Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:21, 22 March 2012

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive367#RfC_closure_review_request_at_Talk:Rajiv_Dixit#RFC_can_we_say_he_peddaled_false_hoods_in_the_lede

(Initiated 19 days ago on 5 December 2024) - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 11 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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process

(Initiated 223 days ago on 15 May 2024) Discussion died down quite a long time ago. I do not believe anything is actionable but a formal closure will help. Soni (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 78 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 77 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Not sure if anyone is looking into this, but might be a good idea to wait for a few weeks since there is ongoing discussion. Bogazicili (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 69 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Initiated 57 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

(Initiated 44 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727  13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727  22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

(Initiated 41 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 41 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 38 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 34 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 39 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead

(Initiated 8 days ago on 16 December 2024) RFC is only 5 days old as of time of this posting, but overwhelming consensus approves of status quo, except for a single COI editor. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The CoI editor has now accepted that consensus is for the status quo, but I think a formal close from an uninvolved editor, summarizing the consensus would be helpful, since the issue has been coming up for a while and many editors were involved. — penultimate_supper 🚀 16:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

yes, despite multiple posts to WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:3O, several talk page discussions, and now an RFC, I doubt the pressure to remove word oligarch from the lede of that page will stop. An appropriate close could be a useful thing to point at in the future though. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 88 days ago on 27 September 2024) Lots of considered debate with good points made. See the nom's closing statement. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 32 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)

Talk:Chloe Melas#RFC on allegation of making a false allegation (resubmission)

(Initiated 30 days ago on 24 November 2024) The bot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an independent close. TarnishedPath 23:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (A)

Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has now been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 23 days ago on 2 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  15:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 11 days ago on 14 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 91 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT history in Georgia#Proposed merge of LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT history in Georgia

(Initiated 79 days ago on 7 October 2024) A merge + move request with RM banners that needs closure. No new comments in 20 days. —CX Zoom 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 69 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla Cybercab#Proposed merge of Tesla Network into Tesla Cybercab

(Initiated 67 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 49 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:JTG Daugherty Racing#Requested move 22 November 2024

(Initiated 32 days ago on 22 November 2024) Pretty simple RM that just needs an uninvolved editor to close. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 27 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... BusterD (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 57 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)

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

Unblock Ticket Request System Deployment

With the close of this RFC, we are deploying the Unblock Ticket Request System. This system is not intended to replace the {{unblock}} template on user talk pages nor the ban appeals sub committee. It is only meant to replace the aging and unmanageable unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org. The UTRS Tool will greatly improve administrators capability to track and respond to appeals swiftly and accurately. There is a new IRC channel on freenode at #wikipedia-en-utrs that is currently available to assist in notification and tracking of these tickets. If you are an administrator and are interested in helping out, please request an account at tools:~unblock/register.php. Once again, thanks for all of the support so far, we hope to make this a very successful tool.--v/r - TP 23:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The templates and guidelines have been updated. Please put some eyes on this tool.--v/r - TP 01:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

How about a template for "Please request unblocking on your user talk page first"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we can look into doing that. If you have proposed verbage, can you open a JIRA ticket? The link is at the top of the UTRS system.--v/r - TP 17:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all the developers. I was handled a couple requests on unblock-en-l, but was unable to keep track of all the conversations going at once. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hello. A few days ago Fastily deleted Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test as "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup". I'm requesting it be undeleted, as the deletion has clearly not been "non-controversial" and the page was serving a useful purpose (I'm not an admin, but I understand it was a draft for an article that was inline with Help:Talkspace draft). Discussion is at User talk:Fastily#Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test and Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion#Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test. Basically, the IP who had been working on the page has been told by Fastily and Bwilkins that it will only be restored if the IP creates an account so it can be userfied. Normally I would take something like this to DRV, but it looks so clear-cut from my perspective (not "non-controversial" and the page is inline with what the help page suggests), that I think the seven days that DRV generally takes would be excessive. Thanks for your time. Jenks24 (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have already been restored by 28bytes and userfied to your userspace. -FASTILY 02:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. You can find it at User:Jenks24/List of Negro league baseball players. 28bytes (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was standard practice to sandbox new drafts of an article at Talk:ArticleName/draft or Talk:ArticleName/test. Not sure why it's an issue in this case but it can be just as easily worked on in userspace, I suppose. 28bytes (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was standard practice as well. Anyway, I don't mind having it in my userspace as long as it's OK with the IP. Jenks24 (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

When are these inappropriate deletions by Fastily going to stop? It's becoming thoroughly frustrating to see so many pages speedy deleted when they blatantly don't qualify. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Why did it "blatantly not qualify"? It hadn't been touched for a month and a half, so it obviously wasn't serving as a talkpage draft. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said at Fastily's talk page, I don't think there was anything wrong with his deletion (many admins probably would have made a similar call), I just think he should have undeleted it when asked. Sarek, if you look at the histories of List of Negro league baseball players (A–D), List of Negro league baseball players (E–L), List of Negro league baseball players (M–R), and List of Negro league baseball players (S–Z), I think you can see that the IP has been working on completing these draft pages and getting them into mainspace, so it definitely was serving as a draft (though I can understand how that could easily be missed at first glance). Jenks24 (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no policy basis that I'm aware of for deleting talk page drafts (however old), much less speedy deleting them without discussion. Help:Talkspace draft says that even "drafts that are rejected should generally still be kept" or at least userfied. I just userfied it to try to nip the potential drama in the bud, but really, I'm not seeing a policy basis for refusing to restore it after the deletion was contested. IPs are indeed allowed to work on talk page drafts, even if it takes them a long time to finish. 28bytes (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Speedying a talk page draft, however old, is not a useful application of G6. Talk page drafts can be archived with Template:Talkspace draft if stale. Policy or guideline discussions on userpage vs. talk page drafts are best dealt with systemically as opposed to speedying talk page drafts ad hoc. I think it is reasonable to keep this one in talk space as opposed to the userpage of someone who has not contributed to the draft. It should go to MfD if anyone thinks it should be deleted -- Samir 05:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• What would be useful is if the IP could identify the goal of the draft so it could be titled more appropriately than just /test. I've asked this at WP:REFUND -- Samir 06:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

another day another bad deletion by fastily. As has been pointed out there doesn't seem to be any policy based rationale for any of the action he took. I must say my concern of the direction his editing is taking is growing.--Crossmr (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe I took the most logical action at the time. The draft had remained untouched for a little over a month, so I assumed that the page was merely an abandoned draft and deleted it (presumably) uncontroversially, based on the tag that was placed on the page. When the IP contested the deletion on my talk page, I advised them to create an account for the sake of consistency (because not only does the anon edit on a dynamic IP, but also because drafts are typically found in one's userspace subpages), which, IMHO, is not a terribly unreasonable request. Without bothering to consult me further, the IP proceeded to seek out others' opinions at WP:REFUND, so I considered the matter to be out of my hands, and therefore closed on my end. Since this deletion has obviously turned out to controversial, I wish to make it clear that I no longer endorse my deletion and will support whatever action the community ultimately decides (or has decided) to take. Also, Crossmr, I'd like to kindly ask you to stop rehashing and selectively quoting my words to make the actions I take appear malicious and egregiously inappropriate when they just simply aren't. I delete many pages everyday, and being human, I will inevitably make the occasional mistake. I'm more than happy to own up to my mistakes, and in fact, I frequently do, so again, please stop purporting me as the criminal. I trust we're here for the same reason, which is to amicably build an encyclopedia, so can we please do that? Honestly, every time someone has brought me to AN/ANI as of late, it has always turned out to be a tempest in a teacup :( I've found that working CSD/XfD doesn't make one popular, and often, users who claim that you've wronged them tend to pile on threads, such as this one, with their own beef, despite it being fully irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I'm disappointed. I try my best to keep backlogs at CSD/FfD/PuF low, spend hours working on it, and only recognition I receive for my efforts are spurious trips to AN. Is this how we reward on Misplaced Pages? I have a fairly high tolerance for harassment/hate/rudeness/dickishness/ect., but even I have my limits, and guys, I'm feeling burnt out. I've thought about it, and I have to agree with this quote: "The only way to avoid problems on Misplaced Pages is to do nothing at all". So true. -sigh- -FASTILY 09:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't view this deletion as egregious on your part. It was hard to make out what the article was in the state that you deleted it. I can see the challenge in reviewing that CSD. But once it became clear that this was a draft in talkspace that a contributor was intent on working on, it should have been undeleted (not userfied) either by yourself after request at your talk page or at WP:REFUND, where the IP got a perplexing runaround. It's now been done, so the issue is moot. Will mark as resolved above. -- Samir 11:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ack, this got closed while I was commenting over at REFUND. I was going to move on, but I have to correct something above. Fastily stated "Without bothering to consult me further, the IP proceeded to seek out others' opinions at WP:REFUND...." That is false. I posted a follow-up request to his response at 12:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC), I received no response despite him answering 2 or 3 other posts on his talk page. I waited 22 hours and 49 minutes before opening a REFUND request at 11:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC), and notified him 2 minutes later. So no, I did in fact consult him further. Regardless, the matter is closed, so thanks for the help in restoring the page, I do appreciate it. Rgrds, (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.216.64 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, when I hit save I noticed he linked "seek out others' opinions" to WP:FORUMSHOP. FORUMSHOP! The freaking directions instruct me to go to REFUND after I consult the deleting admin. How deceitful. --64.85.216.64 (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, 64.***, you are entirely justified in being offended by the way you've been treated here, and the link to FORUMSHOP is the icing on the cake. If they weren't so time consuming, and such drama magnets, and so unlikely to end in a useful way, I'd say it was probably time for a WP:RFC/ADMIN. However, regardless of whether an RFC is in order or not, nothing much can be done at WP:AN, so i haven't changed the {{resolved}} tag up top. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop walking away in the middle of discussions then. If you refuse to participate in on-going discussions regarding your behaviour, we have little else to reference except previous statements you've made. Did you or did you not state in early February that a thread about you from December 2011 was "Extremely old" and dismiss it based on that reasoning alone? If I've somehow misinterpreted that comment, feel free to correct, but I did ask you at that time about that statement and you refused to engage in any further discussion after you made it. In fact people continued to discuss you for 3 weeks after your last comment to that thread and you didn't once return to address any of the concerns raised there. As it is here, it seems you've gone ahead and misrepresented the IP's edits. You want to tell us exactly how it is that he took it to refund without first consulting you? . Here he consults you, here he takes it to review. You want to look at those time stamps and honestly say he didn't consult you first before taking it to review? So far we've got 2 months as "Extremely old" and somehow March 18 comes before March 17th. Wow.--Crossmr (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the resolved tag. when someone interfere's with the proper operation of Misplaced Pages by treating new editors improperly, and giving them directions that set them going in circles, we can take action. 64*** is to be congratulated on the determination to persist in this--most editors would not have done so. As failure to respond to questions is the responsibility of any editor, it's not purely an admin role, & is also in our jurisdiction. Most of Fastily's deletions are excellent, but perhaps he should do other work for a month or two to regain perspective. The rest of us can fill the gap meanwhile. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

See User talk:Fastily#Break. He decided to go on a break a bit after posting his comment here. Jenks24 (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for not seeing it. I'm relieved to say that he and I agree on the best course to take. I'm restoring the resolved tag I removed, as this does indeed resolve the issue. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but the blind cheerleading and bad faith accusations there really don't help this situation or fastily. This is a pattern we've seen before. There is nothing frivolous about someone insinuating that someone is forum shopping by taking something to an official noticeboard without consulting them when the evidence is clearly there that he was consulted nearly 24 hours before it was taken there.--Crossmr (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Next biography article

I just finished the biography here and am looking for a next topic to write about. I'm interested in biographies on notable artists/entertainers. OK, here's why I'm posting here. I would like to write or improve an artist/entertainer biography article for someone who has tried to add their own info to Misplaced Pages, but has been unsuccessful or are struggling due to their conflict of interest (e.g., being the subject of the article). You may have come across someone like this in your admin efforts. By developing such an article, I think I can help improve the encyclopedia while helping you with your efforts. If you know of such a topic, please feel free to post a note on my talk page. Thanks! -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Editors with a COI are often encouraged to add their name to this list as opposed to starting an article themselves. There should be enough material there to keep you busy for a while! --Jezebel'sPonyo 15:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks JP. I did a litle searching. Listings at Requested edits are by COI editors, Connected contributors lists 'contributors to Misplaced Pages who are covered by, or significantly related to, an article on Misplaced Pages,' and Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles seems closest to what I'm looking for. Just found Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cooperation as well. If anyone come across a COI editor that they would like help with, I would be happy to help out. -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

ScottyBerg - request for community unban.

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

I believe this user should be unbanned and that the arbitration committee were wrong to ban in the first place, given the very circumstantial nature of the evidence. While ScottBerg may possibly be a sockpuppet, it cannot be conclusively demonstrated and therefore he should be allowed to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages, if he so wishes to. I am presenting this appeal anonymously to avoid this suggestion from affecting my reputation as a Wikipedian. I will not further participate in the discussion. --23.20.151.72 (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support ScottyBerg is a productive editor with 2 year's experience and 12,000 edits, and a clean record (minus the sockpuppet investigation which was conducted in secret using secret evidence). Even if he is this other editor, whatever conduct issues they might have had in the past have obviously been corrected otherwise he wouldn't have been able to accumulate 12,000 edits over two years without any issue. Productive editors who aren't causing any problems should not be blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Administrator note Filing IP is from an Amazon hosting range and may be a sockpuppet of somebody. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • How do we know this IP which is making this appeal anonymously isn't ScottyBerg himself presenting a reason to be unblocked via a new sockpuppet? Not accusing, just saying.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete this - This is clearly a person with a real account editing via IP solely to evade detection. Perhaps it is a current editor, perhaps a banned one, perhaps it is scottyberg himself pulling a fast one. That's why IP editors should be kept out of AN, ANI and related discussions. I have no hat in the ring of scottyberg's identity, but clearly this request has no merit. Tarc (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Close - with No unblock. per Tarc.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – If we are talking about this person and not necessarily the account, then we need to change the subject's to User:Mantanmoreland. --MuZemike 18:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

...and what if ScottyBerg really isn't Mantanmoreland? In such a case, it would be impossible for him to ever get unblocked because he wouldn't have the password to the account. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Then why the hell are we even talking about unblocking, then, aside to inflate some people's misguided sense of social justice out there? Of course, there is likely also Wiki-political reasons to unban/unblock. --MuZemike 18:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, if ScottyBerg truly isn't Mantanmoreland, then he either needs to convince ArbCom or the community. This discussion serves no purpose. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose According to the WP:List of banned users, the puppeteer had a history of abusing socks to bring off-wiki controversies to Misplaced Pages, and after ArbCom limited him/her to one account he/she violated that restriction. The proposal by an anon IP is suspicious. If the IP was really an editor in good standing than using their actual account would have made me much more likely to vote Support. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy close with no unban. The community is under no obligation to honor requests posted by unidentified socks (and yes, logging out to avoid scrutiny on one's main account is considered socking), especially when for all we know it's the banned user himself socking to post the request. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• If User:Alison's considered analysis of the evidence is that ScottyBerg is a sock of Mantanmoreland, I have absolutely no reason to doubt her judgment. I especially have no reason to doubt her judgment if all the other checkusers and arbs who have also seen the evidence agree with the finding. 28bytes (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• I am unarchiving this, as I am not a troll, and now have created an account under my real name to file this request. Seriously guys. --JohnPGordon (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

@JohnPGordon: You said you were a Wikipedian. They were asking you to use your regular account, not a brand new one using your real name. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to be blocked as the next "sock" of Mantmoreland. Period. --JohnPGordon (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Many editors spoke out in defense of Scottyberg and none were blocked as sockpuppets. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

JohnPGordon, you may want to review our sock puppetry policy, where it is clearly stated that undisclosed alternate accounts, such as the one you are using, may not be used to edit project space. 28bytes (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I think he is well aware of what he is doing. --MuZemike 18:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, User:Claritas? Awaits "If it weren't for you meddling kids" statement. --MuZemike 18:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Procedural close per Tarc. No prejudice against the user requesting unban but it would be a terrible precedent if we let a sock do the asking. --John (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Clear logging of restrictions and arbitration enforcement actions

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

User:Prioryman was recently blocked due to what appears to be an inadvertent violation of WP:ARBCC sanctions. When those sanctions were enacted, they were applied to the account that Prioryman was using at that time. Prioryman invoked his right to vanish with that account, but he returned and is on his third account since then, by my count. The logging of the recent block seems rather convoluted "Prioryman (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours for violation of sanctions (while not named above, he is also subject to these sanctions per ArbCom). He was unblocked after admitting error (made inadvertently) and promising not to do it again". There was a discussion about some of these issues on the ArbCom talk page last summer, but as the recent logging shows, the situation has not improved.

Sanctions are an agreement between an editor and the community not to engage in actions that have proven in the past to be problematic. Prioryman's many sanctions (both ArbCom and other) are not listed under his current account name, making it impossible for the community to determine if Prioryman is abiding by those sanctions. I request that all sanctions which apply to Prioryman be properly logged (either by adding new entries of simply updating the username) and that sanctions which are logged correctly identify the sanction which applies to the user. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The sanctions in question are both ArbCom and community imposed. Since the enforcement of any sanction is necessarily done by admins, why would AN not be the appropriate place for this discussion? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The only pages you linked to were ArbCom pages; presumably if you want ArbCom to explicitly add Prioryman to the list of accounts topic-banned from climate change, they're capable of saying yes or no to that request. Also, didn't you just request an interaction ban with Prioryman? Why are you still opening noticeboard threads about him if you want to not interact with him? 28bytes (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was quite clear that I wanted all of Prioryman's sanctions to be properly recorded, not just the ArbCom ones. If there are other users who have sanctions listed under previous usernames, I would like those to be updated also, but this is the only such case that I am aware of at the moment. I asked for Prioryman to be banned from mentioning me outside of dispute resolution processes, which I would still like to see, but this has nothing to do with his behaviour or actions, simply the correct recording of sanctions and proper logging of violations. Perhaps you wouldn't mind re-opening the thread now that you understand what I was asking? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

As I've told you elsewhere, it's none of your business, and furthermore it's yet more pathetic petty harassment - you were lucky to avoid a ban last time I highlighted your misconduct. Didn't you request an interaction ban with me? Whatever happened to your apparent wish to disengage? Prioryman (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions, especially community-imposed sanctions, are the entire community's business. The sanctions exist - why would you object to having them properly recorded? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking through, it really doesn't seem a major issue given the context. The block was logged by a sitting arbitrator and so it appears Arbcom does not want to openly link these accounts (even though it is public knowledge). As far as I was aware the only listed sanctions against Prioryman are via Arbcom (the Scientology one, which is listed for both his previous and current account, and Climat Change, which admittedly isn't - and indeed isn't listed on Editing Restrictions). If you would like to list the active community sanctions against Prioryman's previous accounts I am sure someone will go through and update the notes. To update Arbcom sanctions you do need to talk to Arbcom. Given your prior interactions with this user (I thought you were both voluntarily under interaction bans??) this was probably not a good way to have gone about the issue, though. --Errant 15:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

DC has refused an offer of a mutual voluntary interaction ban and he has already been told that this issue has nothing to do with him. The fact is that he is a troll and serial harasser who narrowly avoided being banned from Misplaced Pages in January for harassing and outing another editor off-wiki (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#Delicious Carbuncle harassment and outing: block or ban proposal). He is currently maintaining a thread on me on Misplaced Pages Review and his latest foray above is just another chapter in his campaign of harassment and vigilantism on and off-wiki. The closing administrator in the earlier discussion on DC's conduct castigated what he called DC's "WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior". DC demonstrates this on a virtually daily basis with his attacks on other editors on Misplaced Pages Review, and unfortunately this is just another example of the same thing, evidently in revenge for the earlier ban proposal (which I raised). In short, please do not feed the troll. Prioryman (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, I am currently under two interaction bans, which are listed at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. The community can see them and, if they wish to, check that I have not violated those sanctions. Since you have had a number of different accounts since your sanctions were imposed, I am asking that they be updated to point to your current username. If there are other cases were this applies, I would ask that those listings be updated as well, but yours is the only case of which I am aware. This is really just a procedural request, although there may be issues related to yoru prior exercise of WP:Right to vanish, so it is worth having a discussion. You are the one adopting a battleground mentality here by making accusations and name-calling. I would happily accept a mutual interaction ban, provided it was binding and that it excluded dispute resolution processes, as I have said before. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Lets not not get off down this track (slinging accusations) or I will close down this thread - but if you both want a voluntary interaction ban I will happily "impose" one on you. --Errant 16:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I would be very happy for you to do so, frankly. DC refused an earlier offer of a voluntary interaction ban when I proposed that he should respect it off-wiki as well, i.e. not continue his ongoing harassment thread on Misplaced Pages Review. It should also be a total interaction ban from all forums on Misplaced Pages, including dispute resolution, which he has abused as one of his main vehicles for harassing other editors. His refusal says much about his lack of willingness to disengage. Without an interaction ban these collisions between us will keep occurring - not because of anything I'm doing, but because of his ongoing battlefield mentality and his malicious agenda. So if you want to avoid that, please, by all means, impose an interaction ban, though DC should really be banned from Misplaced Pages as a whole given his history of vile behaviour. Prioryman (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I ask that dispute resolution processes be excluded from the ban, specifically arbitration enforcement, but since it seems that both Prioryman and myself now desire for an interaction ban to be imposed, so ErrantX, if you would like to impose one, please do. Given Prioryman's record, I would prefer that it be imposed and binding, rather than voluntary. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What DC is looking for here is a partial disengagement on terms favourable to him, to allow him to continue attacking me on and off-wiki while hindering my ability to call out his misconduct. It's a typically cynical approach. If there is to be disengagement, let it be total. An end to interaction must include dispute resolution processes because that is one of the primary means through which DC has carried out his vindictive harassment of multiple editors, using Misplaced Pages Review to whip up antagonism against specific individuals. We saw this in the case that I raised on AN/I in January that brought him to the brink of a site ban. DC seems to think that he is empowered to act as a vigilante. He makes very few edits in article space (check out his contributions) and appears to spend most of his time on Misplaced Pages on various noticeboards or on Misplaced Pages Review attacking other editors. It would actually be a very positive step to ban DC from noticeboards (specifically AN, AN/I, RFC and arbitration-related. If he has any interest in improving the encyclopedia he has yet to show it, frankly. I also repeat my earlier call for DC to commit to disengaging off-wiki as well, by ceasing his repeated attacks on me on Misplaced Pages Review. He has refused this call before, which demonstrates how insincere he is about wishing to disengage. If he is sincere he should agree. Prioryman (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

ErrantX, I note that the accounts have already been linked in one listing of editing restrictions. I believe there are other community-imposed or voluntary sanctions that are not listed, aside from several ArbCom sanctions. Perhaps Prioryman can list the sanctions that he is aware of to save some searching? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Note also that this thread was prompted by an admin questioning why Prioryman had recently been blocked for violating sanctions. That admin checked the ARBCC pages and Prioryman's talk page history, but was unable to understand the block. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As the bringer of the action it would seem logical for you to simply list the sanctions you wish to be updated - I assumed you were aware of them, directly, given that you brought up this matter. I'm willing, personally, to humour what you are doing here to the extent that if you can quickly lay out what needs to be recorded, with the minimum or drama, then it can be all sorted out without fuss. If this is just going to turn into another lengthy slanging match between the two of you then I suspect community patience will become exhausted. (as to the latter issue; that really is something you have to take up with Arbcom - perhaps get a clerk to record the sanction on Editing Restrictions, or whatever). --Errant 16:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

DC has conspicuously not brought it up with Arbcom. He is rather obviously trying to do an end-run around them. Prioryman (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a partial list at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2#ChrisO_desysopped, but I recall a more recent and longer list (possibly in the ArbCom case regarding Cirt). I am unable to find it using the search facility here and it is quite likely that some has added a NOINDEX to the page so that it won't show up in Google searches. Prioryman is already participating in the discussion and must be aware of the sanctions he is currently under - it seems a bit silly not to just ask him to list them so that they can be properly recorded. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Trolls don't have the right to make demands. Prioryman (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed interact ban between Delicious carbuncle and Prioryman

Well, this is getting tedious. Since both parties clearly don't bring out the best in each other, I'd like to propose an interaction ban. Specifically, I'd like to propose an extended ban that covers off-wiki taunting (or "discussion", if you prefer) as well as a ban on using noticeboards to further these disputes:

• Delicious carbuncle and Prioryman are banned from interacting with each other in any way, including:

1. editing each other's user and user talk space for any reason;
2. replying to each other in discussions;
3. referring to or commenting on each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages or off, either directly or indirectly; or
4. undoing each other's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

• In addition, the exceptions listed in WP:IBAN would not apply:

1. no reverting each other, period.
2. no more noticeboard threads.

These terms are a little stricter than the standard terms for an interaction ban, but as has been pointed out, an interaction ban that allows one party to continue to annoy another with off-wiki postings and repeated noticeboard threads isn't much of an interaction ban at all, and it's clear one is needed between these two editors.

• Support as proposer. 28bytes (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Question How in the world are we supposed to restrict anything done off-wiki? Nyttend backup (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The usual way: an editor can present a link to an uninvolved admin, and if it's clear a party is not following the terms of the interaction ban, that admin can follow the usual warn/block/escalated block process. 28bytes (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Your use of the words "the usual way" implies that this is a normal part of interaction bans. I am not aware of any other interaction ban which includes such a provision. This would be an open opportunity for anyone who bears a grudge against me to make statements off-wiki which are critical of Prioryman and sign my name to them. It has happened to me before. A Google search for my username will bring up comments -- that I did not make -- about a since-banned person with whom I was in a dispute. This suggestion is simply ridiculous and would set a very bad precedent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• comment - the off wiki clause in this suggestion appears to only relate to DC because there is no suggestion Prioryman has been commenting off wikipedia about anything, and translates as, if Delicious comments, directly or indirectly, about Prioryman at all on wikipedia review he will be blocked onwiki, is that corect? - Also , is it correct that this suggestion would not allow , Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution? Youreallycan 19:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Dispute resolution would be limited to asking uninvolved admins for assistance, or contacting ArbCom if that's found to be unsatisfactory. The idea, though, is if they aren't interacting, there shouldn't be disputes to resolve. 28bytes (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Although 28bytes attempted to close the original thread on specious grounds and stated that they would likely not participate when they agreed to let me reopen it, a few hours later they are proposing an extraordinary interaction ban. This is a completely unnecessary action, since both Proryman and I have agreed that ErrantX should impose an interaction ban. Any kind of sanction that includes off-wiki activities is unenforceable. I have no intention of laying myself open to false accusations from Prioryman who lied in his attempt to have me banned. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Tell you what, since you've both agreed to let ErrantX implement an interaction ban, I will withdraw my proposal and let him decide what the terms of the ban should be. My recommendation to him would be not to allow loopholes that allow offsite poking or the use of noticeboards here to further disputes, but I will defer to his judgment and let him make the call. 28bytes (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    • That sounds fine to me. Thanks for all your help. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I would be entirely happy with 28bytes' proposals. DC's concerns about supposed "forged" posts in his name is entirely bogus. He is user 5544 ("Carbuncle") on Misplaced Pages Review and unless he's in the habit of sharing his login details with other people, anything that user posts is directly attributable to him. The need for an interaction ban that extends off-wiki is shown by the fact that in the space of less than two weeks this month, he has posted about me five times on WR - that's almost every couple of days, an almost obsessive level of attention. Youreallycan is right that I've not commented off-wiki about anything, so there really is nothing comparable on my side. 28bytes is also right that there shouldn't be disputes to resolve, and in fact there aren't - DC is creating issues, and needless drama, by intervening in matters that don't involve him. Prioryman (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Again, the sanctions which you are under are the concern of everyone in the community, even me. As of right now, the community is hampered in evaluating whether or not you have kept to those sanctions, because they are listed under User:ChrisO, not your current username. Some may not be listed at all. They are not secret, yet you have refused to list them simply because I was the person who requested it. The drama here is not being caused by my simple request, but by knee-jerk reactions from you and 28bytes. Your bluster has managed to divert the conservation away from the subject at hand -- recording your snactions and logging your violations -- to the tired topic of how discussing your edits off-wiki is somehow harassment. I have no intention of accepting any kind of restriction which imposes limits on what I can say on other websites. I have suggested that dispute resolution processes are exempted from any interaction ban so that either of us may use them if necessary. That is where you should be making your allegations, not on admin's talk pages in attempts to have me sanctioned for what should be drama-less procedural requests such as this one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
        • And I guess that the ChrisO commenting on Christopher Monkton here is not you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
          • It is exactly this kind of needless taunting, and digging up of ancient off-wiki links, that needs to be stopped. It contributes nothing and only raises the temperature. It's blatant WP:BAITING and yet another example of your persistent battleground mentality. You are the aggressor here and a very persistent and tiresome one at that. Prioryman (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
            • And that is exactly the kind of diversionary tactic I would expect when you are again caught in a lie. To set the record straight about who the "agressor" is in this dispute, I do not believe I had any interaction with you until you involved yourself in the ArbCom case regarding User:Cirt. You quite blatantly lied about your previous involvement with Scientology-related articles and proceede to attack me there. I do not know what inspired your antipathy toward me, but you were hostile from that first introduction. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
              • Enough. One more comment from either of you on the other, including in this thread, and you're blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Proposal Beam both editors down to Cheron, leave orbit Warp 8. Or in wikispeak- indef both and be done with it. Nobody Ent 20:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Captain, I don't know how much more emergency power we can take before we start to break up. -- A Certain White Cat 20:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Can someone just pass the interaction ban and get on with it? Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have sent Errant an email requesting actioning of the interaction ban - if you guys just return to your corners and enjoy yourselves elsewhere till then - that seems to be the best idea - thanks - Youreallycan 20:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternate Resolution

Ok; sorry that I have been AFK for a bit :) It looks like this degraded, as I feared it would - I came back online to find a number of people asking me to come in and comment further, or close, this. Here is what I suggest, given that you both simply cannot get along.

• A full on-wiki interaction ban between the two of you stopping any interaction, of any sort. excluding dispute resolution processes.
• We can't really enforce an off-wiki interaction ban, however if Prioryman wishes to raise issues of off-wiki harassment (no comment either way on whether that has happened or not) I recommend, if he wishes, an RFC/U where he can demonstrate an issue and request sanction. Such an RFC/U would be exempt from the interaction ban, but with a very low tolerance threshhold for the slanging match going on above.
• I will contact Arbcom in the next couple of days in relation to DC's opening request in this section, regarding the recording of sanctions against Prioryman (but only once this has died down) and see if I can resolve that matter.

Hopefully that addresses *everyones* complaint... if you're happy with that please just briefly say so below (no more slanging matches) and we'll do that. (the alternative is I slap a broad interaction ban on you both now, as the community seems to be getting tired of pointless bickering of the sort above). --Errant 22:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

An interaction ban that excludes dispute resolution processes is not acceptable. DC's favourite venue is "dispute resolution" noticeboards, generally defined. Read what he said above: "I ask that dispute resolution processes be excluded from the ban, specifically arbitration enforcement." That's a clear statement of intent that he wants to continue hounding me. There needs to be a total disengagement. I do not have an ongoing dispute against DC. DC, on the other hand, keeps raising disputes against me on and off-wiki, as this thread has shown. This needs to end once and for all. No more loopholes. Prioryman (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

How is it a loophole? Don't do anything that would require dispute resolution with DC. That way, if it is attempted, it would be obvious to everyone that it is without merit. Arkon (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

DC doesn't contribute to article space in any significant way. We have no overlap in terms of editing articles. However, he seems to have taken it on himself to "police" my edits and has repeatedly and spontaneously intervened in matters that simply don't involve him, as in this case. He has harangued both me and the Arbcom about my edits (and got slapped down for his troubles, I might add). He's shown every sign of intending to continue to do so. Virtually all of our interactions to date have been in the context of "dispute resolution". Put simply, if you want this dispute to end, you need to stop him interacting with me in any venue on Misplaced Pages. ErrantX has suggested a broad interaction ban. I'm all for that. Prioryman (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I tweaked that out and reworded it (and the section). However I suspect now DC won't like it. It makes it very hard to find a middle ground and get you both to disengage. If that doesn't work, then 28bytes suggestion above, via community consensus, is likely our last avenue. --Errant 23:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Frankly I couldn't care less whether DC likes it. The bottom line is that there needs to be a permanent end to this dispute, and that simply can't happen if there isn't a total disengagement on both sides. I don't want to perpetuate this but DC has given clear notice that he wants to perpetuate it. That's why only a total disengagement will work. And I'm quite happy with 28bytes' suggestion, by the way. Prioryman (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, by the way, did you start this dispute between the two of you? Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Fut. Perf. has asked that DC and I not comment on each other, so I'm not going to take that particular WP:BAIT, thank you very much. Prioryman (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

My aim here is to put an end to the constant on-wiki attacks, allegations, lies, and vitriol from Prioryman. That was why I asked for a topic ban weeks ago and why I am willing to accept a reasonable compromise now. To be clear, when I say "dispute resolution processes", I am not referring to either WP:AN or WP:ANI (both would be included in any such ban). If it helps, I can agree to limit myself to arbitration enforcement, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations, and RFC/U participation. As noted by Cla68, an RFC/U is not something that I can launch without a co-endorser, so I assume that no one would object to my participation in an RFC/U involving Prioryman should one ever be initiated. Similarly, if Prioryman had genuine concerns about my off-wiki activities, an RFC/U would probably be the place to have that addressed, and I would have no objection to one being filed by him. It seems perverse to bar someone from highly moderated administrative processes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No, all those fields are included in the ban. And I strongly recommend you should begin acting as if it was already in force, now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect, I'm not seeing consensus yet for the restrictions as requested, so I don't think DC, or Prioryman, is bound by them yet. I for one, am opposing the proposal until it allows DC to be a co-signer on any future user conduct RfCs. DC and Prioryman, I recommend not accepting the proposed interaction restriction as currently written. Cla68 (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, I disagree with including dispute resolution processes in the interaction ban. As you know, user conduct RfCs require two or more endorsers. DC should retain the option of being an endorser on any future user conduct RfCs posted on Prioryman, as DC does have a legitimate grievance with Prioryman . Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That kind of squabble is exactly what this interaction ban is meant to end, so it would be rather silly to leave a loophole for further continuing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • RfCs are very helpful at resolving disputes, as they invite broad community input. So, I think it would be more helpful to allow RfC than to to ban it. Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Absolutely not - allowing RfC or arbitration enforcement is just another way of saying that you want the dispute to continue. If it is to end, there must be a total disengagement and there must be no room for fresh arguments to be started (and do please note that I didn't start this thread). Prioryman (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• There's a curious asymmetry here: the original issue is that Prioryman had a comment deleted and was blocked for inadvertently breaching WP:ARBCC#Scope of topic bans by participating in a discussion about the topic ban on another editor: as discussed elsewhere other topic banned editors had apparently participated in that discussion, but were not blocked. One of them, Cla68, is participating above, arguing to extend the venues for this dispute. On precedent, Cla's contributions here should be deleted, and a token block imposed on his record. Whether that is done or not, a complete disengagement with the same wide-ranging scope as the ARBCC is appropriate and has my support. . . dave souza, talk 09:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

So we are at an impasse then? One wants total disengagement, the other wants certain avenues to remain open. Realistically I don't see how this will work out for both of you and, to be honest, I don't see how this can be solved except without some sort of community discussion (unfortunately). I have wasted a little while digging into this sorry mess, so some thoughts:

• DC, given your past history with this user it was, at the very least, extremely bad judgement to have opened this request - and insisted it remain open. (FWIW the right avenue might have been to privately ask an uninvolved user to raise the issue). Given that you recently expressed a desire to have no interaction with prioryman you are definitely at fault here for persisting the matter.
• I am struggling to see exactly why dispute resolution would be needed as an exemption; is the suggestion that no one else is capable of keeping an eye on prioryman and raising issues with his editing? Or is the intention to contribute to future DR raised by other editors? In either case, I don't really see the urgent need.
• Publicly commenting on users off-wiki with whom you have a dispute on-wiki strikes me as the height of bad manners, and simply fuels the fire.

The fact you, DC, now have multiple interaction bans against you indicates a continuing problem. Flicking through your recent & older contributions I notice you spend a lot of time pursuing perceived problem editors, and other forms of "policing". This is not in itself a major issue, someone has to, but it looks like your approach leaves a lot to be desired. I recommend reflecting strongly on how you interact with others, and consider spending more time contributing article content - it can be a relieving process :)

• Prioryman; DC has raised an important point here, that you may have active sanctions against you that are not receiving scrutiny. I'd strongly encourage you to take steps to correct the recording of all those sanctions - if for nothing else then to avoid the perception of impropriety.
• Your hands are far from clean in this dispute, and there are a number of recent incidents you could simply have not been involved in by virtue of not taking part... so I counsel burying yourself in content work and ignoring anything else for a bit.

Both of you need a good shake, and to be set down somewhere far away from each other. And you need to stop commenting on, pursuing or raising issues with each other (both on and off wiki). There are plenty of other people capable of doing that for both of you. Absolutely nothing seems to be gained by allowing the two of you any leeway in interaction, but much (mostly peace and quiet) seems to be served by splitting you up. --Errant 09:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm very much engaged in content work (see ) and I have absolutely no wish to interact further with this individual. I didn't want to on this occasion and nobody asked him to start this thread. I'm not involved in any content disputes with him or any other editor, we have no overlap in terms of article editing and I'm certainly not engaged in providing a running commentary on him on or off-wiki. My record of contributions speaks for itself and has attracted a great deal of praise from other editors (see my user page), with whom I'm working in perfect harmony. The last thing I want is to be repeatedly dragged into disputes by people who have taken it on themselves to "police" my edits. That's why I want a total disengagement, and I agree completely that nothing can be gained by allowing any leeway, such as a "dispute resolution" loophole. As for the past sanctions, I will be having a discussion with the Arbcom about that. Prioryman (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• On a related note, Future Perfect at Sunrise owes Delicious Carbuncle 10 cents. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Whatever else we do here, could we please ensure that Prioryman's sanctions he accrued under his earlier accounts are clearly logged? He already misrepresented his past once, invoking RTV, and then returning and claiming last year to have no prior involvement and no knowledge of a topic area in which he was and is under sanctions. It seems to me we are talking about everything here but Prioryman's prior sanctions. So what are the prior sanctions? What, if any, community sanctions are there, in addition to the three arbitration cases? We really do need to establish that. JN466 02:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Attribution question

Hi. I have an question about attribution that's been bugging me for a while and thought this might be the right place to ask. Firstly, can admins move categories to other namespaces? I was under the assumption they couldn't, but if the answer's yes, feel free to ignore the the rest. So here's what happened. Cej10 (talk · contribs) created what was essentially an article at Category:Children's books about death. This was clearly inappropriate for a category, so Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) moved the text to Children's books about death and I tagged the talk page of the article with {{copied}} to provide attribution. So far, so good. But then the category was taken to CfD (see CfD) and the consensus there was to delete the category (even though the talk page of the article reads "Category:Children's books about death now serves to provide attribution for that content in Children's books about death and must not be deleted so long as Children's books about death exists"). I asked the deleting admin (Mike Selinker (talk · contribs)) if the history could be restored somewhere and he restored the content (but not the history, as I don't think he was able to) to Talk:Children's books about death/original. The problem is that it looks like Mike created that content, not Cej10. So, is there anything that can be done to get the history of the deleted category out so we can show proper attribution through the {{copied}} template? Or do we just have to say 'bad luck' for this one? P.S. – I haven't notified any of the editors I've mentioned as this isn't really about any of their actions, but I will if someone thinks I should. Jenks24 (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Category pages cannot be moved. Since Cej10 is the only author of the original text, Good Olfactory's edit summary ("moving this text from Category:Children's books about death; sole author is User:Cej10. If you want to notify the creator, contact User:Cej10, not me") is sufficient to provide attribution. The {{copied}} was not necessary in this case, and Talk:Children's books about death/original should probably be simply deleted as unnecessary. T. Canens (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, excellent. On re-reading Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages I see that it does say a linked edit summary is the minimum and I guess in this case that will have to do. I agree Talk:Children's books about death/original should be deleted. Thanks for your help, Jenks24 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This is actually the List of authors method. Since the list is short (only one author), it fits in an edit summary. Flatscan (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding a NOINDEX tag to unpatrolled articles

Hey guys

After suggestions on the New Page Triage discussion page, we've opened a Request for Comment on adding the NOINDEX tag to unpatrolled articles - basically ensuring they can't be syndicated by google. If you've got an opinion or any comments, head on over there and post your two cents :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Unified login

I want unified my login w:cs:User:Want for all Medawiki projects. This username 'Want' in english wikipedia is inactive over six years. Maybe i founded him, but it is very long time and his mail address not exists. Can anything be done? Thanks. 147.32.86.51 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the SUL tool that account is unattached from the Single User login. However, it doesn't have any edits, so I would suggest filing a request at Misplaced Pages:Changing username/Usurpations. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefanomione

On 5 March 2012 Stefanomione (talk · contribs) was "banned from using any gadgets or other automated tools (hotcat in particular) to modify categories" and was notified about this, but since than he has used HotCat at least five times since than (, , , & ), and I think he uses HotCat continuously, but hides this by avoiding auto saving. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 21:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• I for one didn't realize it was voluntary. I misunderstood the last noticeboard decision and thought that we were taking that capacity away, somehow. I've continued to follow his work was surprised to see how prolific he's remained in category creation; this helps to explain it, I guess. There were some problematic categories created since -- well, whatever in retrospect that discussion was, now -- in that he continued to create Terminology by author subcats despite a clear indication that they were judged problematic, and were actively being deleted. They are nominated here. What that should mean, coupled with the fact that he's ignored or -- I guess, like me -- failed to completely understand that "ruling," well, I leave to the community to decide. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem is that HotCat is a Gadget, and thus nobody knows if a user has enabled it, until they use it. This could be avoided, if a Gadget could be disabled for specific users. Is this even possible? Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 23:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. At least the hotcat usages look to me like a clear violation of the conditions. I don't know if the suspicion about Twinkle is correct—Stefanomione could comment on that. I think that the previous discussion's conclusion offered a fairly generous "second chance" to the user. I'd like to hear from Stefanomione before saying anything definitive about my opinion, but it doesn't look good at this stage. Good Ol’factory 22:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The part with Twinkle was an error on my part now corrected. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 22:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Armbrust's Misplaced Pages:HC#Avoid_auto_saving suspicion seems to me to be a rather serious accusation. I wasn't even aware of this functionality until now. Trying to cover one's tracks in this way would require an awareness that he was violating the terms of the previous AN. Personally, I'm inclined to think he wasn't acting duplicitously, so I don't think he was covering tracks -- nor can we ever prove it, as I understand. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Yesterday 20 March 2012, between 19.54 and 19.57, I was so concentrated in creating/sorting two new categories (Category:Works about Marie Antoinette and Category:Films about Marie Antoinette) that the automatism (31.000 edits) in my hands took over: I made 3 edits inadvertently using HotCat. I wasn't aware of that until this message on Noticeboard. Indeed, I don't know how how to disable this tool (is this possible anyway ?). There is some convincing evidence I didn't use this tool for my last 900 edits: (1) making category-edits in the classical way, I take the opportunity to put categories in a new order (sorting) AND (2) I wrote 900 edit summaries (two things you can't do with HotCat) AND (3) (as the time registrations clearly show) since the HotCat-ban, I need 25-30 seconds for 1 category-edit (before 5-8 seconds). There should be no doubt I have the clear intention to respect the HotCat-ban until it is lifted. Stefanomione (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If you want to disable HotCat, than go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, remove the thicker before "HotCat, easily add / remove / change a category on a page, with name suggestion" and than click on "Save". Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 11:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Done ! Of course, I should have known/done this before. Stefanomione (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Ozar Hatorah Toulouse shooting

Hi,

I don't know if this is an administrator task or not, but it looks like there is consensus to merge two articles:

• 2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings and 2012_Ozar_Hatorah_Toulouse_shooting

see discussion here Talk:2012_Ozar_Hatorah_Toulouse_shooting

The merge is holding up consensus to post to ITN as well. Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Candidates#2012_Toulouse_shooting_.2F_2012_Midi-Pyr.C3.A9n.C3.A9es_shootings

Cold someone please take a look? Sorry if I'm wasting anyones time. Thanks,

Legitimate IP user. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Motion: To rename Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

Per a motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley is renamed to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion is created as a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion 2 is created as a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. For the purposes of procedure, the index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Abd-William M. Connolley decision do not require to be updated. The rename of the Abd-William M. Connolley case to Cold fusion 2 is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mlpearc (powwow) 02:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Motion: To rename Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Per a motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren is renamed to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. For the new title of Eastern Europe, WP:ARBEURO and WP:ARBEE are created as shortcuts. For the purposes of procedure, the index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Digwuren decision do not require to be updated. The rename of the Digwuren case to Eastern Europe is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 03:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

RPP backlog

It seems that the admins at WP:RPP have skipped quite a few.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

POTD urgent

Hi. I have just in the past few seconds created Template:POTD/2012-03-22. I hope there isn't a rule against using Flickr images, or images that have been previously featured on Wikimedia Commons. I created this only because the Main Page was destructed by the absence of today's picture. Please point me to a more suitable discussion if necessary. In any case, feel free to shrink the blurb as needed, and create a protected version of the page. Why was this backlogged initially? I chose this from Page 26, and the previous one was 25, yet the real reason was because this was a weather image. The other one I could have chosen was this, but identifying the city north of Bangkok was becoming too tedious and stressful. Please comment on the suitability of this image, and I will notify the editors involved that this image has been tentatively scheduled for 1 hour 42 minutes ago. Please talk to me about the suitability, procedure and explanation for backlog. Thanks. ~AH1  01:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Edwin Ubiles

Hi, this article was deleted in 2010. The reason was that he was not a notable basketball player at the time. I believe that he is now that he plays professionally in the NBA. It would be great if someone can restore it, so I can develop it. Thanks.—Chris!_c/t 02:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it's the same guy? The AfD nom wrote he was a "College american football player". If they are the same player, though, I agree with undeletion. Jenks24 (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It's the same guy - he must have said "football" when he meant "basketball". Undelete. Doc talk 03:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.—Chris!_c/t 04:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jim Hawkins (radio presenter)

Would it be appropriate for a WP:SNOW close of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). I've been involved in the discussion and am therefore "involved", but I'd like an independent admin to have a look at the discussion and maybe put this to bed, or give reasons why the discussion should continue to run. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

A little extra exposure here for a few will help but after that unless things change, I wouldn't see why it couldn't be closed early. I wouldn't object if somebody closed it now, but I won't personally do it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd object; there's an important principle here. Malleus Fatuorum 07:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The 'important principle' being your monstrous ego, I presume? Given that your only contributions to the AfD have been soapboxing and bluster (no actual comments on the notability or otherwise of the subject), I see no evidence of anything remotely 'important' at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"reply to fatuous malodourum...". Nice. That you are unable to see is your problem, not mine. You might like to try and get someone to keep an eye on your mouth though. Malleus Fatuorum 07:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

People who stand on soapboxes should expect to get heckled. Now explain what this 'important principle' is. You haven't so far... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As I've said on MF's talk page - I see notability as a black/white issue. Others see it in varying shades of grey. I accept that consensus is against me in this particular case and therefore bow to such consensus. Iff the AfD discussion is closed as delete, the title can be salted, which should then be an end to the matter. If any editor has issues with another editor's conduct, there are appropriate venues to raise such issues. So far, no issue has been raised by those complaining at the AfD discussion. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about shades of grey, it's about buckling to the demands of the subject of a BLP. If Hawkins didn't want to be notable then he shouldn't have become a BBC radio presenter. If PoTW has been a problem for him, then deal with PoTW. Malleus Fatuorum 07:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy: knock that crap off right now. Malleus is entitled to vote as he likes in an AfD without being called names. 28bytes (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes he is. Except that it isn't a vote (and this isn't the AfD). AfDs are supposed to be about the suitability of the article as Misplaced Pages content, not about 'important principles' that we have to take into consideration without knowing what they are. MF seems to be suggesting that the mere fact that the subject of a BLP objects to an article is a good enough reason to keep it. Or if he isn't, then what is he arguing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? That's not been my experience so far. Malleus Fatuorum 07:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• No, no, and again no. BLP is not an excuse for circumventing all Misplaced Pages process, or the exception that swallows the rule that we are building an encyclopedia. By the general principles of Misplaced Pages the article should be there and its subject has no say on that - a media personality does not get to promote himself to be famous on the one hand, and on the other censor his own coverage here for whatever his idiosyncratic purposes. However, the majority of the community so far supports the proposition that this article should not be there given the circumstances, and by that standard - WP:CONSENSUS - we will more likely than not delete it. We'll see, most people have not yet weighed in. It is a potential consensus deletion, not a BLP violation, and crying BLP every time a human being is involved in the discussion isn't any way to run a community project. The article has existed for years over the unexplained murky protests of its subject. He can wait another few days. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The AfD must run its course and I've expressed my opinion on the article there. But if it should stay, I will open a discussion here to impose a topic ban from the article for Pigsonthewing who has, in my opinion, been a major (and unnecessary) cause of the dispute, as ecidenced on the article talk page. Kim Dent-Brown 08:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't the topic ban go straight under WP:BLPSE? I'm rather surprised that no one invoked it earlier. T. Canens (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've warned Pigsonthewing - as I read WP:BLSE a user must be warned and disregard the final warning before a ban can be applied. As far as I can see he has not yet had a warning that WP:BLSE could be invoked. Kim Dent-Brown 10:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

He only needs to be warned about BLP - and he has plenty of warning judging from the talk page discussion which repeatedly referenced the policy. There's no need for a specific warning that he can be sanctioned under BLPSE. T. Canens (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't tried to re-add the material since 2nd March, as far as I can see; a ban three weeks later would be stretching a point, IMO. If other admins agree he's fair game for a topic ban, go ahead. Kim Dent-Brown 11:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering this? I'm seriously tempted to just topic ban him now. T. Canens (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

With no advance warning that his persistence had been judged by others to have crossed the boundary, it would be unusual to impose a topic ban retrospectively; it might be an idea to ask Pigsonthewing to seriously consider taking this option as a gesture of good faith. Now there has been a warning, and it has been explained, further transgressions would be worth discussing here for possible action though I consider such problems out of character. Pigsonthewing is a very long term valued contributor and should be able to take the hint or explain his point of view while sticking carefully to BLP and behaving in a collegiate fashion. --Fæ (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Some eyes on the AFD would be handy; there are a growing number of comments attacking the subject (which of course is inappropriate, and hardly helping the situation) --Errant 10:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What PoTW is doing is more or less the definition of tendentious editing. Even if WP:TE is only an essay, it's used almost like policy at times and editors have been sanctioned for in the past. Blackmane (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised not to have been notified that I'm being discussed here; contrary to clear policy. I haven't added Hawkins DoB - which he himself publicises regularly, from his high profile, public Twitter account - to the article since circa March 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You were notified 5 minutes before posting this, Pigs. You added reference to his exact date of birth to the article talk page as late as March 2nd this year. WP:DOB does not specify that it refers to article space only; the whole of WP is available for anyone to view. Kim Dent-Brown 11:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

PotW's most recent reaction is completely intransigent (//en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=483349066&oldid=483347638]). He refuses to leave the topic alone. Given the consensus here that his activities in this topic area have been disruptive and have been a major factor in souring the relationship between the project and one of its BLP subjects, I have blocked him until he agrees to stay away from the topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• In view of the last many 'keep' views on the afd, a snow 'keep' might be in order. I don't believe the initial 'deletes' were a random sample (unlike the 'keeps', coming in from random views of this page and elsewhere). The current block of Andy Mabbett is one of the most ridiculous I have ever seen. Oculi (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• On the AfD I have suggested adding a note on the talk page highlighting that his exact date of birth shouldn't be included in the article. As this might also be useful to other pages, I've created a mock-up of a possible Template:DoB year only at User:Thryduulf/DoB year only. As my template coding skills are basic and rusty, please feel free to improve it if you think it has merit. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

For interest, this is a recent contribution by Jimbo on his talk page, in response to an editor posting about the AfD. Kim Dent-Brown 16:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

I'm not sure an immediate block was warranted - though Andy showed no remorse and an intention to pursue the issue. I suggest we simply topic ban Andy now, and unblock him so he can continue on other work. Per WP:AEBLOCK we need a community discussion to achieve this.

DOB

In general WP:DOB gives the article subject an avenue to request we don't publish their full D.O.B. We almost always honour this in situations where the subject is not very notable - such as this.

Pusuing the issue

Andy claims he has not added the D.O.B to the article since 2010. Which is true; but in 2011 and 2012 he made a point of raising the issue around the guys birthday - a long term case of WP:STICK.

Subject dislikes Misplaced Pages

It is clear the subject doesn't like Misplaced Pages, and disapproves of this article. Which is fine, his opinion. One of the criticisms being raised is that he is using our policies to try and control the article - that could well be true. But I think we still should honour the DOB request - refusing to do so on the grounds he is using it as a form of control probably undermines our position.

I'm concerned that the pursuit of listing the DOB is in part a reaction to the perceived effort to control the article (Andy has said almost as much). I don't see any benefit in continuing that pursuit - it will simply upset the subject further, and lead to Andy getting into more trouble. In my experience of OTRS correspondents that are upset with Misplaced Pages, demanding control or deletion of the article, it is usually fixed by simply not pursuing the little matters (such as D.O.B). Chances are we will never here of this again.

So I propose Andy be unblocked and topic banned under WP:BLPSE from Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). --Errant 13:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'd obviously agree with this solution. As far as I'm concerned, anybody is of course free to unblock him as soon as some alternative assurance of him staying away from the topic is reached, be it voluntary or involuntary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• WP:AEBLOCK doesn't come into it. That was 2007 and to do with infoboxes - nothing to do with radio presenters or BLP. WP:STICK - it's more like WP:FEATHER, barely perceptible annually. Oculi (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'd support an unblock with a topic ban from the Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) article and from discussing the subject of that article in all namespaces. I don't see any evidence that something softer is likely to work. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd support an immediate unblock with a stern warning to the blocker to heed WP:INVOLVED. Edits like this one are definitely a situation of "in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about". Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The removal of some blatantly BLP-violating material does not make FPaS involved. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously this was in full accordance with WP:INVOLVED, "interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock and topic ban, agree with Nyttend that this was not a good case for Fut.Perf. to have intervened in. The sooner we confirm the topic ban (shall we say 12 months, to get us past the subject's next birthday?) the sooner the block can be lifted. Kim Dent-Brown 14:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, and make it indefinite. Have there ever been similar problems in other BLPs, or is this specific to Mr Hawkins? Because if other BLPs are affected, I would argue for a topic ban covering all biographies.
• By the way, one comment above which seems just ... odd is this one: "One of the criticisms being raised is that he is using our policies to try and control the article - that could well be true." What the ...? This seems to be saying that editors want the right to break policy, and the right to paint biography subjects as evil-doers if they insist editors follow it, as in this case with WP:BLPPRIVACY, which states quite clearly that BLP subjects have the right not to have their date of birth in the article. Truly bizarre. JN466 15:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • re "Have there ever been similar problems in other BLPs". None recently as far as I can see from his contributions and talk page, and he does seem to do some good work (primarily copyediting) on BLPs so I think a topic ban that broad would be excessive as it currently stands. Obviously we should make it explicitly clear that if the problem shifts to other articles then the topic ban will be broadened and/or replaced with harder sanctions. The only area of concern I'd have predicted from his recent talk page threads would be related not to BLPs but to templates, particularly when discussing merging them, however my opinion here may be coloured by my interaction with him on a current TfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strange block - for "not agreeing with cop". As far as I can tell, the block was over refusing to agree to a self-imposed topic ban or that a 3-week-old talk page comment was inappropriate. BLPSE doesn't apply here, and an admin reaching for that hammer to try to win an argument against a nonadmin is wrong. There's a reasonable case to be made for some kind of quasi-interaction ban between the article subject and the editor, both of whom seem to be badmouthing and accusing each other on the article talk page. If that's what it takes to prevent disruption and keep the project running smoothly, so be it. On the other hand, the article subject has been less than helpful here as well. He will presumably go away if his article is deleted, but in the off chance it is not, we'll likely have to deal with his ongoing issues as well. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog