Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:09, 28 February 2014

• 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#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 16 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 14 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 82 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 62 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)

RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 52 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

(Initiated 49 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)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 461#RfC: Check Your Fact

(Initiated 45 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)

Now archived. An uninvolved closer is still requested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 39 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 36 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)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Matt Gaetz#RFC: Accusations of child sex trafficking and statutory rape in the lead

(Initiated 31 days ago on 28 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC tag and the last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we please get a independent close. TarnishedPath 10:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#RFC: Referring to Masha Amini as Kurdish-Iranian in the lead

(Initiated 30 days ago on 29 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Elon Musk#RfC: Mentioning Oligarch Characterization in Lead

(Initiated 3 days ago on 26 December 2024) Support vs Oppose is currently 7 to 14, consensus seems to have been reached and the discussion is heading towards dead-horse-beating territory. Big Thumpus (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

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

(Initiated 60 days ago on 30 October 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 31 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Initiated 24 days ago on 5 December 2024) If there is consensus to do one of the history splitting operations but the closer needs help implementing it I would be willing to oblige. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 74 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 72 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 61 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 53 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:Expectation of privacy (United States)#Requested move 25 November 2024

(Initiated 34 days ago on 25 November 2024) I request that Admins address this discussion that has been going around in circles for more than a month with no clear resolution. There is a consensus that the current article title is wrong but myriad inconclusive ideas on a solution. This is a second request for Admin help and little was accomplished the first time except false accusations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 32 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Possible interaction ban violation

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

(Note that I mistakenly posted this at ANI, and have moved my post and Medeis' reply here. Apologies, I'm not a regular at these boards for a while) I have been asked by Medeis (talk · contribs) to confirm whether their responding to an WP:In the news nomination by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) as at Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates#Matteo Renzi becomes new Italian PM is a violation of their interaction ban. There have been a few such incidents. I would value a second opinion. Stephen 03:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Please post the diff(s) to the incident(s) to which you refer, Stephen.

Please note the other editor has voted in opposition to my nominations in the past, for example diff without my objection then or now, just as I am accused of here. Please note the other editor has acted directly on the same thread on which I have just commented, with no objection by me or any other user. diff

I quote the possible violations from WP:IBAN:

• edit editor Y's user and user talk space;
• reply to editor Y in discussions;
• make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Misplaced Pages, whether directly or indirectly;
• undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

I have not editted editor Y's user and user talk space. I have posted in discussions the same discussions as, but have not replied personally or by name to editor Y. I have not made reference to or commented on editor Y anywhere on Misplaced Pages, whether directly or indirectly. I have not undone editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means), although he has undone mine and referred to me in his edit summary,diff even referring to me indirectly as an edit banned user a second time when he undid diff User:Spencer's edit.diff. Note that my hatting of that discussion was a standard housekeeping action on a thread that had been archived without a signature--neither a reversion, a reply to, or a reference to the other editor.

There's basically nothing to address here. I am not interested in stopping the other editor from acting on or voting on ITN threads with which I have been involved, and I don't see any reason for any restriction on my addressing such matters objectively without regard to the other editor. On occasion we disagree on the issue at hand. Neither of us has to address the other to do so. Frankly, I am curious why this matter has even come up. μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at ITN is not a one-way street. If someone makes a nomination, there should be no ban on anyone else commenting on the merits of the nomination. As far as I'm aware, no-one has commented on the nominators themselves, simply on the worthiness of items to be included in ITN and/or the quality of the nominated article(s). It appears that this is someone trying to fix something that isn't broken. The strictest adherence to the terms of the IBAN amount to a partial topic ban, which is an incompetently proposed outcome. On a similar note, could User:Stephen please take note of the BIG ORANGE EDIT NOTICE at the to of this page which clearly states : "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I must have missed my notification...

Still, nothing like a rainy Sunday to whip up some completely unnecessary dramaz. Can we get back to improving Misplaced Pages now please? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

When attempting to investigate the purpose of all this, I inadvertently hit rollback on my watch list, here which I quickly re-rolled back here. I hope that this will be accepted as an honest mistake, or should I look forward to this being used to hang, draw and finally quarter me? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Closing as no violation. Medeis seemingly violated the ban by responding to TRM, and TRM seemingly violated it by rolling back someone's comment at Medeis' talk. TRM wants the situation re WP:ITN to be closed quietly, the rollback was quite obviously an error, and this discussion itself is not a violation, because one of the policy exceptions to interaction bans is "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum". Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

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

I take offense at it being said I "apparently" responded to the other editor (diff?). I responded objectively to the nomination, and intend to do so in the future without restriction, just as he has both supported and opposed nominations (without my objection) like his opposition to Sid Caesar's RD nomination, which I posted. Neither of us is subject to any topic block, actually personal comments and direct reversions excepted. I find it absurd to believe that the other editor went to my edit history, clicked on undo, and hit return to revert my response to a third party on my own talk page. That doesn't happen by accident. It requires three separate deliberate decisions. It had nothing to do with the issue he himself reported to user Stephen. Nevertheless, I still don't want the other editor blocked. I really don't care about these antics. But I refuse to accept this "finding" as of any future relevance to my own actions. I also agree with the other editor that this entire affair has been both causeless and irregular, given neither of us were notified, as required, of these proceedings. μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand some of what you're talking about. "Apparently" appears just four times on this page right now: twice in the discussion about Sean Hoyland, once about something that was apparently communicated to Jimbo Wales, and once is your own comment right here. Please quote the statement that you're talking about, if you'd like any further comment from me; otherwise I'll stay confused. As far as the revert, I think you misunderstand the situation. TRM clicked the rollback button, not the undo (see the basic edit summaries for undo and rollback), and since rollback is a single click with no "Are you sure?" window, it's easy to make a mistake with that. And finally, as far as the "finding" bit, my point was that we're basically sweeping this under the rug on WP:IAR grounds. Unless I'm missing something, both of you technically violated the ban, but in a harmless way, and sanctions for either of you in this situation would be wildly inappropriate. If this were something that should be considered relevant in the future, I wouldn't have closed it this way: I would have blocked you and/or TRM, or issued a stern warning to one or both of you for making a mountain out of a molehill. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Also TRM says they did it from their watchlist. Unlike 'undo', 'rollback' will normally appear in your watchlist if there's only one editor for whatever page so there's no need to visit anyone's contribution history nor the page's edit history. Not that undo shows up in the contribution history anyway (rollback will when it exists), it only shows up in the page history. On the other hand, I'm not really sure why TRM still has the user talk page of someone who they have an i-ban with on their watchlist. While perhaps not technically a violation, I would suggest it's time to remove it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to refresh your mind on how watch lists work. I have over 8,000 pages on my watch list, many dozens of them are those which are edited frequently by editors with whom this interaction ban is involved. Perhaps I'm assuming some basic level of competence in those who comment here, but on my watch list, I get the option to "rollback" every single edit, be it from Jimbo, an IP or anyone with whom I happen to have an interaction ban. For clarity, that's every single item on my watch list gives me the option to rollback. Clear enough? Clumsy fingers on an iPhone will sometimes lead to a rollback by accident, which I fixed immediately and "confessed" to here. You're all making a complete drama out of this, please, get a grip, all of you. The only people acting with any dignity here are those who have been subject to the interaction ban. What a perfect irony. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate it how kindly you take my actions: you can misclick a rollback button, but you can't accidentally attack me as acting without dignity or accidentally attack someone with whom you're interaction banned. You've just narrowly avoided a block for the ban violation, and I'm seriously rethinking my decision to close the thread. I would strongly suggest that neither of you participate again in this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Get over yourself, don't threaten me. I attacked no-one (I certainly did not "accidentally attack someone with whom interaction banned", moreover I appreciated her common sense approach, unlike the drama editors here), I simply stated that this drama festival is self-propogating. At least someone, a while back, had some sense to close it and move on. I suggest you do the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on any of this except to say that yes, it is quite easy to accidentally click rollback on an iPhone; I did it myself last week. I have no reason to believe that's not what happened here. 28bytes (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Watchlist confusion

Just want to apologise for the confusion above. A long time ago (I think), I turned on the "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" option. This shows all users who have recently edited a page, but turns off the rollback for any item which has multiple users. More recently when doing something I was checking my watchlist options and got the impression this behavior was the default. Unfortunately I relied on that memory when replying above rather than checking my options so I made a mistake when suggesting that the rollback will 'if there's only one editor for whatever page' (which is the case for me but not the default option).

BTW, for clarity, my comment "rollback will when it exists" is AFAIK, always accurate. Rollback will not always show up in someone's contribution history as it won't show up in a case where you can't roll back that edit, in particular when the edit is not the most recent.

However I thought my comment was clear, and still feel it is clear that I was not in any way suggesting that the rollback option did not exist for TRM. I simply stated that it doesn't always exist to try and avoid confusion and as I prefer to be accurate. Even if in this case I actually ended up making things worse because of a foolish mistake to not check my options. So despite the unfortunate confusion due to my error, I don't see any reason for hostility.

I also don't get the relevance of any of the rest of the commentary. I did not suggest that TRM remove any of the other 8000 pages from TRM's watchlist, simply that they remove μηδείς, BB and anyone else that they have interaction ban user and usertalk pages from their watchlist (which can be done via a simply click of a button AFAIK, even if you have 8000 pages on your watchlist).

Whenever else these people show up in their watchlist is somewhat besides the point. I was simply suggesting that since they shouldn't be doing anything to these pages anyway, it's a bit stalkery (and perhaps even pushing the limits of the iban) to be watching them. As they must be doing for μηδείς's talk page to show up in their watch list (which I understood and still understand to be the only way they could have accidentally rolled back something on μηδείς's talk page based on their description). TRM apparently disagrees , so be it.

I do apologise for the confusion relating to when rollback shows up. I also apologise for reopening this thread, I just feel I've been somewhat unfairly maligned for a polite suggestion and attempt to help clear up μηδείς's apparent confusion. But I won't apologise for the resonable suggestion that TRM remove from their watchlist the user page and user talk page of anyone they have an iban with.

Feel free to close this, I will not be commenting further even if there is further hostility for whatever reason.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a short list of topic bans, and in every case they are off my watch list. Out of sight, out of mind, and much less chance of violating the bans. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Tech tip

I've had accidental rollback while using a tablet issues myself. Eventually I found that editing Special:MyPage/common.css and inserting

@media (max-width: 999px){
 .mw-rollback-link {display: none;}
}

removes the rollback option from appearing on mobile devices. (You may not need the 999px part, I just copy pasted from somewhere else (WP:VPT, maybe?) NE Ent 11:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I was about to suggest adding that to WP:Rollback but it looks like that page already links to Misplaced Pages:Customizing watchlists#rollback, which offers a slightly different way to hide the link. 28bytes (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I use User:Zvn/confirmwatchlistrollback.js, which pops up an "are you sure?" box when you click rollback from the watchlist. Be careful if you have a slow connection though, as it won't work if the JavaScript doesn't load. — Mr. Stradivarius 02:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's easy enough to mis-click rollback on a proper desktop, let alone a tiny phone/tablet. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:RfPP backlog

Page protection backlog is getting a bit long, if anyone has time to sort through some requests. Gloss • talk 02:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Still a backlog.. 33 requests unanswered. Gloss • talk 17:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Up to 44. Would a cookie help? --NeilN 21:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• And a nice glass of milk to wash it down?  :) — {{U|Technical 13}} 21:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I did 31, and there's still 25 left to do. Moar mops plse, -- Diannaa (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's −38 °C (−36 °F), the wind is 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph), the wind chill is −57 °C (−71 °F) (must be winter is finally here) and I cleared the rest out. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. --NeilN 02:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Site ban Kumioko (and IPs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed by Jehochman. See his comment at the bottom. Nyttend (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see prior discussion Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive259#Block_review:Kumioko.2FIPs.

I do think Kumioko's criticisms of Misplaced Pages have some validity (but certainly not to the degree his asserts), and opposed a block / ban in the above discussion.

I do not care care about an editor "disrupting" insider places like noticeboards and the like, because, well, in the big scheme of things that's not really important.

However, when an editor misinforms / stirs the pot with a new editor who has been having a very difficult time transitioning onto Misplaced Pages (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_bullying.2C_harassment_and_endless_threats) I consider that active, ongoing damage to the project, and therefore suggest it is time to show K the door. NE Ent 03:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. I've been willing to show him the door for some time now, as soon as his contributions became a net negative. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban with appeal after six months Criticism is fine, but it is not satisfactory for Misplaced Pages to be used as a forum where someone can repeatedly add commentary that does nothing but derail discussions. Like the link in the OP, Kumioko recently added some very unfortunate comments at the talk page of someone who is a good editor but who appears utterly unable to let some disagreements go (Kumioko posted as 108.45.104.158 and 138.162.8.59 at this talk). The editor previously had problems which were at least partially caused by encouragement from misguided onlookers, and it is most unhelpful for Kumioko to derail a discussion on the talk page of someone who could be very productive, if they understood that disagreements cannot be dominated by repetitive walls of text. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, very much I don't think, in the big picture, that Kumioko's comments are posing a problem. I don't care if he is only using IPs to comment, or if most of his contributions lately have been to criticize the way Misplaced Pages is controlled. Italick (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Again, the last discussion just closed. Its really bad form to open up another discussion because you didn't like the outcome of the last one. It should be pretty obvious to everyone at this point that someone is going to continuously reopen ban discussions until they pass because there is no rule here about opening another discussion in X amount of time since the last one. It sure seems like WP:Forum shopping would apply here though. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  What should happen is that you should stop acting in a way that makes people feel the need to cut you off. Stop rattling around, involving yourself in problems where you comment in a way that makes the problem worse. If an editor behaving problematically, it is not kind for you to egg them on, as you have been doing with NinaGreen. Try to be kind and helpful, rather than acerbic and combative. Jehochman 13:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  The ironic part of that statement is I believe the admin tools should be used sparingly and indefinite blocks should be even more rare. Yet you doled out an indefinite ban to Nina without a thought. Sure she has her problems as we all do, but jumping straight to an indefinite ban is, point blank, abusive. You threw out an indefinite ban when a week would do. That is the kind of action that admins do that I have a problem with. Yet because I called you out and agreed with Nina on some points now I deserve to be banned? That's ridiculous but typical abusive admin bullshit. I had thought you were a pretty good admin before you went and pulled that shenanigan just to prove that you could. I am seriously disappointed in you. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support If one of the people who actively supported his actions in the last discussion thinks he has now crossed the line. And I already thought he crossed the line, then I have to agree that he needs to be shown the door. -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The previous ANI was not closed in Kumioko's favour and certainly did not enable him to continue his behaviour with impunity. It said "..Kumioko; grow up, start contributing to the encyclopaedia." Specifically in relation to contributing to the encyclopaedia, this has not happened. While the link provided by NE Ent might be a truism, it is wholly inappropriate to wander around the place looking for potential inductees into the Kumioko school of thought. Kumioko satisfies almost every point under WP:NOTHERE an important directive on numerous policies concerning collaboration. That last thing we need is for new editors to be approached on the basis that being NOT HERE is the way forward. Any community member should be given the absolute right to either hat or remove any Kumioko post that they feel is damaging. No notification, no response, just delete and ignore. Much along the lines of WP:RBI. This might require an Arbcom. sanction. Kumioko can (so he has indicated) evade blocks. Leaky Caldron 14:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. As may be well known, I have been a severe critic of Kumioko's behaviour, and it was for pretty much that reason that I abstained from voting on the last ban discussion. While his incessant whining about the same things became tedious a long time ago, I wasn't overly concerned about it as long as he kept it to the usual forums. But now that his behaviour has branched out into deliberate misrepresentation and outright trolling on user talk pages - of users that a great many of the very same admins Kumioko routinely trashes spent considerable time trying to help - it becomes obvious that Kumioko's WP:NOTHERE issues have moved from simply being annoying, to being actively disruptive. Enough is enough. Resolute 14:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I sense a bunch of custodians here hankering the convenience of losing a critic. I didn't see any intimation at NinaGreen's talk page that an editor should behave problematically. Kumioko's dialog doesn't look like a WP:NOTHERE to me, because of what WP:NOTHERE is not (expressing unpopular opinions, advocating changes to Misplaced Pages policies). I think you can all deal with having Kumioko around. Italick (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I am certainly not a custodian of any description and I resent the implication that I want a critic silenced. I'm a critic myself of many of the things about which Kumioko complains and Kumioko would not dispute that. I haven't seen you around in the same areas that Kumioko frequents so you will not be aware of debilitating effect his contributions can have by means of forking, throwing water on and hijacking otherwise potentially fruitful discussions. FWIW, the following 4 headings under WP:NOTHERE are amply evidenced over the last 2 years:

Little or no interest in working collaboratively - Extreme lack of interest in working constructively and in a cooperative manner with the community where the views of other users may differ; extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns; interest in furthering rather than mitigating conflict.

Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention - Major conflicts of attitude, concerning Misplaced Pages-related activity. A user may have extreme or even criminal views or lifestyle in some areas, or be repugnant to other users, and yet be here to "build an encyclopedia". However some activities are by nature inconsistent with editing access, such as legal threats against other users, harassment, or actions off-site that suggest a grossly divergent intention or gross undermining of the project as a whole. Editors must be able to relax collegially together. There is a level of divergence of fundamental attitudes, whether in editing or to the project as a whole, at which this may not be reasonable to expect.

Inconsistent long-term agenda Users who, based on substantial Misplaced Pages-related evidence, seem to want editing rights only in order to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance (i.e. engage in some basic editing not so much to "build an encyclopedia" as to be able to assert a claim to be a "productive editor"... whereas in fact by their own words or actions their true longer-term motive is more likely to be "not here to build an encyclopedia").

Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods - This may include repeated chances and warnings, all of which were flouted upon return, or promises to change that proved insincere, were gamed, or otherwise the word or spirit was not actually kept.

Leaky Caldron 15:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This is just pure BS. I have worked with a lot of editors on this project over the years and the only ones I have a problem with are admins who think they control the project because they have a few extra tools and editors with POV or Ownership issues. I have an interest in working collaboratively and constructively as long as I am allowed to do so.

I do have a problem with some policies on the project, that's true. I have a problem with abusive admins being able to do whatever they want, whenever they want and to whomever they want. I also have a problems with Arbcom'slack of interest in doing anything about it and even giving the admins more power to abuse.

The only long term agenda I have, and one that seems to interfere with some admins and editors with their own agendas is that I want Misplaced Pages to not suck. It has become a toxic environment full of article owners, POV pushers and bullies and no one has the morale courage to do anythign about it. That includes you and all the way up to Arbcom. No one wants to do anything about the hard problems.

Again this one is pure BS, I fully support the projects AIM's and goals but I do not support the project that used to be Misplaced Pages that has been infested with miscreants, bullies and bloggers who would rather type in discussions at ANI and block everyone who doesn't agree with them. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That isn't even remotely true. There have been numerous non-admins that have !voted to ban you or have asked you to tone yourself down, so its hardly just the admins that have problems with you. And I don't just mean a few, there have been quite a large number. You instead ignore everyone who doesn't completely agree 100% with you and continue on creating a toxic environment in every discussion you enter into. I fully support peoples right to discuss and try to make change, but you don't really do that, you throw around attacks and egg on disruption. You essentially do everything you accuse the big bad admins of doing. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit, its completely true but there's no point in arguing with you because even if I provided diffs of helping people someone would just argue it away. The fact is there is a few folks (admins and regular 2nd class citizen editors) that have wanted me out of the project for years, they didn't like me restarting WikiProject US and took advantage of every opportunity to destroy that project and every project that I was trying to keep going. It weakened their grasp of the articles they "owned". No matter what I did, there was always some admin with a problem who was ready to block for stepping into their turf and no admins wanting to intervene. That's why I stopped editing and startted advocating for reform. Too few admins including you are following the rules and just enforce policy whenever its most convenient for the admin who is peddling their POV. I even tried to go to another Wikia project and found some of the same characters had a strangle hold there too. So I stopped editing Mediawiki projects altogether and now I edit over at Wikia where they need help and want it. So the bottom line here is if you and your wikipals want to ban me here because you are too chickenshit or don't have the morale courage to do some reforms that would benefit the project, then that's life. You bitch and moan about my complaints and wanting to make this project better and allow things to get done without 6 month backlogs because only 5 admins know how to do it, but you don't have the time of desire to do anything to help the project. I could be doing 20, 000+ edits a month here instead of at Wikia plus other things to help the project but all you fucks want to do is keep whatever power you have. I don't care what you do at this point because this project deserves to have editors who are dedicated to the project and want to make it better, but as long as admins are allowed to abuse their tools with impunity, this project is going to get that, abusive editors who only care about their POV and not the project. The problem with this site isn't the lack of people who are interested in participating, its in the lack of ability to manage its abusive admins. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

See you are again spinning it. Nowhere did I say you haven't at some point in time helped people. What I said was your comment that only admins are the ones who have problems with you wasn't true. Its very simple to prove by looking at the previous ban/block discussions and see the users who aren't admins who commented supporting blocks or bans. You make this out to be that its the admins who are after you, but it isn't. There have been editors of all strips who have been pissed off and annoyed at the toxic atmosphere that you inject into every discussion you push your way into. The problem this wiki has is a problem managing its abusive editors period, which includes yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not spinning it, I just don't agree with you. Yes there are non admins who don't like me but this is Misplaced Pages there will always be someone who doesn't like what your doing. The difference is its the admins who continue to block me so I cannot even comment in discussions like this about me. Its the minority group of abusive admins that I keep talking about that use the tools abusively to their own ends and POV. Yet rather than remove the tools from these few trouble makers its more important to keep me quite and protect them. Because if the regular editors were trusted, the admins would lose all their power and the role of admin wouldn't be such a hat to collect. You can ban me from the project if you want, but its not going to solve the problems of this site. It just shows that the community is more accepting of abusive admins and editors than in editors who are trying to solve that problem. Don't like how I am trying to do it? Fine, step up. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent summary by Leaky caldron. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• • • Actually, Italick, you hit on exactly why I didn't !vote in the last discussion. But the issue here is that Kumioko has moved beyond simple whining criticism, but into out right disruption and trolling. That is why I am casting my ballot this time around. Resolute 15:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Since Kumioko evades blocks by using IPs and keeps editing, I'm not sure what effect an indefinite block will have on his contributions to Misplaced Pages. I know that this is not a good rationale to have when considering blocks but I thought I'd bring it up, whether a block would bring about the desired effect. If an indefinite block is decided upon, I think there should be an ability to appeal after a specified amount of time. Liz 19:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support per User:Johnuniq's terms. I have seen a lot of Kumioko's...rants, shall I say, though I've never really involved myself in a conversation with them (as far as I can remember), and I think taking it to Cowhen and others' User talk pages is taking it too far. 206.117.89.8 (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC) (User:Ansh666 on "wikibreak", heh.)
• Support a site ban for Kumioko. Enough is enough. Nsk92 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Seeking out pages of new editors who have been blocked to use them as complaining platforms about Misplaced Pages in general might give an impression of "stirring up the pot" and "soapboxing". Doing it once isn't banworthy though. Aside from the impression that the behavior may leave, it does not exactly seem different from debating and voting on conflicts in the more central drama areas of Misplaced Pages like ANI and ARBCOM. People get dragged there, often unbidding of the negativity and scrutiny that ensues, just as if the whole conflict alternatively stayed contained within user talk pages. Yet the views expressed in ANI do not need to have popular consensus, and criticism of this project and its policies is accepted. In those places, there is no presumed violation of WP:NOTHERE for comments, criticisms and complaints. Is there some special rule that puts user talk pages off-limits for the kinds of discussion accepted in noticeboards? I'm not in favor of sheltering admins from scrutiny by prohibiting discussions on user pages which are routine in ANI. Italick (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • He's done it at least twice, and will probably continue if unchecked. In both cases, his "contribution" to the discussion was at best non-constructive. 206.117.89.8 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC) (User:Ansh666)

• Support. Time to put an end to this. "Misplaced Pages has become a fucking joke" is not constructive criticism, and nor is empty hand-waving about unidentified "abusive admins"; nor is repeatedly calling identified people "jerks". There is a huge amount of disruption created by Kumioko, and it's been going on for a very long time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. These bi-weekly ban proposals got old some time ago; they are in fact much more disruptive than anything Kumioko has done in all of his +100,000 nothere edits. If we must identify Kumioko's faults, they are inarguably that he is passionate about Misplaced Pages, and that he holds the arcane ideal that a discussion still includes the viewpoints of opposing sides. He does not ask, and then answer himself, but rather is seen replying to the comments, (provocations), from others. If he is to be banned from Misplaced Pages, it should be decided by a full Arbcom case—not here! It has been shown numerous times, (far too many), to not be what a consensus of editors want.—John Cline (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is a bad idea to ban an editor merely because he took an extended break from editing articles and is using the appropriate places to complain about what he doesn't like here (user pages, noticeboards). His comments were not disruptive because they were not excessively long or numerous, and it is possible to work around them if you disagree. I didn't find any "goading" or "baiting" at NinaGreen or Cowhen1966. Italick (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Kumioko is a nuisance at best. I don't think he's majorly disruptive, but he doesn't contribute much value these days and I don't see the benefit in keeping him around. I think it's better for both parties if ties are cut, at least for a while. Perhaps a 6-12 month break will give him a fresh perspective and allow him to learn to appreciate some of the things that most of us appreciate around here, but at this point I think it verges on being unhealthy and obsessive to stalk around a website and a community that he clearly has animosity for. Nformation 22:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Kumioko is engaging in disruptive and repetitive argumentation instead of providing positive contributions. Kumioko is also encouraging other editors to do so. Edward321 (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Support because I partly agree with User:John Cline. This user is a net negative to the encyclopedia and is evidently trying to further demoralize existing demoralized editors. Community ban is not always effective with long-term negative editors due to their entourages. ArbCom may be a better forum. If there is community consensus, I will support it. If there is a majority but not "consensus", someone should file with ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Supportive In the last go around. I "supported something", in part because the editor (who seemingly goes by several ids) has made it clear on numerous occasions, he does not like it here, he has said he would soon leave, and then that he was already banned, by at one time naming his account "banned editor" (assuming it is him) (and that he was fine with being banned) and I also recall in December, him saying, he would not edit on the Pedia after January 1. Not sure why, he cannot extricate himself from in his view this abusive place (perhaps we are now in a cycle of abuse that just needs to end), but it seems he needs assitance in this regard and nothing else has helped, maybe this will. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, trout nom. These constant block proposals and long winded discussions are quickly becoming disruptive to the building of the encyclopedia, perhaps more so than Kumioko himself. Let the fool rant. I just can't see the argument that this is a "net negative". Mostly he's just making rants on noticeboards and Jimbo's talk. With noticeboards the best thing to do is to ignore. Jimbo, of course has full control over his own talk page, and he is welcome to suppress discussion there as necessary. For these editors having trouble with him, I recommend you do the wise thing of not poking the bear. KonveyorBelt 17:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Problem is, he is diversifying - to other users' talks, if you read Ent's first statement and Johnuniq's comment. If that hadn't happened, we wouldn't be having this proposal here. 206.117.89.8 (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC) (User:Ansh666)
  • It doesn't matter if he is diversifying because it is not a problem. When admins are not sheltered from criticism, the system is working as it should. Italick (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Long overdue. Kumioko's continued malignant presence in already-controversial areas of the project, such as RfA, is a major contributing factor in creating the toxic environment against which he so vociverously protests. He's had more than enough chances to grow up and work positively, and this lurch into the practice of trying to discourage new editors, his tongue drilling a hole in his cheek the whole time, is the last straw. Basalisk ⁄_berate 21:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just curious but if 10 editors out of 10, 000+ vote to ban me, including about 5 out of 1400 admins, is that really a consensus? Why don't you all just go ahead and send this to Arbcom. So few editors have voted here I am not going to consider it a valid ban if there isn't more votes. Besides that, honestly, do you really think a ban is going to keep me from commenting? Are you willing to ban all IP's? Just what extreme measures are you prepared to use to prevent me from editing? Besides that Basilisk, yuor pretty rude to editors in your interactions, I am not doing anything you haven't said before to someone. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom exists to solve problems the community cannot. Doesn't appear that their intervention will be required here. Resolute 21:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support I agree he is no longer here to build an encyclopedia, which is a shame. Secret 21:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it is a shame. I devoted a lot of time to this project and tried so hard to make it better. In the end though, the toxic environment, the entrenched abusive admins and constant insults got to me. I used to be very passionate about the project, now I have no respect for the project whatsoever. All the people who say they want to make it better are just spouting platitudes. There is no interest in making this site better, everyone is too worried about what power they can grab for themselves, the POV they are pushing and the articles they own. This site has completely lost its purpose and direction due to a bunch of self centered, out for themselves admins. If I could undo every edit I did I would. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Motion to close this discussion. We don't need a pile on. The consensus is clear. Jehochman 03:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead. Make sure you block that IP you think is me along with the 6 accounts AGK accused of being me. You might wanna submit me to SPI, there are probably a couple hundred more users you can block and accuse of being me as well. At least once I am blocked the Arbcom and the abusive admins on this site will feel a little less heat and can get back to their POV pushing and article ownership. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll close this, since I haven't voted. The decision is a mandatory wiki-break for Kumioko. Take a rest, and if you would like to return after, say 6 months, send me or any admin an email, and we will arrange it, assuming that you've truly taken a break, and that you're ready to come back and be productive. I'm purposefully not going to log this as a ban. Think of it as a wikibreak. If you start socking or trouble making, this courtesy might be rescinded. Jehochman 03:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Jehochman, but that is effectively a supervote. The discussion was for a community ban, and that is what the consensus is. Also, if you are going to close the discussion, follow up and block the IPs he's using - he's said his piece already. The one part I do agree with is that if he avoids socking for six months, a community discussion to arrange his return could be held. Resolute 14:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would have to agree with Resolute, consensus here is clearly for a ban, thus it should be logged as a ban and the IPs he is using should be blocked. Essentially you closed this completely opposite to consensus. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

  Well of course you agree, you have both been trying to get rid of me for more than 4 years. You might also want to range block the entire Verizon Fios network and the Whole 138.xx range. While your at it, you may want to change the rules to prevent any IP's from editing. Also, all those SPI accounts are mine too so that should help you clear off the back log at SPI. You can also assume any new accounts after the ban are me, so there won't be any new editors to WP. That is how truly stupid and ineffective this ban is. Oh yeah, better block T-mobile as well, I wouldn't want to use my phone to edit. At this point its pretty obvious that you are going to keep submitting me to AN until you get the vote you want. Surely you must have noticed the turn out is smaller and smaller. Because the rest of the community sees how petty and deceitful you all are. If you don't like the result, just submit it again and again until you get the one you want. And you really think I should respect that sort of petty and childish antics. No, I do not. Its just another example of admins being abusive to editors they don't like or aren't in their cliche'. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I fail to see the rationale for not logging this as a community ban, which had a clear consensus. I too, would have supported it if the discussion hadn't been precipitously closed. Jehochman, can you please explain your thinking here? Are you aware that as you were closing this, Kumioko, via one of his IPs hit upon the new tactic of summoning NinaGreen to his talk page, via Echo ? Voceditenore (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was letting her know I would not be responding to her comments on her talk page because I was about to get banned. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok go ahead and log it. You all should try to be kind to people. But Kumioko clearly hasn't responded well to kindness. Jehochman 20:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I have reponded poorly to kindness. Show me were someone was kind and I didn't respond in kind? If people are nice to me I am nice in return but I no longer feel I need to be nice to people who, in many cases, have been jerks to me and had absolutely nothing done about it. I didn't see these kind people when I was erroneously blocked back in 2010, or again in 2012. I dind't see many kind words when I filled out any of my RFA's, not even the one back on about 2008. People on Misplaced Pages are not nice because the admins don't do anything about it, particularly to other admins. They just buddy up and whoever has the most tools wins. That my friends is why people don't edit here. Its not because they aren't interested or because they kind find things to do. Its because you people run down any editor who hasn't been here since the start. There are so many rules and policies no one can even remember them all. So as I said before. Do whatever you want, ban me, put a hex on me, whatever. I'm tired of feeling like Sisyphus getting plowed over by boulders. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added Kumioko to the list of banned editors, going by the consensus I see above, and Jehochman's concession to the idea of banning. -- Atama頭 21:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have also blocked Kumioko and left a banned editor notice, if there are any IPs that need to be blocked (or range-blocked) I'll leave that to others to deal with. -- Atama頭 22:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural note: I haven't interacted with Kumioko (knowingly) recently, or in the past that I can recall, nor have I participated in any discussions about Kumioko. My actions are to reflect the consensus in this discussion. I'm aware that Kumioko has technically abandoned their user account, but felt that the blocking of the account and banner left were proper procedure. -- Atama頭 22:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic: Request to be unblocked for the purpose of participating in the RFCU about his block

I'm sure that many will sigh, roll their eyes and probably face palm at seeing @Colton Cosmic:'s name again on this noticeboard. Currently there is an RFC/U (see further up for link to it) on the conditions surrounding his block, which was raised by @GB fan:. I won't go into the particulars of the situation but I'm sure most will be familiar with it. On his talk page, CC has made a statement that he should be allowed to participate in the RFC/U. I made the offer that should he so wish that I would be willing to post a review request on AN to determine community consensus as to whether he should or should not be unblocked to participate. I also posted on the RFC/U talk page to seek opinions of those who have been involved (for which I thank them). I will not be making a for or against statement with regards to this review to unblock, nor do I intend to make any views on CC's declarations, which are visible in my talk page history from the various IP's that he has been using.

To whit,

1. CC may be unblocked for the sole purpose of participating in the RFC/U where he is only to answer questions directed to him but is not to rehash the same material leading to the indef block. Failure to abide by this restriction will lead to an immediate re-block
2. Badgering of commentary will similarly attract an immediate re-block
3. Comments should only be related to the conditions surrounding their initial block and not for any subsequent blocks or admin actions taken against them (I also hope that the RFC/U stays focused enough on the topic which is his initial block as I know that later actions have been taken against him but are not the subject of the RFC/U.)
4. Personal attacks of any sort will lead to an immediate re-block

These are a few of my thoughts on the kind of conditions that would be attached to such a temporary unblock and as such are not exhaustive. Blackmane (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I believe in second chances so I'm for a temporary unblock but I'm doubtful whether all of these four conditions can be met. It will be very hard to comment on the initial block without rehashing the arguments surrounding it and NOT discussing subsequent admin actions. I understand why the conditions were set up, it would just be remarkable if for a WP discussion to strictly stay on topic so I'm not sure if he is being set up to fail. Liz 19:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm more than open to rewording the conditions. My "conditions", which are more like a train of thought rather than strict conditions, were meant to be a list of things that should be nipped in the bud before having to deal with them down the track. Would a much simplified version as below be more suitable?

CC may be unblocked for the sole purpose of participating in the RFC/U and is reminded that badgering, personal attacks and disruption will be met with an immediate reblock

Blackmane (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable condition that could be met, Blackmane. I think this is basic good behavior that should be required of all Wikipedians. Liz 16:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support removing block to allow editor to participate in their RFC/U. It's too easy to re-block if they run amok and will serve as a good indicator of their presumed, more mature attitude and re-dedication to editing by accepted best practices.—John Cline (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Question from a non-admin. Wouldn't these types of situations make the perfect opportunity for using mw:W:LST (installed according to Special:Version) where you could create a section on his talk page and set it up to be transcluded using <section begin=responses />His comments go here<section end=responses />, and then just transclude that section on the RFC/U with {{#lst:User talk:Colton Cosmic|responses}}? — {{U|Technical 13}} 22:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support per John Cline. I am One of Many (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I have already expressed deep cynicism about the motives of this editor. However, he should be unblocked subject to the specified conditions, as WP:ROPE, with the understanding that any subsequent reblock is indefinite, and in this case, indefinite may indeed need to be infinite. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support It's reasonable. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. If we're running an RFCU, we ought to give the guy the chance to participate; the point of an RFCU is to get someone to change objectionable behavior, and there's no point in doing that for someone who's indefinitely blocked. Can't remember who it is, but I've seen an admin create a filter to prevent editors in this situation from editing anything except a few specific pages. Any idea who that is? Might be useful to have a filter preventing CC from editing anywhere except the RFCU, its talk page, and usertalkspace. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support if he agrees absolutely to abide by the decision that is handed down. I'd be happy to give him a voice on the RFCU if he'll go away when it's over (if that's the decision of course...) --Onorem (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose:Colton was already partially unblocked and allowed to edit his talk page again. Given even that trivial amount of freedom, he abused it by canvassing (using the ping function to draw editors to his RFC/U while giving them a lecture about how unjustly he had been treated). He's now sockpuppeting again, using IPs like 69.248.52.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 63.237.92.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 50.242.31.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), plus more that edit filters are keeping a clamp on. There's no reason to believe that he will ever abide by any restrictions. On a limited scale, John Cline's approach has already been tried, Colton Cosmic already ran amok, and the block has been reinstated.—Kww(talk) 05:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kww. BMK (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Whatever other issues there are with CC, I don't think that outright violation of the unblock restrictions is going to happen. They might test the limits, but I don't see them going over it. So, support, I guess. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose His case has been made. S/he's astute enough to evade blocks as evidenced by history. There is no evidence that an unblock will advance this cause. It's a vanity plea to edit Phoenix Jones as Colton Cosmic in some sort of self-erotic fantasy. Please let Colton Cosmic fall to the wayside as we already know he has the ability to return quietly. Even if unblocked, a topic ban on super-heroes is warranted. It's a vanity SPA at best. --DHeyward (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. What, he's socking again right now? No way. And please turn this block into a permanent formal community ban at last, with a provision to not allow review before two years are up, so that at least everyboy will know from now on that making yet more requests for review will be futile from the start. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, per KWW -- and note that at present it's not necessary anyway, given that AnthonyCole is doing the job for him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:OFFER applies. He simply needs to not sock at all for 6 months, and then we can consider unblocking him. The RFCU can go on without his input; in some respects it might be better off that way. GiantSnowman 13:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ... although, I should say "fully support, plus send him a million dollars" because even though I was the FIRST to ever extend WP:OFFER, and have religiously begged him to just follow the damned processes and he'd be welcomed back, he will INSTANTLY choose the opposite path of whatever I suggest out of some bizarre "I hate good, honest advice from someone who actually is looking out for my best interests" fetish that they have. We have a process for someone to participate in noticeboard discussions about them, and any time we've added filters in order to only permit someone to comment in a certainspot, it's worked poorly. I even designed the {{User proxy}} template that will easily allow someone who copy/pastes on their behalf to appropriately/easily attribute the comments back. I have also often suggest we create a section on their usertalk and transclude that section to noticeboard, it's not accepted by the community yet ES&L 17:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• ES&L, this is exactly what I was asking about above. Would you like to hit me up on my talk page about drafting up an RfC to see if community support can be gained for this type of usage? — {{U|Technical 13}} 17:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Misplaced Pages has no limit of blocks and unblocks. If he s disruptive, i is easy as the click of a button to go back and block him again. If you are opposing because of WP:OFFER,. save that for the RfC. This is a discussion on he RfC alone, not about his overall behavior. KonveyorBelt 17:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose entirely per Kww who's summed it up nicely!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support As a matter of process, I believe that an individual who is the subject of an RfC or an AN/I or ARBCOM case should be able to participate in the discussion. Otherwise, it is like a trial without a defense lawyer, it's inherently biased against the subject because they are not able to face their detractors and address their concerns. Liz 23:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Liz, we have a process in place for him to participate right now that is very effective. Unblocking is not a part of that process. He's choosing not to take part using that process so that he can claim "unfair" - in other words, he's "cutting off his nose to spite his face" ES&L 12:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kww and KonveyorBelt (ironically). Already given a limited opportunity to offer up arguments on their talk page, and immediately abused it. I am not seeing an upside to allowing them even greater leeway to abuse the community's good faith. Resolute 23:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - As I've said before, if critics we're given more tolerance on-Wiki, there'd likely be less need to congregate in darkened off-Wiki corners. Tarc (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Colton Cosmic's demonstrated behaviour across several loosening of sanctions against his account. Unblocking his talk page resulted in multiple ping'ings of third parties, four at a time, accompanied by propaganda for his point of view, and re-pings if he felt they didn't respond fast enough. This is alongside him describing those who don't agree with him as (for example) "that weirdo", even after they try to help him. Can we be sure he said that? No, because he uses multiple different IP addresses across multiple different target pages to try to avoid being responsible for his own posts. Put an end to it. It's too much. Huge negatives and zero positives. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose the level of appealing this block sets a very bad precedent. By all accounts this has been drug before damn near every admin, Jimbo, Arbcom etc. If he wants to come back abide by the block and quit sockingserial block evasion or sock and not be so blatant about it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that some of Supports/Opposes seem to be implying that this is a request to permanently unblock CC. Just to clarify, this is not a third party request to unblock nor is it a review of the current blocks. It's a gauge of community consensus to determine whether there is support to temporarily unblock CC for the sole purpose of participating in the RFC/U.

I hasten to reassure you that my aim is not to badger your support/oppose, but to ensure that you are !voting on the correct point. Apologies in advance if I am stating the obvious. Blackmane (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think KWW summed it up nicely. He's been given rope before. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pefectly clear that the request was for a temporary unblock. I'm also prefectly clear that someone who can't bring themselves to stop socking, and takes steps to game the system by using his talk page to canvass other editors, isn't deserving of that privilege. The RFC/U -- which essentially amounts to a community discussion on the validity of his being blocked -- can go forward without his participation, and he has only himself to blame for that. BMK (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well then screw the RfC--we all know what the decision will be if the community won't even let him be temp-unblocked, much less fully unblocked. KonveyorBelt 04:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

His participation wasn't going to change the result of the RfC in any case - and one can argue that it was a misuse of that forum, which is designed to deal with the behaviorial problems of editors, not with community oversight of blocks. It should probably be shut down and archived. BMK (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Why shut it down? What's it's going to do is provide community confirmation that the block was valid and that the blocking admin was within their authority, AND (most importantly) Colton Cosmic will never be able to use "I was improperly blocked" as an excuse ever again. He engineered the RFC, and took a risk from the beginning that this would be the outcome (I mean, if he didn't see it, something's wrong). This RFC has the power to actually HELP Colton regain membership in the community by formally eliminating the one thing that's prevented his return all along. ES&L 11:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the nature of his block evasion by itself justifies a block. There are ways he could've went to resolve this. Imagine if he had just not evaded his block and appealed the block after respecting it, don't you think the community would be more amenable? I think that the hole has been thoroughly self dug at this point. How many other blocked editors are watching this and thinking to themselves this can be a way forward for them too? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What? So confirming the block was valid would help him regain his status in the community? KonveyorBelt 20:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kww. Socking at least as recently as yesterday. No thanks. Not temporarily, not conditionally, not now, not ever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Colton would need to stop the sockpuppetry before I'd be willing to support something like this. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Even when they had talk-page access, Colton Cosmic was abusing Echo to canvass people in a blatant manner. Immediately after their talkpage access was revoked, they began to sock with IPs (for the five billionth time). Some of their comments have been abusive, and they've tried very hard to adminshop by contacting a whole bunch of different admins in their desperate attempts for "justice". Colton Cosmic has been given rope multiple times, and has hung themselves with it on every occasion. How easy it is to reblock is irrelevant; almost everyone knows that they will immediately begin to sock if reblocked, and will immediately become a massive nuisance if unblocked (look at their behaviour with the IPs). And unblocking a user with such a poor history before the RfC/U closes sets a very bad example. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Ryulong

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion 1

The following sanction is vacated with immediate effect.

3) Should Ryulong be found to be seeking or requesting any administrative action on IRC against users with whom he is in dispute, he may be reported to ANI or the Arbitration Enforcement page.

Motion 2

During the original case Ryulong was admonished for excessive off-wiki requests of an inappropriate nature in remedy 3b, which reads in part:

(B) For contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions. Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions.

The admonishment is left in place as warning not to return to the excessive and/or inappropriate behavior of the past, but the final sentence "Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions." is to be stricken.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 17:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

SPI backlog of large proportion

WP:SPI is extremely backed up right now. Any and all admin help would be smiled upon. NativeForeigner 18:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Would have helped if I had the tools. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Been thinking of applying for CU Clerk for some time... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• I noticed. I'm going to add SPI to my "things I'm working on" list. I won't be able to resolve this on my own, but I'll see if I can at least help, and hope some other admins familiar with waterfowl and footwraps might also help. -- Atama頭 23:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Sigh... About a half dozen or so closed, but that's just a drop in the bucket, could still use more help. -- Atama頭 19:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AN/RFC

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure currently has a bit of a backlog. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocking problem

I've posted about a seeming change in the Block user page over at VP/T. Might just be me, but could other admins have a look and comment there. Thanks. Peridon (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Has been sorted by WMF. Peridon (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog