinions, especially in light that it is not an authoritative domain for source files.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Since we host a lot of files, I figured there ought to be some note here. Nyttend (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Some recent spam has had several wordpress.com links on a new page. If it's just this type of spam an edit filter may be possible. Peter James (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the benefits of this will almost certainly outweigh any harm. Links to this subdomain are often either spam or copyright violations. They are very rarely going to meet WP:RS, and if they do, they will probably have been published elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions enforcement review

I would like to request a review of Coffee's enforcement of discretionary sanctions concerning an edit I made to Presidency of Donald Trump (diff), together with an edit made by El cid, el campeador (diff). Both of us feel the instant imposition of blocks and the subsequent logging of our "transgressions" at the DS log (diff, diff) were unusually harsh. Both of us are experienced editors, yet we both misinterpreted the "letter of the law" concerning the sanction. Neither of us have ever been sanctioned before. It is our view that while we recognize we both made a mistake, the matter could easily have been resolved with a simple warning. Our hope is that following a review, you will consider rescinding the notations in the DS log and (if technically feasible) modifying our block logs. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just as a procedural note, someone may want to consider tweaking this archive which included the open sub-thread that seems to have led up to this thread being opened in turn (or consider formally closing it if that seems appropriate). GMG 15:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks both on the merits and procedurally as the blocks have expired. There were clear sanctions violations by both of you and Coffee enforced them. The fact that he was willing to sanction experienced editors should not have any impact on this at all. It is experienced editors who are most often affected by discretionary sanctions. You both clearly violated the sanctions and were blocked accordingly. This was well within the discretion of the DS system. Just because Coffee has made mistakes that got a lot of attention here recently doesn’t mean his actions in this regard were mistakes. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• I have just informed Coffee of this discussion. A bigger, redder box may be in order. No comment on the merits of the complaint. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks - I'm afraid you clearly reinstated challenged material, and El cid clearly made more than one reversion per 24 hours. This is highlighted in yellow when you edit the page. This does not mean I have no sympathy for your plight, and these blocks don't change the fact you are both highly valuable here. However, Coffee's blocks are well within reason. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I have no wish for this thread to have a "chilling" effect that would somehow challenge Coffee's right to make the blocks. I'm just saying that in this particular case, warnings would've achieved exactly the same purpose and I would hope administrators would prefer to use preventative, rather than punitive measures. Coffee even said as much on my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"I have no wish for this thread to have a "chilling" effect" <-- well, I for one very much wish that this thread, or something, had a "chilling effect" on Coffee making these kinds of blocks. He's been on a sanctioning spree that's been getting out of control. He's made at least three (not counting the blocks here) bad calls - all extreme over reactions - in the past ten days or so. This is not going to end well, and having Coffee "chill out" before it gets worse is probably the best outcome here. Volunteer Marek 05:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• And it was a valid block that expired before he lifted it. It was not one that I would have made, but it was fine within the DS system. As it expired without being lifted, I'm not seeing the point of this appeal. You were validly blocked, and it was logged. It expired. You're now aware of the sanctions in this area, and you also have been sanctioned for violating them, so keeping it in the log makes sense. I'm aware that I have been one of Coffee's defenders since he has returned, but that is because he generally does do the right thing and of late it seems like people are trying to put every action under the microscope. If he had acted in a way that was outside of policy here, I'd be willing to say it, but as it stands, he didn't in my view. I'd also like to emphasize like 78.26 that this in no way is saying that you or El Cid are not valued contributors here. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's not of late, TonyBallioni. Coffee's admin actions are always backed by policies and guidelines but that doesn't mean they use the best judgement in making them. Even before they went on break I had my issues with at least a couple of them, serious enough that I said something (no admin is going to agree with every action another admin takes but this is almost always shrugged off as a judgement call and nothing is said). With this situation, Coffee made a technically valid block but I don't think your "of late" clause is accurate. --NeilN 17:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• NeilN, I was saying of late because after his return of course everything he does is going to be under the microscope. I don't think that is fair, but we know it is going to happen. Coffee takes a hard line on AE, which means that some of his actions are not going to be popular. I think he might want to consider taking it slower because of the microscope effect, but that doesn't make him a bad admin.As I said, I would not have made this block because I personally weigh things like whether the eventual appeal would create more disruption than the block prevents, but like you said, Coffee was backed up by policies and guidelines here, and that this is nothing like the previous thread with Volunteer Marek despite what has been claimed below. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• No one is saying he wasn't technically allowed to make the blocks. And you're wrong about the comparison to Marek: he was ABSOLUTELY "technically" allowed to do that as well. Arguing that the "consensus required" tenant is somehow more tangible than the "behave civilly" tenant is silly in my book, and not really central to the argument anyway. The point of this review is that while the community acknowledges that these sanctions are inherently discretionary and will vary somewhat as a result, the community absolutely DOES NOT agree to be governed by an admin that acts Trunchbull-esque or clearly displays a wanton attitude toward our expectations of his behavior. Scjessey's block (and Mareks, and the exchange that led to this) demonstrate spectacularly bad judgement that other admins (including you, Tony) avoid by thinking with cool heads and keeping the needs of the encyclopedia first. I understand you have a history with Coffee that helps you see the best of what he is capable of, but right now that's not coming through. He is a HUGE negative to the encyclopedia right now, and something needs to change. 172.56.21.117 (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• I called on him to voluntarily rescind the Marek action, and you are wrong: I don't have a personal history with him. I just think that he is being jumped on in a way right now that would not occur for other administrators because of the relatively high profile nature of his break. I am able to see the controversy that is caused, and I think there are some legitimate criticisms (in the Marek situation, a 1 day topic ban was sure to cause more drama than it solved). At the same time this review accomplishes nothing: the block was technically good, the users are unblocked now, and all it accomplishes is to let people pile on about an admin doing what he thinks is best for the encyclopedia. Especially since in every one of the situations involving AE actions of late, he has either rescinded the blocks when asked to or offered to do so. I don't think that an appeal of an action that is no longer in effect and that was sure to turn into personal drama about Coffee is a positive for the encyclopedia. As I said above, this isn't personal: I was never friends with Coffee before his break. I just also don't like seeing pile-ons and will speak up when I see it happening regardless of who the user is. I think there may be valid critiques of Coffee, but those are best handled in talking to him directly and not by an appeal of a valid action that has lapsed. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

" I just think that he is being jumped on in a way right now that would not occur for other administrators because of the relatively high profile nature of his break" <-- As I mentioned in the previous thread, I have no idea about any profiles of his break, high or otherwise (I have caught up a bit on it in the meantime, but I'm still hella confused and out of the loop), it is simply his actions that are problematic. I think best thing would if Coffee voluntarily stepped away from administratin', particularly in the discretionary fashion, the American Politics area for awhile. Note that he's throwing out these sanctions over relatively minor incidents - believe it or not, a few IPs or fly-by-night accounts aside, there's not all that much going on in that topic area right now (prolly cuz holidays, but still). Most of these sanctions are just simply not necessary and they screw up the normal editing and consensus building process. Volunteer Marek 05:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Look at the way Coffee uses a user's history of blocks in his arguments about why discretionary sanctions are warranted to understand why this could be viewed as "severe" by the editors on the other end of this. So what the blocks have expired? Does the bad judgment that led to the blocks also have an expiration date? Will the editors with these silly blocks on their records be subject to escalating sanctions by another judgement (either deserved or undeserved)? Surely you understand why "sweeping this under the rug" would be a net negative for everyone involved. 172.56.21.117 (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)This review does serve a purpose: revealing the community's expectations for admin judgement when using their most serious tool: blocking. Perhaps the tide will change, but so far, there's a pretty strong signal that admins are expected to use restraint and discretion before blocking editors, and not simply apply black-and-white thinking. In another instance, Coffee sort of considered an alternative to blocking before he blocked Casprings, by giving him 10 minutes to self-revert this edit (see user talk:Casprings#December 2017). In my experience, Casprings would have gladly self-reverted without complaint if give a reasonable opportunity to do so. He did not need to be blocked. If this review does nothing more than showing Coffee that he needs to recalibrate his approach, then it will have been worthwhile.- MrX 19:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oh come on! How people manage to maintain their cool with this admin should be met with the awarding of barnstars all around. "You have 10 minutes?" Look at Caspring's response, and you can get a feel for just how absurd this action was. How is this acceptable behavior? 172.56.21.117 (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• That is a stupendously stupid block - even if technically correct that it is 'allowed'. It is not 'required'. Firstly that ridiculous consensus required DS has already caused problems like this, where it promotes a first mover advantage. Secondly blocking someone for 24 hours, 24 hours after the offense is completely pointless. BLOCKS ARE PREVENTATIVE NOT PUNITIVE, and a quiet word to Scjessey would have sufficed. Blocking with 'be told!' is overkill. This is not the first knee-jerk admin action Coffee has done recently and I think its time for a comprehensive review of their fitness to be an Admin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Bad blocks - The purpose of Arbcom authorized discretionary sanctions is to quell disruptive behavior like edit warring, personal attacks, and POV pushing, so that we can focus on improving the encyclopedia. We are not a bureaucracy that is required to slavishly apply prescriptive remedies, otherwise admins would be required to block in all cases where page restrictions are violated. Imposing harsh penalties like blocks on volunteers editing in good faith is profoundly discouraging, harms those editors' reputations, and creates a chilling effect on everyone who wishes to edit these articles. Past behavior should have been given more consideration and a polite warning placed on these users talk pages as is common practice among many highly respected admins.- MrX 16:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Postpone. User:Scjessey, If you had remembered to notify Coffee about this request, you would have seen a big notice atop both his talk page and user page saying he’s away until January 13. Would you have gone ahead with this request at this time? Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary. We already know that Coffee endorses these blocks. Also, he didn't say he wouldn't be available until January 13.- MrX 16:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Please quote the explanation he would have given here. My question to Scjessey stands. (The notice says, “Coffee is away on vacation in Indonesia from 24 December 2017 until 13 January 2018 and may not respond swiftly to queries.”) Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's a good question. The message does not say Coffee isn't able to respond, just that responses will not be a swift as usual. If that were not the case, I would agree postponing was fair; however, I don't think postponing is necessary in this case as long as due consideration is given to Coffee's response time (if responses are needed). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Horrible block but technically sound -- That you can do something does not equate to that you shall do something. This ain't a bureaucracy where blocks are made after 24 hours of violation of a certain clause, just because they ought to be. And, then, AGF et al. Winged Blades 16:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Bad blocks, and not the only recent bad admin action/poor judgement, either. See . Others have complained as late re: similar behavior from this admin - just look at the comments in the linked AN discussion. This is not an isolated incident. The following comment may be controversial and will probably be criticized, but perhaps, because of how and why he was "on break" for months, Coffee's return should have been addressed differently and with some monitoring? What we're seeing now in the way of his judgement certainly seems to speak to a need for...something (different than the status quo). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I wonder why you feel that way https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AWinkelvi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.13.199 (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I wonder why you aren't logging in with your actual account and are, instead, being a coward. I fully admit I have a long block log and a history of edit warring, my last block being delivered by Coffee. That said, my comments regarding his recent actions have nothing to do with that block. My concern is for the harm he's doing by what appears to be a misuse of the power of the tools -- both to the editors he's sanctioning and blocking, his reputation, and the trust editors need to have toward administrators. Someone pegged it very nicely above: what Coffee is doing leaves a chilling effect and dissuades editors from editing. Certainly, that's not what admin actions are supposed to do. When that kind of thing happens, we all lose. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Qualified Endorse Blocks This looks like it falls well within the guidelines for a legit block and that means it's a judgement call. I am not seeing anything that suggests that this was outside the bounds of reason. That said, I don't think I would have done it. Just because you can do something does not mean you should do something. Excepting those situations that obviously fall under the broad heading of NOTHERE I tend to take a very restrained approach to blocking. To my mind anything other than a NOTHERE block should be a last resort, done only after all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted and where there is a strong likelihood of continued disruption absent a block. I don't think this situation meets that test. But again it is a judgement call and I do believe that this falls within the guidelines under admin discretion. And to be fair, I have been criticized a few times for my reluctance to drop the hammer in situations where others thought the need was real and immediate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• I would go so far as to request Coffee not admin in any ARBCOM DS area. He has shown time and time again to give out blocks that are not really necessary, even if they may be appropriate. Sir Joseph 18:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Which is evidence of someone just wielding power because they can rather than someone trying to prevent disruption because they need to. Definitely NOT what admins are supposed to do or are entrusted with when given the tools. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'd say "technically allowed", because truly preventative blocks can't be unnecessary yet still be appropriate. 172.56.21.117 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Coffee in this particular matter based on these particular facts. Misplaced Pages would be a lot better off if every clear violation of discretionary sanctions results in some amount of administrative action. The point of having rules is to ensure equality. Discretion is fine when the matter is unclear, and it is also fine even in clear cases as to the degree of administrative action. But more discretion than that guarantees inequality. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Edited18:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Aren't administrator standards of behavior and appropriate use of the tools what should be supported rather than individual administrators? Your "Support" !vote sounds more like you're approaching the issue as if it's a popularity contest. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying with the edited and underlined commentary above, Anythingyouwant. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let's wait until Coffee returns - As someone who had Coffee strip his editing privileges (and later reinstated, though without apology or explanation), it might sound odd for me to suggest this. I think that Coffee, making certain blocks immediately before his holiday was a stupid, stupid move; you just don't do that if you aren't going to bearound to defend those actions - you. just. don't. That said, others here have said that the blocks, though malformed, solved the problem. While I think that suggesting that its all fine because it worked out is like saying that murdering 11 million people is a great way to open up the housing market.
Coffee should have the opportunity to defend his actions, and clearly needs to. While it absolutely sucks for those affected by those actions (and there's little to be done to recompense those affected if Coffee is found to have taken bad action), I think we have to be fair, and allow Coffee the opportunoty to solve the problem that he has created. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree if Scjessey was asking for Coffee to be desysopped: he's not though. He's asking for an assessment by the rest of us to determine if there is consensus to get the not-so-great blocks off of his "permanent record", as it were. We don't really need Coffee for that (and if there is any question about what Coffee might think about it, it might be helpful to take a look at the linked archived section). 172.56.21.117 (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse blocks as procedure and note that best practice is difficult to determine. As others have stated, these blocks are sound and are within the letter of policy—this is not controversial. Whether the implementation of these blocks reflected best practice (and good judgment) is less clear. If I had been monitoring the situation, I would not have blocked El cid, el campeador. The violation there was technical—a simple note letting him know that he should not revert a second time to enforce the discretionary sanctions would have sufficed (in my judgment). Another issue raised is that the blocks came 24 hours after both editors had stopped editing the article. Late blocks often appear to be punitive rather than preventative; however, late blocks are often made in order to deter future disruptive behavior (WP:BLOCKP). This is another area where Coffee had to make a judgment call—making judgment calls often appears arbitrary. My reading of Coffee's response to Scjessey was that Coffee was attempting to be consistent with his procedures for discretionary sanction offenders. Consistent standard operating procedures reduce the arbitrariness of discretionary-sanction enforcement, though it does tend to lend an air of heavy-handedness. Personally, I would tend to err on the side of arbitrary lenience, but it is not clear that this is the better approach.

Regarding the request for relief from Scjessey by a modification of the editors block logs or DS log entries: (1) The block log cannot be modified. The only way your block log could have an additional note added to it is by an administrator blocking you again for one second with an explanatory note. I doubt that another administrator is willing to do this without Coffee's agreement, though we have yet to hear from Coffee on this matter (and I doubt he will do this). (2) The DS log is both there to log violators and to log administrator actions, so I do not think it would be appropriate to rescind the note. It would be possible to add a sub-item linking to this discussion when it concludes--which there will likely be consensus to do. Malinaccier (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Scjessey:, re. block logs being unchangeable, this indicates otherwise. >SerialNumber54129 15:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Malinaccier: and @Scjessey: More evidence that the block logs are INDEED changeable . 172.56.20.86 (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sigh. Everyone knows that the block log is technically changeable via revision deletion and/or oversight. It is long standing policy that that would be considered misuse. Any admin doing so would be risking a lot. And besides, there isn't even consensus that this was a bad block to begin with. --Majora (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• If it wasn't your intent perhaps mind your wording next time, but the gist I got from your note is that you absolutely believe it can't be modified, and I linked to a longstanding admin who says otherwise. As far as consensus: this was a bad block. Almost every non-admin commenting has said as much. As for the admins themselves: almost none say they would have performed the block, though admit it is "technically" sound (yes, those were ironic quotes based on your last comment). This block violated the spirit of the trust that the community places in admins... Perhaps there's an argument to be made about DS in general, and I would certainly be interested in that. It doesn't change the crux of the issue here, though, which is that two four+ editors were blocked, banned, or had special permissions removed based on one admin's poor judgment. 172.56.20.86 (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Where do I even start. First wikt:technically has more than one definition. Technically as in based in the facts and technically as in software. Perhaps you should pick up on the differences? Second, just from counting (yes consensus isn't a vote blah blah blah) there are eight people who say they endorse the block and five who say it isn't (one of which actually lands on both sides saying it is a bad block but technically correct). As for non-admins or not, that has nothing to do with anything. Just like we allow IPs to voice their opinions with the same weight we allow non-admins to voice theirs. Everything as the same weight. Then, going by actual arguments, and not counting (which consensus actually is) there is pretty clear consensus that the blocks were perfectly within policy. Ergo, not anywhere near the level that would require breaking rev'del policy to modify the block log. If you want to change policy there are plenty of avenues to do so. This isn't one of them. Stop getting off topic. Stop complaining about how the policy is written and use what is currently accepted. --Majora (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• You sum up my thoughts better than I could. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• I'll just add that I think that is an excellent exposition of the situation (both this specific one and DS in general). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The fact is that, recent events aside, if more admins were actively watching the American Politics pages and preemptively blocking DS violations, we would not have a small number of POV editors disrupting the area and driving long-time solid contributors away from this topic area. AE is a zoo just like ANI and the purpose and intent of DS has been vitiated by the unwillingness of Admins to enforce sanctions against obvious and persistent disruption. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

+1 Arkon (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Reluctantly Endorse blocks as within DS policy. I'm torn by things like this, because I seriously dislike the way DS violations are often handled, and I think there are too many heavy-handed authoritarians working DS. That's largely why I steer clear of DS - because it frustrates me the way too often a good editor who has made a minor mistake gets blocked (or whatever) when a friendly word could have achieved so much more and left people a lot happier. Did Coffee deal with this in the best way? Not by a mile, in my view. Would I have made the blocks in question? Absolutely not. But Coffee's action falls within the currently-accepted range of options he had at his disposal. (And I just want to add that this does show good faith.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Bad block - Coffee's blocking of both editors was punitive to say the least, Yes both editors reverted after 24h however there should've been a stern warning from any DS-enforcer or another admin beforehand .... IMHO this was a bad block by far. –Davey2010 21:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Commute to time served Enforcement is preventative. We make judgements based on overall contributions as well as technical violations. There is no indication that continuing the sanction will protect the project. We don't need "examples." We certainly don't need sanctions on editors that now clearly understand why they were sanctioned. This is not a referendum on Coffee, it's an assessment of whether sanctions are required. They are not. --DHeyward (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The blocks no longer exist, so I'm a bit confused. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Malinaccier: I appreciate your explanation of why it isn't technically feasible to amend my block log, and why it isn't appropriate to remove the corresponding entry from the DS log because of its dual purpose. Irrespective of the outcome of this review, I accept it will not be possible to get "relief" for what has occurred (although I cannot personally speak for El cid, el campeador, of course). If the ultimate outcome of this review is just to encourage Coffee (and other administrators) to more often issue warnings before pulling the block trigger on matters concerning discretionary sanctions, I will be satisfied. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

As would I. Or maybe just, oh I don't know, ask questions? That seems easier than trying to squeeze toothpaste back into the tube. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse blocks. It being "harsh" is totally irrelevant in my view. Technically, you broke discretionary sanctions. It is what it is. Mistakes happen and there really isn't a whole lot that can be done since the block was completely within currently accepted policy (which of course can always be changed if need be either through an arbcom amendment or via community consensus at the pumps). We expect (or at least I expect) that admins will follow and apply currently accepted policy evenly, fairly, and consistently to all sides. Which is what happened here. There really isn't much anyone can do anyways. Block logs are permanent and striking it from the DS log page would just remove a useful link back. You are both still valued editors in any case. --Majora (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks: There was no abuse of discretion here. Just because we wouldn't have blocked ourselves doesn't render the blocks improper or abusive. That's the nature of discretionary sanctions: The sanctioning admin is given great deference. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - a lot of the trouble here is caused by this ridiculous "consensus required to undo any kind of edit" provision (I know that's not what it says, but that is what it amounts to in practice). Which of course was invented by Coffee. This DS has been subject of numerous AE reports, it's confusing as hell (which edit is the one being challanged and which one is the challanger?), it's easy to game, it's easy to trip up over, it just fuels the WP:BATTLEGROUND in this topic area. All of this has already been said at WP:AE by editors and admins alike. Somewhat unsurprisingly, editors who edit tend to hate it, admins are split with some for, some against. There's enough "for" that the sanction has not been removed or rescinded. Some of the admins who are "for" argument is simply that it'd be a pain in the ass to remove it since Coffee has slapped it on so many pages - which is a particularly lazy, stupid, argument. Anyway. After my latest run in with this piece of bureaucratic dog poop I've been considering starting an outright "petition" or RfC on the "consensus required" sanction. Because of lack of time (holidays and all) I haven't gotten it together. Furthermore, I actually think it crucial that admins who administrate at WP:AE do NOT provide input - the petition should be limited to editors who actually edit the topic (which does include some admins, like User:MelanieN. From what I can tell, pretty much everyone who's reasonably active in the topic area, whatever their POV, ideology, religion, favorite OS, feelings about the last Star Wars movie, hates the provision. Which means that most likely it really is a very bad idea. Might around to it soon. In the meantime, the bureaucratic machine and love of silly, counter productive rules-for-rules sake, marches on. Volunteer Marek 05:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  It takes all of a 20 minutes to throw together a RfC. An hour if you really need to think about it that hard. Or request a clarification from ArbCom as to the exact nature of this area. All of which is prescribed in normal proceedings. Seeing as post-1932 American politics is incredibly large it is logical to think that an enormous amount of articles falls under this DS. As for Coffee "making things up". No. That is part of the policy as well. An admin is allowed to impose prohibitions on the addition and removal of content as they see fit per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page restrictions. It really seems like you are on more of a crusade against Coffee than anything else. And limiting anyone from participating in a RfC is really not going to fly. Everyone gets their say. That is how Misplaced Pages works. --Majora (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

To "throw" one together, yes, maybe 20 minutes. To do it right takes a bit more work. Like diffs and past statements from WP:AE, WP:ANI, article talk pages, user talk pages, all the sanctions and why they were problematic etc. And all that takes a lot of time digging through histories. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer doing it right rather than doing it sloppy (and in fact, I'm not sure if RfC is the best way to go).

And yes, Coffee "made it up". I didn't say he wasn't allowed to do it. I said he "made it up". And just because "he saw fit" that does not in any way, shape, or form, imply that this was a good thing.

And no, I'm not on a "crusade against Coffee" (nice attempt at poisoning the well there, by the way). I'm on a crusade against a stupid restriction.

"You are complaining about how policy is written and then say that you don't have time to change policy" <-- Yes, that is exactly what I'm doing. I'm complaining about a policy (more precisely a discretionary sanction, not a policy), because it's a bad one, and yes, I don't have time to try and change it right now. What's confusing about that? Volunteer Marek 05:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I do not have any particular comment on the block here, but I intend to open a thread here about Coffee's use of the DS remedy "consensus required", when he returns from vacation. Kingsindian ♝ 

♚ 07:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• WP:AC/DS is not policy and it does not have a "nature" that can't be altered. It is a process set up by a small minority of editors, outside of the normal consensus process. The idea that it should give admins the freedom to do anything they please is troubling. WP:ADMINACCT is still a thing. WP:AC/DS#guide.expect is clear that such sanctions should foster an environment of following policy and the purpose of Misplaced Pages, and preventing editors from gaming the system. That is not happening here. We have a broken editing restrictions slapped (sometimes preemptively) on multiple pages, by an admin who stays around long enough to block good faith contributors, and is then absent for weeks or months at a time. On top of that, the SPAs, trolls, POV pushers and socks that cause about 90% of the disruption use the editing restrictions to game the system.- MrX 12:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @MrX: I feel compelled to correct your misunderstanding of discretionary sanctions, if not for your sake then at least for the sake of anyone reading this in the future. AC/DS is authorised by the Arbitration Committee under its authority under the WP:Arbitration Policy, which enjoys very broad consensus among the community. Further, the procedure was reviewed and overhauled in a review a few years ago which saw wide participation from community members. It is used in topic areas plagued by disputes and partisan or disruptive editing, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, and allows admins to take swift action to deal with disruptive editors or prevent disputes from getting out of hand. You may disagree with its application, but to say that it's a process set up by a small minority of editors, outside of the normal consensus process give admins the freedom to do anything they please is simply not an accurate statement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @HJ Mitchell: It may be authorized by the Arbitration Policy, but that doesn't make it a policy itself, so I believe my statement was technically correct (see what I did there?). I was not aware of a review and overhaul a few years ago. Is this it: WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review? If so, I'm not finding the wide participation. If not, would you mind linking the correct discussion?- MrX 23:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
      • @MrX: It's not a policy in its own right, but it derives its authority from the ArbPol. Further, discretionary sanctions are authorised for individual topic areas as arbitration remedies. There's not really anywhere to go with questioning the legitimacy of discretionary sanctions. You'd have much more success starting a discussion about their application by admins. And yes, you got the right review (that was longer ago than I thought, I'm getting old!). It's a bit of a trail of breadcrumbs, I grant you, but the discussion took place on the talk page and is archived on subpages, starting at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review/Archive 1. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• For whatever it's worth, if we had an RfC tomorrow to do away with discretionary sanctions all together I would strongly support. It's a backdoor way for ArbCom to unilaterally rewrite our policies on blocking and banning, it creates an ungodly complex bureaucratic labyrinth that's nearly completely indecipherable for new users, mostly seems to just send drama to AE instead of ANI, when AE is mostly just a more annoyingly formatted version of ANI anyway, mandates the use of BITEY templates that come off BITEY no matter how carefully they're used, and as often as not are used to stifle open discussion and bold editing as anything else. When they're used unilaterally (as everyone who is want to complain about AE is quick to wish for) it often comes off as daddy meting out spankings (as in this case), especially when it's admins handing out comparatively seemingly arbitrary sanctions to editors who are not seldom every bit as experienced on the project as they are. It's an open invitation for gratuitous public wiki-lawyering, because it's apparently the only place on the project where we collectively care much more about the letter rather than the spirit of "policy", even though, as pointed out above, it's not really policy at all, but rather a pronouncement from ArbCom, that has the effect of policy, despite coming from a body that is explicitly forbidden from unilaterally changing policy. To make matters worse, they rarely go away, even in instances where they haven't been used in several years, ensuring that when they eventually do get used, it will probably be from an admin who's never applied it, and a user who didn't even know it existed until they were given a nice BITEY template sure to do nothing but escalate the situation anyway.

This right here is exactly what you get when you turn sysops into authority figures rather than consensus enacters who mostly make unilateral decisions in cases where the action is so obviously warranted that a discussion would largely be a waste of time. We'd all be doing ourselves a favor if we collectively decided to ignore discretionary sanctions all together, and that goes for everyone, not just sysops. GMG 15:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. The discretionary sanctions in general are helpful. Only that one by Coffee is definitely not helpful. This is an entirely new type of editing restriction unilaterally invented by Coffee. I do not think that inventing new types of restrictions and modifying DS templates by individual admins has been intended and authorized by Arbcom. Making new template is not just an ordinary sanction to be applied to an individual contributor or a page. This is something a lot more significant. Template:Ds (linked to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) only lists templates authorized by Arbcom. I think every new template for DS (or any significan modification of such template) should be either approved by Arbcom or by consensus of WP:AE admins. That one was not, and everyone can see what had happen. This can be a matter of clarification. Here is link to latest AE discussion initiated by Kingsindian. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

In fact, it was closed nearly a month ago. >SerialNumber54129 15:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• • FWIW, I think its a positive sanction and that the other options are actually much more susceptible to gaming than it is, but that's neither here nor there for this thread. We've reached consensus to change that template to include parameters so it is not the default. We just need to implement that. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

According to this restriction, All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This is not a helpful restriction for two reasons. First, it is frequently not obvious which consensus exists on the article talk page (a de facto consensus frequently exists even if this is not an officially closed discussion). Second, it may be not obvious if an edit represents insertion of new material challenged through reversion (the content could be included long time ago in the stable version of the page, removed some time ago, recently re-included, and then "challenged through reversion"). I do not think there are such concerns in the example leading to this complaint/thread. That was an obvious violation. However, many other cases previously discussed on WP:AE were not at all obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just to summarize, I think one needs a confirmation by Arbcom or a consensus of admins on WP:AE to create new types of sanctions. They should not be unilaterally invented and implemented by individual admins. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• (Redacted)

• Back history. You're close to another block. --NeilN 16:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone care to collapse this? A lad insane talk 15:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't support Coffee's action as they seem to have created more disruption than they protected. I would just comment that the support in this thread for his action when he returns to editing will possibly strengthen his resolve to continue in the same vein, resulting in more disruption more threads of this kind in the future. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• The blocks were quite proper by the letter of the law, but poor blocks by the spirit. For a good-faith editor with no track record of disruption in the topic area, a stern warning would have been sufficient, followed by a block if the warning was not heeded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  While this is not really the place for this as it is further discussing the merits of current policy I feel it is food for thought in the eventually RfC that I don't doubt will come about eventually. If we allow admins to go by the "spirit" of policy then it leads to uneven enforcement and confusion as to what would actually occur (if I get caught by admin A I'd be fine but admin B I won't). Uneven enforcement is much worse in my mind than what has currently occurred. As I said above, I expect admins to enforce our rules evenly, fairly, and consistently to all sides. Failing that leads to stratification of editors. --Majora (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  I couldn't disagree more. When we're dealing with good-faith editors who have slipped up or lost their temper, any admin action should be the minimum necessary to restore order. In some cases, a warning or a gentle reminder is enough; in others, blocks or topic bans might be necessary. That's why they're called discretionary sanctions. If they had been intended as system of fixed consequences for certain actions, ArbCom would have said as much. But such would be anathema to the idea that blocks etc are "preventative" rather than "punitive". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  I was going to say what HJ Mitchell said above but he has said it clearer. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd say expectations of administrators and role of administrators lay out this spirit quite well within the law. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• While discretionary sanctions give administrators necessary latitude, they must not: repeatedly issue significantly disproportionate sanctions or issue a grossly disproportionate sanction. is as much the letter of the law as the letter of the law that allows these blocks. So is the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. When dealing with first or isolated instances of borderline misconduct, informal advice may be more effective in the long term than a sanction.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, @Galobtter:. Much of the disagreement in this thread reflects the incompleteness of that page. I see no definition of Discretionary Sanctions. I see no clear differentiation between "sanctions" placed on an editor, "sanctions" in the sense of editing restrictions per page/topic, and "sanctions" in the sense of the broad restrictions imposed via an Arbcom ruling. One of many resulting ambiguities is the unresolved question as to how the annual topic-wide DS notice on a user talk page would warn the editor as to which articles and which unique restrictions apply to a contemplated edit. But most importantly, to return, is there any place where a definition of Discretionary Sanctions is published on WP? Perhaps I just don't know where to look. SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Additional Review Request

I would also like to submit my block for review. I made this revert after reading the edit summary about wikilinks but seeing the wholesale removal of material. I therefore reverted an logged off. User:coffee left this warning and followed that up with . I had logged off and did not see either warning before I was blocked . He unblocked me after a request . Casprings (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

IP block needed

59.125.188.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be a sock of Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk · contribs). The obvious evidence per WP:DUCK is that they keep adding unsourced personnel to albums, always using the name Richard Madenfort (diff). Richard Madenfort was deleted via G5 due to the above user creating it multiple times. Ten Pound Hammer • 06:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• ETA: see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Richard_Madenfort,_Rick_Marty_adding_himself_to_many_music_articles_by_way_of_socks_and_IPs Ten Pound Hammer • 07:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:UAA (and WP:AIV)...

... if anyone fancies dealing with it, mainly bot reports.

AIV reports pushing back to yesterday too. Nightfury 10:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

AIV is mostly clear now, but UAA remains backlogged... –FlyingAce 15:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

UAA cleared. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I will leave my standard note that AIV is never actually backlogged. All of those reports had been reviewed and not blocked. No one feels like declining or getting yelled at for being "weak on vandals" so most people just ignore the bad or borderline ones. A report sitting stale for more than an hour or two is a de facto decline. No comment re: UAA, because I don't work there and don't really know how their backlog works, but it likely isn't something major: if they were actually causing disruption, they would likely also have been reported to AIV and blocked anyway. There is rarely a need to make a thread reporting backlogs in either. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Re: AIV - Or we're waiting to see if more activity takes place. --NeilN 15:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed. Thanks for adding that. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• If two hours is a de facto decline, then it would make sense to have a bot go ahead and remove reports that are stale for more than a few hours? Tazerdadog (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'd likely let it be a bit longer in case there was an actual case where like NeilN said, we were observing to see if it continued, but in general, I think the bot clearing after X hours would be a good idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Care to take a rough guess at an appropriate value for X? I'm thinking 4-8, but I've done very little with AIV. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Realistically you want to set it at the outside edge of an editors editing window. So assuming vandal gets up, vandalizes, goes to work, comes home and vandalizes some more, goes to sleep - 8-10 hours will cover it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'd go with 8-10 hrs. If it hasn't been acted on by then it can reasonably be called stale for AIV. But if we are looking at creating some kind of auto decline I would also add a note suggesting ANI as an alternative in the event that the nomination was not something that could easily be identified as vandalism or persistent spamming. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• I would say 8 hours would be very safe. SQL 02:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• I originally said 4-5 on the assumption that if the disruption continued, it would be back at AIV in a second. I have no problem with 8-10 though, and I'd prefer it be on the shorter end of that scale. I'd opened up a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Bot_to_clear_stale_reports. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I know I say this every time someone complains about the AIV backlog, but you can greatly assist us administrators if you provide some details if it's not an open and shut case. Particularly where you have editors messing around with markup, changing genres/labels/years active, it's alleged block evasion, or if it's an LTA, it can be difficult for a "cold" administrator to work out exactly what the problem is. Keep in mind that the admin reviewing your report probably will have no idea about what you're talking about, and format your report accordingly. This will mean it can be dealt with a lot faster. Lankiveil 01:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC).

And if I can offer an example of what I mean, Sidaq pratap has reported 160.202.36.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for "vandalism after final warning". The IP's talk page is a pretty simple progression up he ladder of warnings, but the IP's contribution all seem to be adding television programmes to lists concerning various Indian TV channels and production studios. Is this "obvious vandalism"? Perhaps they're nonsense, I do not watch Indian TV so I have no idea. Some of them have references though which looks valid. I do not mean to pick on Sidaq pratap specifically, since this kind of report is pretty common, but it's also very difficult for an admin to dissect. Lankiveil 11:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC).

Cary Grant RfC help please

Since I'm part of the discussion, would someone who isn't move this comment to survey? Also-there's a comment re: mandatory freezes can't be done by RfC. The editor who started the RfC is a blocked proxy, so he/she can't change it. Not sure where this leaves the RfC itself because of the wording, but thought I was told a freeze couldn't be done by RfC some time ago. Thanks! We hope (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Help Wanted at AFC

Sorry to intrude on everyone's Holiday week but the perpetual backlog at WP:AfC is getting really bad. There are currently near 2500 drafts awaiting review. Any experienced editors (this is not reserved to admins) who can lend a hand are encouraged to do so. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

More U2's please

User:Train2104/sandbox contains a list of talk pages for nonexistent users. I've gone through and checked them all to remove things that should probably be moved/redirected instead, could an admin d-batch them? Thanks. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Well. I didn't see this before posting on 78's talk. Uh... where did these come from? Because I have at least a few on my watchlist for reasons unbeknownst to me. GMG 17:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I on the other hand thought somebody reaaly wants more Bonos in the world... :o >SerialNumber54129 17:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Some appear to be from account renames. In some cases leaving the redirect is appropriate after a rename. — xaosflux 18:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Several which have "(page does not exist)" after a real username came from an old pre-Huggle vandalism tool - I deleted a bunch of those that Train tagged a while back. New users also sometimes make articles in the user talk namespace for whatever reason. ansh666 03:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: None of these were redirects or ever were redirects. Anything rename-related probably came from the fact that AFCH was (is?) not taking into account a rename if the user talk page was a redlink at rename time. – Train2104 (t • c) 04:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Incidents Regarding Bigg Boss 11

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

Hi,

Since tomorrow, Incidences regarding Misplaced Pages as a fan site as some users got confused about what Misplaced Pages is and what Misplaced Pages is not, Topic is about the page Bigg Boss 11 and various Bigg Boss and Big Brother related pages that having their tables 'Weekly Summaries' and 'Voting History' getting removed for the reason "Encyclopedia becoming a fan site", that involves 2 users to get in attack towards each other in arguements and resulting in vandalisms that occured by Broken nutshell tomorrow, these users are Broken nutshell and ScrapIronIV, that made Broken nutshell to vandalize ScrapIronIV for the incident as per Proof 1 and proof 2 that happen tomorrow, as I'm the new user just joined then just I saw Broken nutshell and ScrapIronIV continuously engaged in fight for What Misplaced Pages Is Not, Bigg Boss 11, Bigg Boss related pages and Big Brother pages that articles got involved in as a fan site. as I'm not complaining for it, I need somebody to please resolve this issue at all and stop users for fighting and resolve this incidences that happening continuously and resolve the confusions regarding Bigg Boss and Big Brother relating articles. Thank You. Oasis Gravel (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Multiple failed login attempts

I'm getting more than 10 failed login attempts on my account a day. Any other admins being hit so heavily? Stephen 02:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I occasionally get hit, but not everyday. When it happens it's a lot of attempts.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

We'll soon be able to see IPs from failed login attempts. That will hopefully improve things. The functionaries have been getting hit with this issue lately. ~ Rob₁₃ 21:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Will all editors be able to see those, or just admins? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Permission error over-ride needed for Alexander & Anna Schwartz Farm article

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

When I try to routinely create an article for U.S. National Register of Historic Places-listed Alexander & Anna Schwartz Farm, which should be non-controversial, I get message:

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions: Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. ....

Could someone please do whatever needs to be done to over-ride the block on this page. It is very normal, routine, to create an article on a historic site listed in National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Lane County, Kansas. Specifically, could you please move User:Doncram/Schwartz Farm to Alexander & Anna Schwartz Farm. And I am curious to learn what caused the problem. Is it a general block on usage of the word "Schwartz"?

By the way, I already tried variations such as Alexander and Anna Schwartz Farm, which are also disallowed.

sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I moved the article. The title is blacklisted because it matches .*anna.*schwartz.*, which is related to OfficialPankajPatidar.​​ — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Okay that is very obscure. All done here. --Doncram (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

JJMC89, argh, I cannot create the corresponding Talk page. Could you also please move just-now-created User talk:Doncram/Schwartz Farm to Talk:Alexander & Anna Schwartz Farm? TIA, --Doncram (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Killiondude (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! All done here, knock on wood. :) --Doncram (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Unban request by User:Iaaasi

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

Iaaasi has requested on their talk page to be unbanned. The text of the request is as follows:

Hello. I am currently banned from English Misplaced Pages and I am asking for the permission to return into the community after being away for a long time. I understand my errors that led to sanctions and I am fully confident that now I would be able to avoid such problems.

I was site banned in 2011 after committing successive violations of the 3RR rule. However these wrongdoings did not represent a wilful defiance of the 3RR rule, but were the result of misinterpretations of the policy. Now I am more mature and less impulsive, so I would be able to be more rational during tense situations. I am aware that dispute resolution processes can be slow sometimes, but I am confident that I will be able to be more patient and refrain from edit warring. I will try to impose my opinion on the talk page and gain consensus there, not matter how long it will take, and I will have the strength to accept an unfavorable decision. I realize that edit warring is not acceptable in any circumstances. I've learned many things from being blocked/banned. I've become conscious of the fact that it is much simpler and convenient to wait several days for a content dispute to be settled than to edit war, get blocked, and than wait several months/years to get unblocked.

It is true that I created some sock-puppet account after my ban, but I think that the harm inflicted to the project while evading my block was reduced. I did many constructive edits in this period of "illegality" and I also initiated new articles like Lia Olguța Vasilescu or Antonio Alexe. Now I accumulated some time (~1 year) since giving up using sock-puppet accounts. I hope that now I fulfill the conditions for being accepted back into the en.wp community. There would be a zero moment, a possibility to start everything over again, and I am sure that I will not repeat the mistakes of the past

Bringing it here for community discussion. Huon (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Not crazy about this given the minimization of the socking conduct. There are 143 entries in Iaaasi's confirmed socks category. That isn't "some" socks. That is a lot of socks. Plus arguing that the edits done while socking were constructive isn't a good sign of understanding. It also would appear that if this block is lifted, there is a standing DS restriction under the WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions. The conduct that led up to that (edit warring, violating 3RR, and claiming the other side's edits were vandalism) is not inspiring. Pinging Sandstein (talk · contribs) (who imposed the DS, the last indef, and handled the 3RR case that led to the last indef). I am preliminarily opposed to granting an unblock but willing to listen to alternative ideas. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutral for now That ban was really 2011? Yeah I think the level of disruption is understated above, since it's still memorable. But there were always some good contributions from Iaasi and there's the potential for more. Does anyone have a summary of Iaasi's post-ban incidents and socking, particularly since (say) 2015? Iaasi, have you contributed to any other English-language WMF projects that we can look at? 173.228.123.121 (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose unban. This is so old that I have no particular recollection of the case, but after reading the user talk page, the block log and associated discussions I believe that this is a case where the level of previous disruption is such that the person is, as a matter of character, simply unsuited for participating in a collaborative, consensus-based project. The mere passage of time is unlikely to alleviate such deficiencies, particularly given that the user does not indicate which notable constructive contributions they have made or intend to make. Sandstein 20:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Iaaasi's long history of socking and disruption are bad enough, but the level of harassment of at least one editor that I've seen from them is inexcusable. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per DoRD, who I trust on these matters. Continuing harassment of other editors is inexcusable. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per DoRD. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per DoRD and long-term socking. ~ Rob₁₃ 21:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, I can confirm an attitude towards other editors unsuitable for a collaborative project like Misplaced Pages as of July 2016, my latest interaction with Iaaasi before this unban request. That's some time ago, but it's not in the least addressed in the unban request, and I doubt it has changed. Huon (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per DoRD - The socking is the nail in the coffin for me, You may well be a reformed person and you may of changed however I can't Support anyone who's created nearly 140 socks. –Davey2010 00:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose While I wouldn't say I would always oppose an unban request from a sockpuppeteer, I would have to be thoroughly convinced by their statement that their return would be a net positive as well as taking clear responsibility for their past actions. However, neither of these are clear here. The harassment hasn't even been addressed so forget it. Blackmane (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The report on this editor says "persistent edit-warring with nationalistic bias", and "persistent sockpuppetry", and "long-term abuser, continuing his nationalistic and fringe edits and beliefs". I see no reason to lift this ban, and countless reasons not to. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've rarely seen a talk page with so many unban/unblock requests. However sincere the appeal may sound, the socking is the deal breaker. I have to agree with DoRD and Cullen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Can someone mass rollback a sock's edits?

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

Those of Zeshan Mahmmod (talk · contribs). I did a mass delete but don't seem to have the script for the rollback. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Gregory Lauder-Frost

I've noticed Gregory Lauder-Frost, currently a redirect to Conservative Democratic Alliance, has been apparently protected from editing since 2008, after a controversial edit history and legal threats from the subject (See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Conservative Democratic Alliance). I'm wondering if it is worth opening a can of worms to discuss a stand-alone article, assuming WP:NBIO is met. Lauder-Frost has been described as "a former leading light of the Conservative Monday Club and a well-known figure within the British far-Right" in 2013, and a "well-known champion of traditionalist causes" in 2015. He made news back in 1992, and was profiled in 2013. He has had significant involvement with several notable groups, including Conservative Democratic Alliance, Monday Club, Western Goals Institute, International Monarchist League, and Arktos Media. Regardless of one's opinion of such groups, this is further evidence of notability. Note he also has extensive coverage in the (non-RS) Metapedia. Thoughts? --Animalparty! (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Holehouse, Matthew (8 August 2013). "Jacob Rees-Mogg's shock at dinner with group that want to repatriate black Britons". The Daily Telegraph.
2. Charles Arnold-Baker (30 July 2015). The Companion to British History. Taylor & Francis. p. 1747. ISBN 978-1-317-40039-4.
3. "Tory who kept right on stealing cheques". HeraldScotland. 27 November 1992.
4. "Gregory Lauder-Frost exposed: The Tory fringe group leader with Nazi sympathies". The Independent. 9 August 2013.

Pinging @JzG:--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

And @Alison:--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• The main issue is that Lauder-Frost is not prepared to accept a biography that includes his criminal conviction. I am fine with a WP:NPOV biography that includes these, and his neo-Nazi sympathies, but consensus in 2008 was that notability was sufficiently marginal as not to be worth the trouble. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive discussions on Stanley Kubrick talk page

The bludgeoning on the Stanley Kubrick talk page with regards to the infobox is continuing, this time by another editor who has started another discussion, so soon after the last formal RfC, despite being pointed to the archives. This is becoming a joke.

To date, there have been 12 attempts to force a box onto this article, despite there being a clear consensus not to have one. The article, on average, is receiving one discussion every couple of months from random people/socks stoking up the same old subject and trying to involve the same old people.

This is beyond disruptive and the latest discussion, as given in the last diff below, needs to be archived before it too gets out of hand. This was the first discussion which was followed by another. Then when that was unsuccessful, another one was started, followed by the first RfC, which favoured no infobox being added. Apparently, a consensus can change after a few months, so a second RfC was started, followed by a survey and then another dicusssion. When that failed, another discussion was had, followed by another, and another, oh, and one more. All of that, as well as the result for the second RfC, resulted in a consensus of "no infobox" and we were again lulled into a false belief that we were able to finally get on with our lives.

Oh, but wait, what's this? It's another discussion, this time started by someone who has a mere 16 edits on a two year old account. This latest discussion needs to be archived as it is only going to gain momentum before a thirds RfC is started. This makes a complete mockery of the RfC process and is sucking everyone's time out of being able to improve other areas of the encyclopaedia. Cassianto 08:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure about the links? My device could be the one to blame but the first RFC seems to have been procedurally closed and the 2nd one was a No Concensus with very specific ideas about a future RFC.Also, a RFC can consist of many sub-discussions. I think it would be best to propose a moratorium on the talk-page (something of the sort at Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 6#RFC: 612-month moratorium on page-name and related discussions) and get a concensus for that. Winged Blades 09:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the "first RfC" is somewhat irrelevant bearing in mind there was a second. Who cares; the salient point is that these discussions keep taking place and it's becoming disruptive. Cassianto 10:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Unless your device is the fine rolls :p there's probably no need for all the "abbs." Just op. ed. >SerialNumber54129 09:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

abbs??Winged Blades 09:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

abbreviations; "RFC", "proc.", "NC", "T/P". Etc etc. WP:TMAIYPPCUFTFC (too many abbreviations in your post, please consider using full terms for clarity). Mr rnddude (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't conversing with newbies:) Anyways, amended per Integer's wishes Winged Blades 11:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• The second RfC ended in "no consensus" rather than "consensus not to have an infobox". I agree with Godric above- if you really find this annoying, propose a moratorium, otherwise you've got to accept that every-so-often, a newbie will stumble across the article, and ask why there isn't one- that's a natural part of not having an infobox on such a popular article.

Jayron32 made this salient point last time round, which I'll repeat here again: New, uninvolved readers and editors with no background in the prior discussions leading to the decision to exclude the infobox deserve to be treated with decency and respect and should be expected to receive a patient, clear, and proper response to explain the rationale for the decision. The people who wish to maintain the lack of an infobox can do so for all I care, but what should not happen is what I see on the talk page, which is those self-same people being curt, rude, and dismissive of people who want to understand why that is so. There are going to be people every few weeks who are going to raise the question. We cannot stop them from raising the question. While that doesn't mean we have to relitigate the issue every few weeks, it DOES mean that those people should be treated with decency and respect, and not dismissed rudely as though the decision which was reached should have been obvious. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

A "newbie" (the user who's started the recent discussion has been around for two years, so is not a newbie) should be advised to go to the archives, read them, and respect the outcomes of previous discussions. That's happened and they've stuck two fingers up to any kind of archive referral. Cassianto 13:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

AGF and all be damned, this doesn't strike as a new user (my emphasis on the part. phrasing) to me! And, my evaluation is not based on his' being registered two-years back.Winged Blades 13:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: No, I'd bet the opposite. Plenty of editors are "drive-by editors" and it appears that User:PheonixDev is exactly that. Hell- some our recently elected arbs are long absence returnees, if everyone just screamed "SOOOOCK!" at every returning editor we'd be missing the vast majority of our community. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You're the first one using the word "sock". We hope (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@We hope: ***cough, cough*** AGF and all be damned, this doesn't strike as a new user to me! from Godric above is pretty explicit isn't it? There's no other way anyone could construe that comment. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No-it's YOUR mind who's made that connection with the remark-the remark as written is that this isn't a new user and it's been left at that by the original poster of it-original research on your part. We hope (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

"It's your words, he's using your words, when you said the words and he's using them back, it's circular using of the words and that's from you!" jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought this was to be at least a semi-serious discussion. Looks like that's wrong. We hope (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Cassianto used sock in his opening statement. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I see "random people/socks". The first inference of trying to connect a returning editor to possibly socking was here re: another editor's comments about the editor not being new. We hope (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

If a moratorium is possible, why was this comment made at the Cary Grant A mandatory freeze on infobox RfCs cannot be enacted via RfC. RfC? We hope (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@We hope: moratoriums are definitely possible- see Talk:Trump, Talk:Hillary Clinton for example. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we have to explain this to you, Jcc, but “not a new editor” may just mean someone who used to be an editor, and are now retuning under a different guise. Do you even know what a sock is? Cassianto 15:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

From someone who just removed a condescending remark aimed against them, you seem to be dishing them out to others. Yes, I know what SPI is thanks- my contributions will show I've helped to expose a UPE ring or two. Do you even know what UPE is, Cassianto? Maybe I'll have to explain it to you... jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I've requested a moratorium at the article-in-question. The repetitive calls for an infobox there, are quite tiresome. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe try putting an {{FAQ}} at the top of the talk page explaining why there isn't an infobox first? It's unusual for a well-developed biography not to have infobox, so it's not surprising that uninvolved editors keep bringing it up. Jumping to a 'moratorium' seems extreme and unfair; WP:STICK doesn't really apply when it's different people raising the same point in good faith. – Joe (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

An FAQ is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Cassianto seems to be seriously misrepresenting the situation. First of all, the RfC closed as no consensus. Second of all, there hasn't been that constant discussions like he's saying. All those "survey" and "threaded discussion" that he's saying are all part of the second RfC. Since the RfC, 11 months ago, there has been only one discussion - this one. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC) It looks like there have been 4 discussions. One in 2015, One in 2016 15 days before the 3rd attempt which involved one main RfC, and now this 4th discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I saw the links to parts of a same RFC but did not check the precise timeline.If Galobterr's one is reasonably correct, in that case,I think a moratorium is not yet necessary.A FAQ pointing to the 2nd RFC will be sufficient.But, one year is a rational timeframe to restart any discussion esp. since the closer gave some specific ideas to be tried at.Winged Blades 16:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

There's no misrepresentation regarding the disruption whether it's an RfC or not. "I have full-protected the article for 24 hours to stop yet another set of reverts over the infobox. As Graham Chapman once said, stop this, it's silly." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC) No mistaking who the cheerleaders of the disrupion are either. We hope (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

An RfC that closed as no consensus (snow oppose would be disruption) is disruption? Seriously, you seem to regard as if its 20-1 against there being an infobox. Ah, so raising an issue 11 months after it closed as no consensus means someone is a cheerleader of disruption? Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying the issue came up twice in 2017 plus the RFC (which started in 2016 finished in 2017) rather than once plus the RFC (which started in 2016, finished in 2017)? Okay fine. But where's the high level of disruption you're referring to? Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the OP exaggerated the disruption, Nil Einne. As others (Joe, Jayron) have said above, the fundamental thing is that it is unusual, from the standpoint of a new user/rare user for an established biography to not have an infobox- thus we shouldn't be surprised if every few weeks someone tries to add one, or discusses it on the talk page. What we shouldn't do is jump to report them on AN, or scream "LOOK IN THE ARCHIVES YOU FOOL" back at them. Instead, we should politely refer them to the RfC, which resulted in no consensus to add one, and explain to them that on this particular article, the editors decided not to add one. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Not referring to the results of the RfC-this is a general disruption which isn't confined to Kubrick. You appear to be stalking Cassianto. We hope (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I commented on two infobox discussions which reached AN. If you seriously want to, launch an ANI. The same could of course, be said for you. You seem to have spent the whole day replying to all my comments. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead take me to ANI because I could give a crap. There's no point in even TRYING to edit anything anymore with all the conflict.We hope (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No, of course I'm not going to launch an ANI against myself. Or are you going to claim those were my words, until someone corrects you? jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't give a flaming f in Hades. 17:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)~~

• Why not simply add a FAQ to the talkpage, explaining why the article doesn't have an infobox and with links to the relevant discussions? Then it's the matter of a few seconds to answer any editor, whether good faith or otherwise, that raises the situation. We do this on other articles where te same questions arise over and over again (i.e. Muhammad with reference to images, or Homophobia with reference to the meaning of the word). Black Kite (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User access lock

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

Hi. This User is Blocked from editing in fa.wiki Because he edits for the government of Iran and removes the correct information in this Article. He is iranian. Mohammad13701 (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog