Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:38, 6 June 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

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 222 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 77 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 76 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 68 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 56 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 43 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 40 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)

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

(Initiated 40 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 37 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 33 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 15 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 38 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 7 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)

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)

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 90 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 78 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 68 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 66 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 48 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 31 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 26 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 56 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

Can a single edit be an edit war?

This is something I have seen more than once and I believe may have been discussed here at one point, but I wanted clarification. Can a single edit be an edit war?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The question is impossible to answer without context. Which single edit do you have a question about, and please provide background context so we know what the prior history of all involved accounts are. --Jayron32 02:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I am basically asking a procedural question and is generic overall, with no current situation. I should mentioned that, I had come to believe, from reading the comments of others overtime that even a single edit can be an edit war and that it need not always or necessarily be multiple edits that violate 3RR. I may well have been misguided with either what I was told or its meaning, but...since I am asking this question I will use myself as an example where I had been blocked by an admin (years ago) for a single edit I made on the Occupy Wall Street article. I reverted an edit and then went to discuss what to do next with the editor I had reverted and we were discussing a compromise between what I had written and what he thought could change. I was blocked within about 5 minutes. I feel that mentioning that admin is unfair as I am not questioning their actions. This was without previous reverts, but after I had added some content and it was deleted by a new editor to the article and my edit constituted a revert of a revert. I was told that since I have a history of edit warring a can be blocked for a single edit if the administrator felt it was an act of edit warring (I'm just guessing but probably broadly construed). The admin felt that I would be seeking a consensus and unblocked me sometime later the following day, which could have been after a few hours as that was late in the evening. So from that I gathered is, at the very least, an editor that has a history of edit warring, that makes an single revert of someone else's revert, on a controversial article could be seen as edit warring. This seems to be reasonable logic and have since just come to understand it as accurate. I have repeated it before, but it is possible that I am misleading myself. I don't know if this is a question of policy but stems from a proposed text I suggested where I worded in that a single edit could be an edit war. Obviously because I am asking it wasn't supported, but that is not the reason I ask and there is no situation or edit war. I hoped to get clarification for myself. Perhaps multiple opinion or a discussion of administration method on this.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A single edit can't be a "war". But you can implicate yourself in a war with a single edit. Misplaced Pages:Tag team. In edit wars, there are no legally defined rules of engagement. The combatants are not uniformed. Our volunteer admins are not trained arbiters of war. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The point is, a terse or trite statement of "is <very general idea> a violation of policy worthy of blocking" will always be unanswerable. Even based on your explanation and characterization above of your own personal experience, without diffs and a full history, there is literally no way to decide if a block is, or is not, warranted in that situation; never mind the very general question you asked which is impossible to answer. We don't even know what a "single edit" means, unless we know the full history of the articles in question, the history of the accused and other participants in the subject matter the article is about, etc. etc. What one person characterizes as a "single edit" another may characterize as "yet another in a long string of tendentious editing, stalking, and otherwise disruptive behavior which has been going on for months across a wide range of articles and needs to be stopped eventually." I have no knowledge of your own specific situation, but your basic premise in the original post is FAR TOO VAGUE to make any meaningful statement about. If we were to "rule" on such vague question, such a "ruling" could easily be used by people trying to "game the system" one way or another. Instead, we can only make rulings on specific situations with a full history, before we decide what we should or should not block someone for. Any other discussion in this direction is pointless. (post EC comment to SmokeyJoe's answer). I'd take issue with the notion that a "single edit" can't be a "war". The problem is that tendentious editing can spread across several articles in a specific subject area, and what one person characterizes as "being blocked for edit warring when I only made one edit" someone else could see as "months long disruption over many articles which finally reached the tipping point." Without a full history, I'm not comfortable telling anyone that "a single edit is not edit warring" We simply can't say that without knowing which single edit is being cited as blockable, and what the full history of the conflict leading up to the block is. --Jayron32 03:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A single edit can't be a "war". A single edit is an edit unconnected to any history of other problem edits, or other problem editors, anywhere. If there is a history of conflict, and the editor is at all involved, not necessarily actively involved, then the phrase "a single edit" is being used misleadingly, even deceptively.

A single edit, made in good faith, by someone not playing games with others, is always to be welcomed. I completely agree with Jayron32's intent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's the crux, isn't it? Which is why I am uncomfortable making any statements without knowing specifics. If we give any indication that what the OP is calling a "single edit" may be fine, if the full context shows that it isn't, then we've just given unwitting fodder to defend what actually isn't a defensible position. On the other hand, maybe the OP was treated unfairly all these years ago. We just can't say, without context. --Jayron32 04:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If Country A bombs Country B is that a war? Until Country B retaliates, it's an attack, not a war, although it can be taken as a declaration of war. Until there's reciprocity, however, there's no war.

Except... Look back into the history. The "attack" may have been retaliation for something that happened a long time ago (bearing in mind that on the Internet a "long time" can be a couple of months). So it's important to get the history right, in order to get the context, to see if what looks likes an isolated attack is actually a response to an earlier one. In the RW, people have long memories, and there's no reason to think that it's any different online -- so what appears to be a one-off incident can turn out to be a delayed reaction to something that happened in the past, and it should be incumbent on the admin looking at the situation (sorry) to do due diligence and figure out what's going on. Too often the response is to the immediate action, and not to the long-term situation. Of course, that's made harder by socking and by IP hoppers (who hide their identity by changing IPs frequently), so mistakes can easily be made. BMK (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Jayron32 confuses my question with a request for a ruling or even a discussion of my situation used as an example. It is not a question of whether or not I was or was not indeed blocked for a single edit, it is merely the example of how the implication was first presented and heard over time (That I have come to accept) that, even a single edit could be seen as an edit war or even as part of an edit war, whether even similar edits with any similar situations were present with the same editors. Simply put, is the premise that a single edit can be an edit war valid? Has it ever happened, could it ever happen and can you imagine a scenario where it is possible or is it an impossibility on the face of it.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Define "single edit" in an unambiguous way. Until we know what you mean by such a concept, we can't say whether or not you could be blocked for it. I am not, was not, and will not be (to cover all available tenses) referring to you or any situation you were in in any of my responses. The problem is "is <insert poorly defined term here> a blockable offense" is an unanswerable question. I have no idea (and still do not) what you mean by a "single edit". The only way I could know what you meant is if I had some examples, with history and context, to go by. Otherwise, there's no way to provide a meaningful answer to your question. In my experience, when a person claims they were "blocked for edit warring when they only made a single edit", there's one of two possibilities. Either they were actually unfairly blocked, or they are using a self-serving and inaccurate use of the concept of "single edit" to make it look like they weren't misbehaving when they were. Again, this has nothing to do with you. Just that we can't answer your question meaningfully for all cases. We need to assess every case on its own. --Jayron32 05:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) A simple definition of singular edit, without another edit within a 24 hr period to new content. Or a single revert of the reversion of adding content for example where the other editor objects (that still seems to be the most common example I can think of) deletes it and a revert is your first reversion of article in a 24 hr period (where only clearly there is just normal additional content being created that itself does not violate any policies guidelines or procedures) Could a singular edit itself with no other in 24 hours ever be seen as an edit war in any scenario? Or even a single "revert" after content creation....or any other possible way an administrator might see a possibility that a "single edit" could be seen (even if no block is given) as an edit war.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, yes. Imagine that a bunch of people are repeatedly reverting each other in that 24-hour period: if you're one of those people, you're participating in an edit war, even if you make just one edit, and even if you've never edited that page before. On the other hand, if it's just you and one other person, one edit by you can't be an edit war: even if you revert the other guy and he promptly reverts you, "it takes two to tango", and coming by just once isn't enough for an edit war. Note that I'm using "one edit" to mean one edit from the software's perspective: it only has one line in Special:Contributions/Mark Miller, the page history will display exactly one line with Mark Miller (talk | contribs | block), and your edit count through Special:Preferences is exactly one larger than if you'd not performed the edit. I have no comment on a situation where you make a series of edits, since the possibilities are virtually endless — I could only offer a comment on a specific situation. Nyttend (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the very scenario you first mention may even have been used once in how a single edit can be seen as edit warring in a discussion I was part of once by someone. Participating in a large group, all reverting the same content back and forth and a single edit participates in that war and is how the tag team implication comes in play. OK, this seems to answer my question. I don't see this as being as important an issue as to ever have it part of anything official because in the long run its more like an essay, the opinion of various editors. I think there is some truth to it and some myth. That in some ways it is a technical count and can always be seen as a "single edit" that is one of many in the click of our edit count. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Generally, I recommend blocking (a short block) all involved in an edit war, over page protection. Page protection doesn't recognize acceptable vs unacceptable behaviours, and puts the warring editors on the same level as other editors trying to discuss. This would see a lot more collateral damage short blocks given to more-or-less innocent editors, but it takes very little investigation to find out that someone's single 1 hour block was a group remedy, and is not evidence of a problem editor, while an editor with a steady history of short blocks is probably appropriately labelled an editor with difficulty in collegiate editing. Mark Miller's short block log (three, averaging less than one per three years, and less than one per 10000 edits) is not evidence, per se, that he is a problem editor, or even unworthy for adminship. On the contrary, without making any effort to investigate any deeper, the lack of repeated blocks for the same reason suggests the valuable ability to learn. And the negotiated unblocks speak further to this. Generally, I think people take occasional short blocks too seriously, both in giving, and receiving. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I can follow your logic on how short blocks are better than page protection in many ways. If you look at this through the lens of dispute resolution I think, I might be inclined to look at the individual situation and if the number of involved weren't too high, ask for explanations of the edit before recommending a block. This is not always needed for more blatant efforts where the editor was involved in a discussion and they made a declaration that they were going to make that edit. And I appreciate the comments SmokeyJoe.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Mark has omitted the context: He really is just asking for a general policy statement, because this question is being discussed there. The policy says, "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". So one of the questions is, if you are innocently looking at diffs in Special:RecentChanges, and you happen to revert someone (perhaps a bit of peacocking, perhaps a bit of unexplained section blanking, perhaps some poor grammar) to an article that you have never edited before or since, are you edit warring? Well, no: the policy says "repeatedly", and you did not "repeatedly" edit the page.

Further: could you (legitimately) be punished for "edit warring" if other people were edit warring, without your knowledge? Imagine that this was the fourth or fifth time that the particular bit of peacocking text had been reverted that day. You had no idea, because you were just looking at RecentChanges. Should the actions of other users even be taken into account in determining your involvement? (NB that this is different from you knowing, e.g., because of talk page message, that an edit war was underway.)

Anyway, if this interests any of you, then please join the discussion at WT:EW. The ultimate goals are to figure out what, exactly, "a revert" is (because a few months ago, an admin went around here saying that any edit at all, after the one that created the page, was "technically a revert") and what, exactly, "an edit war" is (which should paradoxically be easier), but the current main question is whether a section titled "What edit warring is" should continue to claim that "Bold-revert" (with no discussion) is exactly the same thing as "Bold-revert-discuss". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Will Any Administrator Here Consider Unblokcing me?

User requesting unblock

This user User_talk:Deass#May_2014_2 is requesting a review. I am still unclear if they understand copyright and am having trouble with their English. They have made statements like "Come on, I'd like to threaten some of this is taking the piss. i'd like my money back, or i'll put someone on the bomb" which I have no idea the meaning. Also concerns of sockpuppetry.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Competence is required. There's really nothing we can do here. -- John Reaves 16:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• This may put things in perspective. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• I removed a 'tlx' from Deass's unblock request to make it active, but can't see any reason why we should consider unblock. The stream of warnings on his talk page indicates he would be in constant need of advice if he continues working here and is unlikely to take advice if it is given. His unblock says, "I don't know about legal/copyright matters. It's not my job to know about that." This is a case of WP:Competence is required. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think it might help a lot if the editor indicated which, if any, is his native or local form of English. It might be useful in helping him get some sort of mentoring, and a mentor might help him to a degree with acceptable English around here. Without that information, however, I really wonder if there is anything that could reasonably be done to address the issues which seem to have led to the existing block. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Mentoring may be useful; short of that, however, I see no reason to unblock this user unless we can find some red line that this user can be trusted not to cross, which would keep him/her reasonably in line with our copyright policy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Please disposition WP:ANRFC#WT:Shortcut.23Template_shortcuts

Please disposition WP:ANRFC#WT:Shortcut.23Template_shortcuts, which has been open for over one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: all of WP:AN/RFC is duplicated here at WP:AN so there is no need to place a separate duplicate request. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply - This request has been open for more than 30 days, so it is for that reason that I am listing it here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I see no indication that this even is an RFC, just a normal talk page discussion, so it should probably be removed from ANRFC. Fram (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it's just that is why nobody has attended to the request. I'd remove it myself, but as you can see I've already replied to Jax there. — Scott • talk 09:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking more clsely, ANRFC is not just for RFC, the "Requests for Closure" and "Requests for Comment" just share an acronym. Still, I see little there that can formally be closed. Fram (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply - With all of the RfDs taking place, it would be nice to have closure on the issue, so that people know what types of template redirects should be created and how. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion involving COFS

"The Arbitration Committee has resolved by Motion

Remedy 7 of the COFS arbitration case is vacated with immediate effect. Any extant enforcement actions taken under the remedy remain in force, and shall be treated as if they were imposed under standard discretionary sanctions authorized by remedy 4.1 of the Scientology case.

Archived discussion

Discuss this

For the Arbitration Committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)"

Possible IP range block needed?

I've been playing whack-a-vandal for some time with IP editors (probably just one) in the range of 2602:306:25A5:82A9:x:x:x:x. See, for example:

• 2602:306:25A5:82A9:89C3:D5E2:16EE:7F6E (talk · contribs)
• 2602:306:25A5:82A9:E8B0:326F:4521:D1E3 (talk · contribs)
• 2602:306:25A5:82A9:F806:74E7:8326:2FA0 (talk · contribs)
• 2602:306:25A5:82A9:F194:3DA1:C2CC:4BAE (talk · contribs)
• 2602:306:25A5:82A9:6519:693F:9012:6B9F (talk · contribs)
• 2602:306:25A5:82A9:186B:4C7E:B162:9666 (talk · contribs)

and that's just the past four days. There does not seem to be any letting up, even though I block on sight and protect the most-targetted pages.

Is a range block warranted for this group? I don't know much about them so I'm not about to try it myself. ... discospinster _talk 20:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• This is probably all one user. I've blocked 2602:306:25A5:82A9/64 for a week, to see how it goes. Black Kite kite (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast! ... discospinster _talk 00:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Another: 2602:306:25A5:82A9:7537:EDB7:D12E:D536 (talk · contribs) --NeilN 01:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This one should have been covered in the above range block. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I have now blocked that range for 2 days, Black Kite blocked 2602:306:0:0:0:0:0:0/64 instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that happened! Black Kite kite (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

A large number of articles reference a site which is now something else

silverbulletcomicbooks.com is referenced in 157 articles. The links to reviews and news no longer work, it just a page advertising something, the type of thing you see tossed up whenever someone buys an expired domain. An administrator needs to use their tools to eliminate all those links at once. Dream Focus 23:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There aren't really any admin tools that will help with this, per se; this sounds to my uneducated ear like a job for AWB, so you might have better luck at Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: Many of these are external links, and these can just be removed; doing so is not an administrator-specific task. Those that are used as references should not simply be removed. Please see https://archive.org/web/ and refer to Misplaced Pages:Link rot#Repairing a dead link and Help:Using the Wayback Machine.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Use Special:LinkSearch/*.silverbulletcomicbooks.com to search for external links. However, I have used the API to list all articles (only) which contain one or more such links, see User:Johnuniq/sandbox (permalink). I don't have time for it at the moment, but such a list can be fed into AWB. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Dream Focus: It appears that silverbulletcomicbooks.com is now comicsbulletin.com, but there is no simple way to determine the new URL. See Comics Bulletin. For example, I made this edit by using the given archive.org link to find the old text, then searching for some of the text on the new website (confusingly, I left the archive.org link as it seemed undesirable to remove it). In other words, silverbulletcomicbooks should not just be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting for a ban to be lifted (sincerity entailed)

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

Half a year (actually a bit longer) ago, I underwent a most unfortunate experience and made a few regrettable mistakes, which resulted in me getting blocked indefinitely, topic-banned from editing race-related articles, mainspace creation of articles and getting involved with the DYK? project. I am deeply remorseful for what I have done. Thankfully, I have since been unblocked my a most magnanimous administrator. I will not ask for my topic ban on race to be lifted. It is only the bans on mainspace article creation and nomination of articles at DYK which I wish to be removed, as the former poses a great inconvenience on my editing, and limits what I can contribute to this project, while the latter lowers readership. Please recognise my ability to produce fine, non-controversial content and re-empower me with this right. I believe strongly that I have reformed. Additionally, is this the right platform to make this request? Cheers and love, --☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: The opening statement above has been modified slightly because of the good point raised that DYK ban is not an inconvenience. I phrased it loosely and I have since corrected the sentence. A hyperlink has also been added per a suggestion by DangerousPanda. Please view rev history. Thanks ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Bonkers' new "peace and forgiveness" mantra doesn't move me much. To create an article like Eat Frozen Pork and then rush off to nominate it for a DYK right after its creation seems a perfect example of precisely why this restriction is in place. Doc talk 09:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Please understand that it is natural for it to have slipped my mind. Now that it is clarified, I will honour the ban and wait for something to be reached. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Of course, Bonkers should have linked to this in their opening statement ... but I can understand why they would want to try and ignore it. the panda ₯’ 09:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I will. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do you claim that a ban on nominating articles at DYK "poses a great inconvenience on my editing, and limits what I can contribute to this project."? Not being allowed to create articles directtly in the mainspace is a minor (and well-deserved) inconvenience, but DYK? Fram (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I am happy enough if the mainspace ban can be lifted. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that Bonkers the Clown edited his opening post after my reply here, making it inadvertently seem as if I replied to a non-existent claim he made. Anyway, you are straight of an indef block, wouldn't it be a lot better if you first showed six months of problem-free editing before you attempted to get any restrictions lifted as well? Fram (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

But this would be most ideal for me. I was hoping you could agree that I can be trusted to treasure this restriction-lifting. I promise to be a good editor and I just request to be able to create pages directly to mainspace, to make my life easier. However, if nobody is convinced, I am most fine with waiting. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Why would I agree that you can be trusted? You have been given a final chance to show us that you can be trusted, you haven't given us any compelling reason to believe that that is true though so far. Convince us with your editing, not with promises. Fram (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - it has been 2 days since your indef block was lifted; show 6 months of clean editing and we might consider it. The fact you had to put "sincerity entailed" in your request header says it all, really. GiantSnowman 12:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that I'm trying to be nicer, you doubt my sincerity. That cuts me deep, Snowman. It really does. :( ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for Eat Frozen Pork, I enjoyed that. When I find the right buttons, I intend to re-nominate it for DYK.

You should not have created an article or DYKed it whilst under such a topic ban though. I expect (given the antipathy towards you) to see you indeffed for having done so. I'm against that, I'd like to see you return - however not like this. It's the flaunting of an existing ban that's more of an issue than any problem with the article you created.

Is there any support for relaxing the ban here so that article creation would be permitted, but only within the draft: namespace? (or your userspace) That allows you to contribute productively, yet provides a review mechanism and doesn't remove the topic ban altogether. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand. I forgot about it. Editing has always been my joy, and I am glad my work is appreciated by some. Guess you can't please everybody though. Or, I could submit it through AFC. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've unblocked you, Bonkers. Everyone deserves a 43rd chance. Happy editing! Lugnuts 12:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

What are you going on about, Lugnuts? He isn't blocked, you haven't unblocked him; you can't even unblock someone, not being an admin. Fram (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a sad joke. :( ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No joking. This place is serious business! Lugnuts 13:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Jokes are allowed but are supposed to be funny, not simply confusing. The fun of claiming to have unblocked an editor who was already unblocked but asks for the lifting of some topic bans totally escapes me. Fram (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The "funny" part is "43rd chance" ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm prepared to re-block for making significant changes to his "opening statement" after it had already been replied to multiple times, thus changing the meaning of the replies the panda ₯’ 13:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you wish for me to show the diffs or something? I was wanting to clarify my point, having realised that the phrasing was awkward. It's only one line, not the entire thing. Plus, the link I added was per your suggestion! Does even that warrant a block? :( ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose primarily via GiantSnowman. Too soon. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The question of editing restrictions ought to have been addressed before the user was unblocked. At the moment, I see no reason why the topic ban should be lifted. Far from expressing "sincerity" and "remorse", comments like these are sarcastic and suggest that the user has learnt little, if anything, from their experiences.

  Frankly, I think that the indefinite block should have been brought here for review. Given that the block was issued by community consensus, and that the user engaged in CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppetry after it was imposed, I do not consider the unilateral unblock especially prudent. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 14:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It's often hard to distinguish sincerity from sarcasm when a returning editor constructs an entire article out of a government advertising campaign that lasted perhaps two months and had no lasting effects, then nominates it for a DYK. But I'm more perturbed by the confidence verging on WP:OWN of today's NACs and deletion of content from multiple articles, with comments such as "There is too much primary school crap", "trigger happy massacre of all crappy articles. Begone, non-notable pri. schools" and "i pity whoever drummed this up but that's life". I would have hoped that an editor offered WP:ROPE would not be so quick to claim authority. NebY (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now In line with thoughts of others, I'd like to see months of editing before entertaining a request for a removal of the restrictions. Promises are good, demonstrations are better.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – Let's take this one step at a time, slowly. While your contribs are appreciated, Bonkers, two days is too early to gain trust. Wait another three to six months and then ask again. Epicgenius (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I wanted to see what it was that led to the block so I followed some links here, and what I see is an editor who was first blocked for using offensive racial epithets, violated their very reasonable unblock conditions in a most egregious fashion by creating topic-banned articles with highly inappropriate names, and was indef'd again for BLP violations which the user appears to have added on purpose in order to sensationalize. The user has vigorously defended all of these actions, only backing down when a significant community reaction has been stirred up. And as SuperMarioMan points out, this user engaged in sockpuppetry to WP:EVADE a community-imposed block. Why should we believe now that this user is here to build an encyclopedia? The restrictions on mainspace article creation and DYK nomination are a highly appropriate response to this user's very serious infractions, and I support reviewing the decision to unblock. Ivanvector (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose His sarcastic comments on the admin who unblocked him really surprised me...Sincere apologies for forgetting something stated more than 180 days ago to quote one....surely that's not the way you need to behave if you want to continue here!! ƬheStrikeΣagle 16:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose DYK is but of many many areas to edit at WikiP. Try visiting those other venues and then ask again in 6 months. MarnetteD | Talk 17:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Problem - Regardless of the result of the above discussion, someone seems to have actually unblocked Bonkers, who has gone on a rampage of bad reviewing at AFC. Such bad reviewing was a major factor in the block being imposed in the first place months ago. Please check that the block is actually still on place and effective. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

BTC was unblocked prior to this AN request; this request was not about an unblock, but about also removing a topic ban. However, based on this new disruption, I've reblocked him indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Babysitter sought for RfD

This isn't a specific request for closure, so I thought I'd leave it here rather than ANRFC or ANI. I'm going to be on vacation from June 9–24. Misplaced Pages will survive, I suspect. But lately, I've become the unofficial dean of WP:RFD. I don't say this as a matter of pride, and I appreciate every ounce of effort expended by other closers, admin or not. It's just that I've been doing most of the closes for a little while now, which can also be problematic since I participate in a fair number of discussions too. (I hope this doesn't sound terribly vain or OWNy. I'm sure if I just dropped off the map, someone would step up to the task.)

I would love to get a few more admins interested in RFD on a more full-time basis, but just having someone minding the shop while I'm gone would be great. Never worked at RFD before? I'd be happy to give you a crash course. It's not too difficult, I promise! --BDD (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

BAC Drone / B.A.C. Drone

Why can i not open the articles of this name which I know are in Misplaced Pages??? I fail to see why a 1930s light aircraft can have any contentious issues!!!!!!!!!!! A reasonable answer would be appreciated as the last enquiry seems to have been ignored!!--Petebutt (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What's the problem? British Aircraft Company Drone seems to open ok for me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, works fine for me too. @Petebutt: can you describe what you're experiencing? Ansh666 14:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Pistol: The Birth of a Legend recreation

The Pistol: The Birth of a Legend was previously WP:CSDed. Could somebody compare the current stub to the prior article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's significantly different, but be aware that the deletion before was based on notability, and the sourcing on this is very weak (not very reliable sources). --MASEM (t) 03:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It is marginally notable. If it wasn't for the recent modest accolade after the Blu-ray came out, I would not have recreated it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

CFD backlog

Hi. There's currently a backlog at WP:CFD with some discussions still open from 10 April. Please could someone take a look? Thanks. Lugnuts 07:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

History merge requested

Resolved

De728631 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

I've been working on history merges for categories (now that moves are possible). I ran into one which I think I shouldn't do in order to avoid the appearance of COI: Category:Palestine-related stubs to Category:Palestine stubs. What I've been doing is fairly simple - restoring the old category (in this case, all revisions), moving to the new name (while deleting the current page there), deleting the newly moved page (to "disappear" the new move-caused revision, to avoid confusing the history), and restoring all the revisions but the last. I would do that here, if not for the appearance of COI. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. My first time histmerging a category though, so let me know if I've messed anything up. Also wasn't sure if I should be leaving the previous title (in this case Category:Palestine-related stubs) as a redirect or deleting it. Jenks24 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, although I would delete the redirect (since the original state is that the old name no longer exists) - that's what I've been doing (see the category entries in my move log. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Request for topic ban lift

No convincing arguments have been presented to lift a recently enacted topic ban. Unless evidence of misconduct in the banning discussion can be shown, the ban won't be lifted. De728631 (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Hi,

I was recently topic banned from the Ta-Nehisi Coates pages.] This was due to what was described as persistent efforts to insert material against consensus.

Before the ban, I had stated that I would accept the results of the RfC regarding the content, and if I didn't, I would support a ban myself.]

I am requesting the topic ban be lifted, with the pledge that I will not edit any of the related pages, ever. Enforcement should be easy because the page is watched and editors are quick to note any change. I have never violated any admin's order. I assure you I am done with this issue.

I believe this is a better, more amicable solution because 1. it achieves exactly the same result, 2. with no need for sanctions, 3. allows the people concerned to know that the page will not be touched, and 4. allows me to know I had my chance to hold an RfC and have my views heard, without the added stigma of a ban.

I think this is a way for the situation to end satisfactorily for everyone. Thank you. Useitorloseit (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Two initial thoughts on this, without having read that ANI thread: 1) You have been topic-banned for literally less than 24 hours. An appeal brought this fast is almost never going to fly unless you can show that there was misconduct of some sort in the procedure of that ban being imposed. 2) You want to be un-topic-banned so you can...never edit anything in the topic again? So basically no change to what's already the case? Why is this a change that needs to be made? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a waiting period for appeals, but I guess I was just hoping to deal with this whole thing quickly and move on. I think due to the fact that there had been 3-3 consensus split about my eariler edits, and my pledge not to edit the page anymore, there would be support for agreeing to let this end in an amicable way without the need for sanctions. If things can end peaceably, why not let them? Useitorloseit (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I started reading this, wondering how long the ban has been in effect. As the sandwich says, unless you are alleging misconduct in the ban, this is a waste of our time and ought to be closed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

East Germany

No admin action needed here. Please start a move discussion at the article. De728631 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

In 25 years the political landscape has changed. I merely watched the ongoing conflict about East Germany vs German Democratic Republic. We now are in the year 2014 and the GDR is in the past, the term “East Germany” today refers to a geographical part of the FRG, this should be considered. I would therefore support that the Lemma East Germany should be changed into German Democratic Republic. The Term “east Germany” may reflect the area that was once the GDR, but it reflects a different reality within the FRG today.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This would not be an uncontroversial move, so admins can't move it unilaterally. The best thing to do is to start a formal move discussion on the relevant talk page; WP:RM has instructions on how to do that. 28bytes (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Requesting assistant with removal of reliable sources by POV-pushing user

User:Qizilbash123 has been repeatedly removing material backed by reliable sources and inserting claims by unreliable sources in The Stoning of Soraya M. article. In his latest edit he has removed material backed by The New York Times and The Daily Mail and instead has inserted material from blogs such as and .

Please arbitrate! - Marmoulak (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Marmoulak, I explained my edits on talking page, and inside of article I backed it by two Iranian sources, expert from Amnesty International, and two film critics including Pulitzer-awarded Wesley Morris. You simply removed it all without any discussion, twice. You're also forcing WP:FRINGE material in this article, even removing NPOV tag (calling it as "garbage") and commanding others what to do. Unseen arrogance. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it for administrators to judge. The POV blogs your have added as sources do not meet WP:RS and WP:NPOV. And the other sources you have added don't dispute the fact that the film is based on a true event, they just criticize how this true event is presented in the film - Marmoulak (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Qizilbash123 has been also removing material backed by reliable sources here. He calls Reuters and Daily Mail POV and "disident" sources (his words!), and refers to them as WP:FRINGE! - Marmoulak (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please also see discussions here and here - Marmoulak (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Marmoulak, both Iranian and some Western critics deny film is based on "true events". It's actually based on book, written by monarchist Freidoune Sahebjam, your ideological pal. Not even strongly anti-IRI Amnesty International support his claims. You're obivously forcing one-sided view based on your ideology, and the same goes with fringe theories about the richest man on Earth. As I said on talk page, it reminds me of anti-Semitic conspiracies about "Rotschild's trillions". --Qizilbash123 (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No reliable source denies that the book is based on a true stoning event that took place in Iran: The Guardian, Daily Mail, NPR, Yahoo News nytimes - Marmoulak (talk)

It's just repeating claims from movie and book (I mentioned to Eric days ago that there are hundreds of sources like that), not significant and does not change fact that story is disputed. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Authors of former claims are Babak Dehghanpisheh and Yeganeh Torbati, sort of disidents as I said, and beside it's not reliable it's also mispresented by you because you confuse "economic control" with "net worth". --Qizilbash123 (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

According to all the sources, Khamenei has amassed $95 billion dollars and is using it for his personal gain. This is his net worth: WSJ, Telegraph - Marmoulak (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it to administrators to judge the validity of the Reuters investigation. Your POV is irrelevant - Marmoulak (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• "I'll leave it to administrators to judge the validity of the Reuters investigation" That's not what we do. As far as content goes, administrators are just editors - just like you two. You two gotta work out the content disputes yourself or get a third opinion.--v/r - TP 03:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration is needed when a POV-pushing user is waging edit wars - Marmoulak (talk)

Third opinion is needed for sure in both cases. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It must be noted that user Marmoulak broke WP:3RR with removing neutrality tag:

(cur | prev) 03:57, 6 June 2014‎ Marmoulak(talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,525 bytes) (-24)‎ . .(Undid revision 611771616 by Qizilbash123 (talk) - rv false tag) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 02:37, 6 June 2014‎ Marmoulak(talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,525 bytes) (-24)‎ . .(Undid revision 611762683 by Qizilbash123 (talk) - rv) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 01:28, 6 June 2014‎ Marmoulak(talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,525 bytes) (-24)‎ . .(removing garbage tag) (undo | thank)

--Qizilbash123 (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's 3RR not 2RR! - Marmoulak (talk)

Hungarian Turanism and User:Maghasito

USer:Maghasito try to spread of pseudo science, the so-called Hungarian Turanism , which is now a politically motivated chauvinist pseudo-science from the 19th century and a core agenda of far right Jobbik party and ww2 nazi Arrow Cross Party . There are not a single contemporary scholar (academics university professors) linguistics, historian population geneticist on this planet, who support that fantasy theory. Wikikpedia is a 💕, however it is not the place of the popularization of pseudo-scientific politically-motivated fantastic nonsenses. The best option would be the permanent ban of Maghasito. --Dosemark (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Moved from WT:AN. GiantSnowman 11:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Evidence, please? Unsubstantiated allegations that someone's trying to spread Nazi=like ideas will not be tolerated. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A thread concerning Hungarian Turanism was archived recently: . Avpop (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Kenji Miyazawa

Could someone please remind the IP user 126.0.96.220 who by his own words also is aka this user it is not okay to simply delete referenced material again and again? --Catflap08 (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog