Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:16, 26 October 2010

• 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

Mass redirect deletion request

Can a kind (and deletion hungry :) ) admin please delete some 30-odd implausible redirects listed at Talk:List of settlements in Bosnia and Herzegovina#Mis-merged villages? Thanks. No such user (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Some are still liked in to articles. I see no pressing reason to delete these. They are harmless at worst.--Scott Mac 09:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, none should be linked to -- which exactly? Those entities simply do not exist. Besides, every redirect is harmless, but we do have WP:RFD and CSD R3. No such user (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I spot-checked a few using Special:WhatLinksHere: for example, Zavalje i Zlopoljac (Bihać#Settlements) and Vršani i Zagoni (Bijeljina#Settlements) are linked from their municipalities. Oddly, Bijeljina#Municipal subdivisions has Vršani and Zagoni separated, but Zagoni redirects to Zagoni (Bratunac). Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

New AfD tool

I have had an AfD parser available for a while, but due to some toolserver configuration changes it has broke, Since I am unable to fix the issue that caused the break I re-wrote my parser so that scans all active AfDs. A full listing of all parsed AfDs can be found at tools:~betacommand/reports/afd, However in the process of re-writing the tool I have also implemented a summary tool, its WP:RFASUM but for AfDs which can be found at tools:~betacommand/AFD.html if you have any questions,feature requests, or bugs please let me know. ΔT 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

PS please note that you can sort that table by any column. ΔT 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have already been finding this the best way to scan quickly the thousand or so open AfDs. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note that you can easily tell if an AfD is expired by sorting on the expired column. (the tool uses the relist template to adjust expiration times when its relisted) ΔT 23:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What a cracking tool. Although I note it is reporting Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Middle_Barton_F.C. as having a start date some time in 2006. Must be something odd in the date formatting for that particular one. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's because the AfD in question was erroneously created over the top of an existing AfD. Δ, I bet you could explicitly detect such problems in your tool's report, if you're up for useful feature requests. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be because this particular AfD was filed in 2006, see however that AfD was moved and a redirect replaced it pointing to the new AfD. Then it was Sent to AfD this time and the tool checks for the oldest revision to the AfD (when it was filed) and uses that (in this case the first filing not the current one). Not much I can do, this should rarely if ever happen again. ΔT 23:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• If anyone has feature request or just wants another tool just let me know. ΔT 23:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Image restore

A request for an admin to undelete File:National Organization for Marriage.gif as it was deleted for being orphaned when a user who meant to remove the Unbalanced tag also inadvertently removed the article's infobox containing the image in September and no one caught this mistake until I just did now. Thanks.   allstar✰echo  19:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Allstarecho, I've restored the image. PhilKnight (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Phil.   allstar✰echo  20:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's {{pd-textlogo}} anyway. Someone change the tag, find an SVG version, and transfer to Commons. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it pd-textlogo, though? I think it's a debatable case, but I think interlocking rings may be unoriginal enough. Sceptre 14:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Requests for permissions

There are currently requests over a week out at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed. Could someone take a look there? Netalarm 02:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Looie496 (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob

Yo dawg, I herd you like hats, so here's a hat for your hat, so you can hat while you hat. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Question Why was this thread again archived when the discussion is ongoing? Basket of Puppies 21:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Not sure. However, the user that hatted the thread, noted he did not read it at all: "discussion of whatever it is that they are discussing on AN, and which I am not even going to bother looking at." Most inappropriate to archive and declare something as closed, which one has not even bothered to read. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC) This constant hatting of discussion without notification or warning is leaving multiple users (myself included, and i'm not even involved in the discussion) with a sense of bad faith toward the hatters. Silverseren 22:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I think it should be closed, Rob learned his lesson, no one wants to ban him or but any restrictions on him. He does an excellent job with BLPs, so I'm against any sactions for him. Secret 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Proposal that we all agree to refrain from hatting/archiving/similar action threads when there is ongoing discussion. Additionally, for the hatter/archiver/similar to read and understand what they are doing before the action is undertaken. Agreed? Basket of Puppies 02:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Access Denied  02:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Agreed.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Comment. From what I can read (in what has been rolled up), it appears that the close was a unilateral one done against consensus at the time. In fact, broad comments used by the closer as a basis for the non-consensus closing such as "Most of us uninvolved folk are now totally sick of it" are not supported by the comments of "most of us uninvolved folk" on this page, and I find such comments to be quite curious (as well as contrary to what my own guess would be, reading this thread). I understand that such a non-consensus close is contrary to our core consensus guideline (which, though I agree with the remarks about hatting/archiving, I view as an even graver problem with the goings-on in this string).--Epeefleche (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Question Am I correct in assuming it was Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who collapsed the discussion for the second time? Just want to make sure I am seeing it correctly. Basket of Puppies 04:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Regarding the premature hatting/archiving of the above discussions, I've created WP:DAOHATTHOD to hopefully provide some useful advice. Basket of Puppies 06:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tiamut/Palestine

Would an admin (or admins) close Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tiamut/Palestine? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I closed the first one, but I had a personal opinion on the second, so I commented instead. --RL0919 (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

BLPs and maintenance tags

I invite participation at a discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Maintenance tags. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Banned users and their userpages

At this deletion discussion, an issue has arisen concerning a banned user and whether his User page should have the "banned" template while his User Talk has the same template.

I seem to remember that banned users do not always have a "banned" template placed on their user page, such as when they have retired. I'm also sure there have been instances where a banned editors user page has been blanked for the duration of the ban. Does anyone know of more details or the circumstances? Or is my memory failing me? :( Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If someone is commenting on this, it may be better to comment here, so the discussion doesn't fork off in three ways (it's also happening at the MfD). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough's persistent disregard for community norms and (semi-)automated editing guidelines

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

SmackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)

Earlier today, I advised Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) that I would request both he and his bot be blocked if he continued making trivial and unnecessary changes that have proved controversial without first obtaining consensus for these changes .

Rather than cease making the changes, he simply went on ahead with them on both his bot account ( - unnecessary capitalization changes), and his main account ( changes spacing around header for no reason; capitalizes template for no reason).

It is perfectly reasonable to hold the view that all templates should be ucfirst, it is perfectly reasonable to hold the view that headers should have no spacing around them. However, it is unreasonable to push these views on the community without first obtaining consensus for them. The edits today display a shocking disregard for the collaborative editing model and indicate that Rich feels that he does not have to operate within the consensus model.

This is unacceptable behaviour for a bot operator and administrator and I request he be blocked pending the decision of the proposed restriction below, which has been copied here from the ANI subpage for greater visibility. –xeno 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed editing restriction: Rich Farmbrough

This is an alternative proposal to more strict proposal here, which generated a fair amount of support for a complete ban on non-manual editing

Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged.

Thoughts? –xeno 15:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What about emptying and deleting categories? This is what happened in the immediate incident. --Philosopher  15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Added a sentence, though that is expected of any editor already. –xeno 15:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless a guideline directs such a change. There's always the potential for future guidelines on the matter. Otherwise, it seems a fine proposal to me. --Bsherr (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's covered by 'demonstrable consensus'. –xeno 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Good enough. --Bsherr (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support --Bsherr (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think this has become stale now, but I'll revisit if that seems to change. --Bsherr (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• I think this is agreeable, this has my support. Rich, I hope you will do an effort in checking the diffs before you save, and not save them if they are mere changes of capitalisation, etc. Real mistakes, well, we all make them (as do our bots), I do hope your fellow editors will treat them for what they are. --Dirk Beetstra 15:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Now that's a whole lot better, being a lot less disruptive and punitive. But how about discussing with Rich about the categories' name changes and moving, instead of immediately reaching out for punishment? --Ohconfucius 15:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Discussion doesn't help if he ignores objections and continues full-steam ahead without stopping to gather consensus for his changes. –xeno 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This proposal is more about setting a bot policy rather than addressing or remedying the allegations. Bot policy should be debated elsewhere. Glrx (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  Policy already exists to prohibit these changes (WP:AWB#Rules of use #3/4), this is more of a compliance issue. –xeno 19:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• We're prohibiting him from something that's already prohibited (using a bot or script to make cosmetic changes) and telling him to use the processes that he's already supposed to be using (CFD/TFD). Is there any substantial difference here from doing nothing and hoping the problem resolves itself? Mr.Z-man 21:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I suppose there's also the prohibition of using even manual methods to make those cosmetic changes, and it looks like even if those cosmetic changes are made at the same time as another edit they would still be disallowed (without bot approval, which I suppose is already bot policy). To my mind this is just because it's difficult at times to tell if Rich is making manual, semi-automated or fully automated edits from his account (because, as you know, in violation of the bot policy he appears to make all three from his main account, without using proper edit summaries). Personally I think we should be stopping this problem there. With enforcing the bot policy and stopping him from making any bot like edits from his account, as proposed above. But would also support this alternative proposal after the original one. - Kingpin (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The restriction would make it clear that these changes lack consensus and he may be blocked if he continues making them prior to gathering consensus. –xeno 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense

This is a storm in a teacup. No one cares about the bot capitalising clean-up templates, except that they think I am offending others by doing it. There are no others, except apparently xeno has moved to-day from neutral about it ("I don't care about the actual minor bits themselves") to opposed ("Me for one") and dePiep is saying the same in the next comment (about 20 minutes ago). Hardly anyone cares about any of them. Those that do have an opinion would almost certainly, by the figures, support capitalising of Infoboxes. I have explained that for technical reasons that I made a choice, some four years ago for Ucfirst rather than lcfirst - after much careful thought. the reason is to enable me to write regexes like:

• {{\s*(Cleanup|Attention+\(on+talk+page\)|Clean|Cu|CU|Tidy|Cleanup-quality|Cleanup-date|Attention+needed+\(article+page\)|Attn|Attention+see+talk|Attention|Attention+needed+\(talk+page\)|Clean+up|Cleanup-because|Clean-up|Cleanup-reason|Cleanup-since|Ugly|Cleanup-Pitt|Improve|Quality|Clu) *() => {{Cleanup$2

and then do the date manipulation on a much simpler regex - a sample of which still runs to maybe 4 or 5 k.

Here's my proposed solutions:

1. Forget it and go and write an enyclopedia.
2. Have an centralized discussion on the case of cleanup templates. Tell me the result. I will implement that.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Your dismissive attitude ("No one cares..."; "Forget it and go and write an encyclopedia."; "There is no controversy here. Nothing to see, keep walking.") is a major part of the problem.

I don't know how many people care about this, but I can tell you that I do. When I consult diffs to evaluate the edits, your bot's inconsequential changes waste my time. I've gone to your talk page to raise the issue, only to be reminded by the existing complaints (and your responses thereto) that you routinely ignore/dismiss such criticisms. So I don't bother to add my voice to the futile chorus (and I assume that others act in kind). —David Levy 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well not bothering hardly helps. Nor does the negative characterisation of my talk page. Nor yet quoting out of context.Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Well not bothering hardly helps.

Nor does wasting still more of my time by posting yet another comment for you to dismiss/ignore.

Nor does the negative characterisation of my talk page.

You mean my observation that you routinely dismiss/ignore these criticisms (just as you've done above)?

Nor yet quoting out of context.

How have I done so? Two of the quotations are taken from this very section, and I linked directly to the third's diff. —David Levy 00:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The diff is not the context. The context is an extensive conversation over several pages. Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Please link to whatever threads/diffs you believe provide essential context. —David Levy 00:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally on the substantive point you raise, you can set your w/l to ignore bots. HTH. Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

And that would not be a reasonable solution. Sometimes people will still want to see bots. We shouldn't have to stop seeing other bots because yours is behaving badly. I will have to agree with the other people in that these edits cause more trouble than help. -DJSasso (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that. I don't want to ignore bots (which would cause me to overlook problematic mass changes, including those caused by malfunctions). I want to be able to monitor their edits without having to wade through the utterly pointless ones that your bot performs. —David Levy 00:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd add on that score that ignoring bots seems to cause another issue: if, say, an editor vandalises a page, (edit 1) then a bot goes past and makes a change, (edit 2), nothing turns up in your watchlist. As you are set to ignore bot edits, the watchlist code doesn't notify you of any edits, as it only checks to see if the most recent one warrants notification. Thus you are lead to assume that nothing has happened in the article. I found this to be a particular problem with SineBot, but generally that flag causes too many issues to use it. - Bilby (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well as not a great user of watch-lists, I had seen that comment before, but not got round to investigating it. It seems like a suboptimal way for watch-lists to work. Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

"Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" should bypass that particular concern. –xeno 18:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding your explanation regex: AWB can do this with the stock engine now without having to change the case (WP:AWB/TR). This is why I asked you to update SmackBot to the latest SVN snapshot. And you're right, I said I don't care about the minor bits themselves - I do care about the unnecessary, disruptive, and distracting changes to the minor bits that lack consensus - I would similarly ask an editor who was going in the other direction to stop. –xeno 15:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What actually needs to be done now: Need an uninvolved admin

I think, at this point, we've discussed this to death. What I think we need is an uninvolved admin who has maybe a couple of hours to read up on this, and then close the discussion and editing restriction proposals at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010. A number of different remedies have been offered there, and I think a closing admin can judge a suitable consensus on how best to proceed. I don't think it's worth our time talking about this all over again at this point. Especially when the previous discussion hasn't yet been closed. At this point I feel that the discussion and editing restriction proposals are ripe for closure, as that thread is no longer constructive (it appears to have degenerated to edit warring, repetition, and personal comments, rather than actually furthering discussion on the actual issue tat hand, despite this I think there is already enough content there to reach a consensus). If the solution provided by a closing administrator does not work after some time, then there are other venues, such as a RfC/U, which would be more appropriate, since it appears ANI is not helping this issue much. - Kingpin (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Fram (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we need an uninvolved admin to step in here. Subsequent to this thread being posted, Rich made nearly three thousand edits with SmackBot that 1) do not appear to have BAG approval (I found this, but perhaps it should be revisited - approval should not have been granted for spell-checking) and 2) appear to violate the bot policy on spell-checking (based on new information what happened was the operator had set it wrong, as opposed to the bot running amok) and 3) made obviously erroneous edits like this . We have policies and guidelines on automated and assisted editing for a reason, and flagrant disregard for those norms is unacceptable, especially when the result is editors having to manually review thousands of bot edits for errors. –xeno 14:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit of a rabbit out of a hat. "editors having to manually review thousands of bot edits for errors". Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Should I assume the one edit I picked out at random and found to be in error was 1 in 3000? Are you going to check the rest of the edits yourself? (I see you ran over the pages to fix World Series of Poker back to how it should be - Thanks for that). –xeno 17:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I picked up a bunch of other WSOP errors too. Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

• He also made this edit which does nothing but capitalize a template while tweaking some whitespace. Making disputed edits while they're under discussion at a noticeboard strikes me as inflammatory. –xeno 14:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  Again human error, some small task I started nearly a week ago, and that item was already fixed - by an unassisted human. (I won't say why the task is taking so long - I will mention that it would have just happened in the good old days prior to 29 Spetember.) Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
  

  So you had it in auto-save mode? –xeno 19:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm .. indeed, that last one should not be there. I don't think that I saw any spelling-changes. Most decapitalisations seem OK and proper, but there are some decapitalisations in headers which should actually be capitalised (like the example you gave). Xeno, did you point Rich to these edits, and asked for explanations on the errors and .. useless edits? --Dirk Beetstra 14:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but because of obfuscation and handwaving, I've just about exhausted my patience for speaking directly with Rich. (Further reading: Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Capitalisation of section titles, Misplaced Pages talk:Bots/Requests for approval#Probably erroneous approval for a form of spell-checking (SmackBot)) –xeno 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Handwaving! I have supplied pretty much the only hard facts , the majority of the argument is fuzzy to an extreme. Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Uninvolved admin would be good. But if they can get through it in a couple of hours I would be amazed. This debate has eaten hundreds of hours of my time, and every time we get close to closing it down there is a change of venue. Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Funny enough, I do think that this edit contains two 'errors' .. one title which is probably correct in the current case was (half) converted to a lower case title, while the next section, which should have been converted, was neglected. Whatever the case, I don't think that this gets over 28 errors (i.e., less than 1%; I still refuse to see the capitalisation/whitespace change as an error, I do define it as 'useless'. And though I also think that of the fuss about it is equally useless: Rich, is there really no way of not doing that, it is certainly not necessary (run regexes on the wikitext with the 'i' parameter and it does not care whether it is upper or lowercase, so why uppercase them all), and it will stop the equally, if not more, unnecessary complaining about it?). I also don't think that this falls under a spelling correction, and I do think that it is important enough to be done by a bot - unfortunately it is too error prone (I would suggest to add the standard ones, and record all the rest with statistics, if there are other common ones which need conversion, add those to the list, but be careful with converting them all).

All these discussions are not worth this fuss, Smackbot makes by design on every task some errors, some inevitable and some avoidable - others should be repaired (and are generally repaired) before continuing. The errors are minimal, diverse, and IMHO Rich either explains that some errors can not be avoided (e.g. the subst problem), most errors don't break things (they annoy people), and for the rest, a lot of complaints are about useless edits. I understand that the regular errors do give a feeling of 'Smackbot makes a lot of errors', but overall I don't believe that there are really thàt many (and then, some are because the bot is fed a broken page to begin with; or other errors which can not be repaired, still get regurgitated over and over). I also think that many errors were resolved, but also still regurgitated. Now, if we take away the annoyances (I suggest that Rich tries to take most annoyances away, and the annoyed to stop complaining about these things that IMHO do not need this much complaining; it is not worth it), and that future errors are met with 'could you do this different, or ignore these terms' (which I then also expect Rich to follow), then it is now time to move on. --Dirk Beetstra 19:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't have a huge problem with honest-to-goodness errors; it's the fixing things that aren't broken that I take issue with. As best as I can tell, the main excuse (other than ILIKEIT) for the template capitalization changes is because it's easier to write a regex that results in capitalization changes. Well, that's not a good excuse, and regex can fairly easily be written to maintain the case (and I know Rich is a wizard when it comes to these things - he helped me with some code for Xenobot Mk V); and in fact, AWB now has built-in redirect bypassing at WP:AWB/TR that won't do the unnecessary capitalization changes. So if Rich just worked within that framework, we can be done with this. –xeno 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change: enough is enough!

As an uninvolved admin, I thought the end of the arbcom case would draw a line under this, by spelling out to all those obsessed with it that the community had simply had enough. However, it seems that the participants haven't quite got the message.

Since the closing of the case, we've had wikilawyering over whether the letter of the topic ban allowed banned users to contribute to the articles by posting comments on their talk pages ("what does topic banned mean?"). We've had two threads on this board regarding disputes. (And probably more I've missed.) And now we've got a dispute on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Marknutley about whether a banned user can carry on commenting on sanction on another involved user.

I am thoroughly sick of this. There's a point where some people are simply refusing to hear the community saying "ENOUGH". I thus propose that uninvolved admins agree the following:

1. Topic banned means "find a different topic", and shall be very broadly construed. It's that simple: take the related articles (and users) off your watchlist and do something else.
2. Given that the problem wasn't content, so much as the unacceptable interactions between the participants, the ban shall be taken to mean the participants should cease all hostile (or conceivably hostile) interactions. They should cease to comment on each other entirely.
3. All other editors, who have been party to the conflict, are strongly urged to consider stepping back from the topic - including commenting on enforcement.
4. Continued hostilities by any user in this area are likely to result in speedy blocks, without too much regard for who started it. All reasonable blocks will be endorsed without lengthy discussion and rule-mongering.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's had it with this.--Scott Mac 14:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Leaning to support Put simply, the ruling means that these users are no longer invited to contribute to the shaping of Misplaced Pages's Climate Change related articles. If other editors act improperly then the topic banned users' contribution is not needed to correct it - uninvolved editors without a history of poor judgment and conduct in the topic area will comment if comment is needed; their comment is not. The ruling is also not intended to swap one major dispute for many small user page disputes. If the topic is raised on a user page the answer is "I am topic banned from responding, please ask ]". However careless blocking "without too much regard" is not a good response. FT2  15:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. As another Arb wrote ( Carcharoth, at , "My intention, when voting for the topic bans, was that those topic-banned would stay away from the topic area completely (as Beeblebrox has said). If we (ArbCom) had intended to allow limited discussion of sources on user talk pages, we would have made provisions for that. As we didn't, there are no provisions for that to take place." This has gone on long enough. I'm with Scott Mac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support there is a time for discussion, and a time to knock some heads together. I think the latter has arrived. Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Note - I've proposed an update to the policy explanation of topic bans to clarify these issues/loopholes, as they affect all topic bans, not just Climate Change related ones. FT2  16:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Admins should be able to impose sanctions under CC discretionary sanctions if there is a problem, and the only possible reason any CC related issues should pop up here is in the event of a well-timed and well-framed appeal/review request/special notification. If AE has already dealt with an issue (such as by issuing a warning), it's unhelpful to propose a CC specific sanction at AN or ANI ~10 hours later (in circumstances where no other DR has occurred and the editor has made no other edits since the time that AE thread was closed). Certain users and their approaches are the problem - not the drafting. Therefore, I oppose shaping the rest of the project more (or even less) aggressively because of a single topic area - CC - that is out of control. "I am thoroughly sick of this" hits the nail on the head. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• The ArbCom was quite explicit about the intended scope of the topic bans that they imposed, though there does seem to be some attempt by several editors to rewrite those provisions. The case remedies already allow uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions in response to conduct which is harmful to the project. It is not clear to me why another thread needed to be started here; poor judgement on Scott Mac's part, I think, to ignite another fire to no useful effect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Ignite a fire? Help, can't you see the forest is ablaze already. My intention is to draw a line in the sand by saying that those trying to continue this war by other means need to "get it". The topic bans are not limited restrictions, they are intended to close the whole chapter. Some people obviously haven't got this at all.--Scott Mac 17:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I am very sympathetic to the community reaction to the CC mess. As Ncmvocalist puts it: " 'I am thoroughly sick of this' hits the nail on the head." That said, I don't see how this proposal helps. The numbered list of statements either matches the ArbCom findings or it does not. If it matches, it is redundant, if it does not, it suggests that this group can overturn an ArbCom decision with a simple vote (or !vote). I see deficiencies in the ArbCom decision, but think there are better ways to address it. (FT2's link is a start). I'd also note that hostilities are winding down, and perhaps just letting the AE process get sorted out would be a better approach.--SPhilbrickT 17:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing new in my proposals. They simply are intended as an opportunity for us to say that we will not brook anyone wikilawyering around the spirit of what arbcom has said, and we will have zero tolerance with people simply continuing disputes in some way that arbcom didn't explicitly prohibit. Banned editors should move on entirely, and not pop up in discussions of the userconduct of their old opponents.--Scott Mac 17:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Support: FGS ban the lot of them and delete the subject for ever. It's not that I am unsympathetic to polar bears having to live off bananas and the starving millions having to take skiing holidays (I am recycling my yogurt pots and newpapers to help them) but enough is truly enough. This bickering has gone on far too long - let's talk about sex or something interetsting we can all join in.  Giacomo  18:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Support 1: those banned are banned inter alia from participating in any Misplaced Pages process relating to those articles. End of. Rich Farmbrough, 19:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

• Oppose. This forum seems rather the wrong venue for these suggestions. If the existing ArbCom sanctions/remedies are insufficient, a request for amendment is in order. If the meaning/scope of topic bans is in question, a request for clarification can be filed. However, in the presence of a recent ArbCom ruling, trying to introduce additional restrictions, particularly in relation to the Arbcom topic bans, in another venue, seems to be a recipie for confusion and chaos. Nsk92 (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Scott Mac's sentiment, but more noticeboard handwringing won't help. Instead, just start blocking these people in application of their topic ban (or under discretionary sanctions) if their continued bickering bothers you. Most tend to get it after the third or fourth block.  Sandstein  20:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Nobody needs to clarify anything. For all practical purposes arbcom has declared "weapons free" for admins acting in the climate change battlefield. Sanction whoever you want, however you want, for whatever reason you see fit. Don't be shy; the burden of proof is on the person who is being sanctioned. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  Not sure if that's sarcasm or not... GiftigerWunsch 21:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  It certainly wasn't meant as such. I think it is a fair reading of arbcom's intent: enough with the perpetual drama and debate, just get in there and "knock some heads together" as someone put it above. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don't believe that the ArbCom decision and subsequent remarks by arbs was intended to create a "free fire zone", but it certainly did empower uninvolved admins to impose sanctions against those people violating both teh word and the spirit of their topic bans. I urge more admins to patrol this area and use the enforcement power you have been given to help bring this subject area under control. I believe that is what the community, as a whole, wants. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Couldn't agree more with the overall sentiment of being sick to death of this conflict and the push after the decision to find holes in the ban to wriggle through. However I also couldn't agree more that it's time to take a less talky, more blocky approach to the situation. Actions speak louder than words and months of talking still have failed to get through to some of the combatants. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Very important: Need an uninvolved admin to help close an RFC

We need an uninvolved admin to formally close an RFC. Just to give you a little bit of background:

• We started an RFC about the Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists in late August.
• I documented a few broad principles where there appears to be consensus, despite other areas of controversy.
• One week ago, I posted a notice to close the RFC on the talk page at this section

All we need from someone is to undertake a few tasks.

1. Close this thread to close the RFC, with some kind of discussion/summary template.
2. Close this list of principles with some kind of discussion/summary template.

It was a long and difficult discussion. But the issue is an important one and it would be a shame to lose the consensus principles that this RFC produced. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think what you are seeking is an "offical stamp" for your views on the RFC, but although you believe them to be the "consensus", in reality they are actually disputed. I don't see how the administrators can "sign off" your views as being the basis for changes to any policy guideline. Last time I looked, no policy or guideline had to have an admin's Imprimatur. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way Gavin, but most editors share those views even though you do not. Consensus is not unanimity. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Noting that Shooterwalker has not in fact asked anyone to endorse his own views. He has asked for the discussion to be formally closed and a summary written. That's exactly correct and this is a suitable venue for the request. The bad faith of "I think..." isn't needed here. FT2  19:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks FT2. My personal views are actually pretty close to Gavin's. But I'm trying to find a consensus, even where I personally disagree.

Regardless of the outcome, we need someone independent to read the closing thread to see if there is indeed a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards