Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:56, 21 July 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 13 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for closure review

(Initiated 10 days ago on 16 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:40, 26 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 80 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 71 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

{{doing}} voorts (talk/contributions) 23:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Oops; I put this in the wrong section. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 59 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

(Initiated 47 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 43 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)

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

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

(Initiated 43 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 41 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 36 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 34 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 18 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#List of Chalcolithic cultures of China

(Initiated 58 days ago on 30 October 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 58 days ago on 30 October 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Lu Tianna

(Initiated 54 days ago on 2 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Shen an calhar

(Initiated 54 days ago on 2 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21#unmentioned suikoden characters (episode 1: a-h)

(Initiated 42 days ago on 14 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21#Clock/calendar

(Initiated 42 days ago on 14 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 14#File:The badge of the Military Order of the Serpent.png

(Initiated 37 days ago on 19 November 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 29 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 24 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 21 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)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 9#File:Golden Lion size.jpg

(Initiated 17 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 9#File:Ang Panday 1986 animated series.jpg

(Initiated 17 days ago on 9 December 2024) * 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 93 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 71 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 69 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 59 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 51 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Move_review/Log/2024 November#Carousel (film)

(Initiated 48 days ago on 8 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 29 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 29 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 2#Rafael de Orleans e Bragança

(Initiated 25 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Shuffle 329

User:Shuffle 329 is a suspected sockpuppet of BuickCenturyDriver and has today resurfaced and been messing around with some pages. Can an administrator please block the account and revert the page move at List of Power Rangers: Super Megaforce episodes. (SPI link) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 11:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• CU didn't make a link there due to it being stale. I don't see any of the behavior linked in the original case, ie: AFD and RFA voting for first edits (or ever, in this case). I don't see any evidence presented there, or presented here linking the two, I just see his name listed in the SPI form. There may be some linkage with some recently blocked accounts but I don't have time to do it now, and you didn't bother to actually provide any evidence here. I suggest WP:SPI and providing diffs for a CU, as WP:AN is not a good place to do a full investigation. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A diff I have is , and you should look at Special:Contributions/HaleAgnes. HaleAgnes performed these moves and was identified as a sockpuppet in the past, and the diff points to the exact same content that had been added to the page by other sockpuppets over the past week.

All BCD/DFtZ has been doing for the past week is adding Dino Charge to that infobox, adding that fake episode entry. I am only the messenger here, acting for Ryulong as he is blocked. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 11:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong was blocked for editing warring on power ranger related pages. See http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2014/02/08/power-rangers-dino-charge-tv-series/5305153 and http://www.megaforcecast.com/dinocharge. These two sources clearly confirm Dino Charge will be next season and ryulong doesn't want this information to be posted. Shuffle 329 (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong's most recent edit war was with User:Harmony944 on Talk:Power Rangers Megaforce. I think User:Bbb23 made the right move blocking these users, but God knows what will happen when their blocks expire. I think something need to be done about Ryulong's behavior and the way he interacts with other editors. I can't deny he's made good contributions, but he need to stop persistently revert edits he doesn't agree with and quickly suspecting them. 71.172.99.38 (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. This is obviously the same person as HaleAgnes, so even if we've mistakenly identified HaleAgnes as BCD, Shuffle's evading the block of HaleAgnes. The edit history alone shows that Shuffle was created to be a sleeper: making sophisticated edits right at the beginning (including welcoming another user!), and exactly eleven edits: the minimum for autoconfirmed status, plus one for insurance. Nyttend (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor here also has to be a sockpuppet of BCD. All of his edits have been to deflect blame towards me, and he's performed other edits that match his MO and behavior.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm an SPI clerk, and I must say I'm rather confused. Putting aside the block of Shuffle, I'm having trouble understanding why the block I imposed on Ryulong was lifted by Nyttend with the stated reason that he was battling a sock farm. The battle for which he was blocked was with Harmony944 (talk · contribs · count). His 48-hour block has not changed (it'll expire in several hours). Has someone made a finding that Harmony is a sock and, if so, of whom and why? I would think that if they had, they would have changed his block to indefinite; yet that hasn't happened. Perhaps someone could enlighten me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

There would have been less confusion if Nyttend talked with you before reversing your block. Even if it was a sock puppet the edit warring was over a content dispute, not vandalism. Ryūlóng has been around long enough to know not to engage in that sort of edit warring. Administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. Chillum 20:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I also think that the block for Harmony944 should be set to indef if there is evidence of sock puppetry. If there is no evidence of sock puppetry then I think their block should be removed as Harmony944 was no more(or less) guilty of edit warring than Ryūlóng. In a content dispute it is important that both parties are treated fairly. Chillum 20:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You misread my unblock rationale. First off, Ryulong was blocked after repeatedly reverting someone who had deleted a section header and refactored and deleted talk page comments, despite warnings: when someone else modifies your comments, persisting when you warn them not to do it, you deserve thanks, and under no circumstances is a block warranted for your enforcement of project standards. Meanwhile, on the sockpuppetry, this editor jumped in when Ryulong was attempting to clean up after a sockpuppet of a community banned user; repeatedly disrupting a talk page following a sockpuppetry attack, at minimum, makes the situation more suspicious and means that we should be a lot easier on the person who's trying to clean things up. Next, why are you so badly confused by the block of Shuffle? As I said already, this is a duck block, since the user was obviously HaleAgnes; if you disagree with that block, you should be questioning Tiptoety, not me. Meanwhile, after lifting the block, I've observed additional things; I wondered whether Harmony were a sock, but I didn't have any hard evidence, or I would have changed it to an indef block. However, I have no doubt that Shadowbird712 and Harmony944 are the same user; Shadowbird registers at 17:11, 18 July 2014 and jumps into the conversation after just thirteen minutes, and two hours later finds his way to WP:AN3 (hardly a place where a new editor would go), and at another point, Harmony makes this edit, removing most of the signature from a line signed by an IP as Shadowbird. Why would anyone do this if they weren't affiliated with the IP or the user? I can't imagine why, except for an oversighter redacting an address of someone who had accidentally logged out (in preparation for oversight of the edits), and especially not for someone who hadn't yet registered. This whole situation strikes me as being an indication that Harmony was simultaneously editing as an IP and with his account, and that then he registered a second username, began using it instead of the IP, and was seeking to cover his tracks. Final note I'm more and more wondering, although still without sufficient evidence, if all of these accounts are related to BCD. Note that Shuffle, Harmony, and Shadowbird all get involved suddenly in this discussion, and all follow the same naming pattern: single word, three numbers. Not impossible, but surprising, if it's a coincidence. Nyttend (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend, you should not have unblocked Ryulong without consulting with me. As far as I'm concerned, with respect to just the edit warring, he was just as culpable as Harmony, although he behaved a lot better after the block than Harmony did, but that's immaterial. Your suspicions about Harmony should be translated into an SPI, not a basis for unblocking Ryulong. As far as that silly section header, it was Ryulong who started that, not Harmony, and although the merits of the section break addition/removal/restore/etc. are not technically important with respect to the conduct, I found the addition of the section break to be odd. In my experience, one adds a section break to a long discussion as the beginning of new comments, whereas Ryulong sandwiched the section header in between other earlier comments. Even that would have been potentially acceptable, although strictly speaking, that's refactoring he should have let it go when it was challenged. Finally, although as I already stated Ryulong's behavior post-block was quite decent, his one comment about the block indicated that he doesn't understand the policy, which is never a good thing, particularly in one as experienced as he is. I'm not going to make any more of a stink than I'm making with these comments, but I find the whole thing annoying. (I was, btw, suspicious of Shadowbird, but after editing a few times, he stopped, even after Harmony was blocked.)--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

For the last time, my suspicions about Harmony and sockpuppetry were not the reason for the unblock: I removed the block because it was inappropriately imposed as a result of Ryulong fighting disruption. In the future, please don't make stinks on factually inaccurate grounds, as you've now done three times: blocking him when he deserved thanks and twice objecting to things I didn't say. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think your analysis is wrong as was the unblock. If you think my block was wrong, then you should have brought it up for review, not unilaterally deciding what you think is right. I'm done.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This whole stink could have been avoided if you followed the advice in the blocking policy and discussed it with the blocking admin before unblocking. Please don't repremand him for trying to figure things out after the fact.

While I am not familiar with refactoring being exempt from the edit warring policy I can at least understand where you are coming from. Perhaps everyone can just walk away from this a little wiser? Chillum 22:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Any user that accuses Ryulong of wrongdoing he will declare that a "sockpuppet". There is no evidence to indicate the IP 71.172.99.38 belong to BuickCenturyDriver or Harmony944. This person has the habit of revert-warring any comments left against him like here on on Power Rangers Megaforce's talk page. And the way he's going, he'll probably revert this, too. Given his long block history, something has to be done.24.38.91.162 (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

And another IP who is obviously a sockpuppet. I'm not accusing anyone of belonging to Harmony944. This is all you BuickCenturyDriver.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

And on top of all of this, I've discovered another sleeper sock, this time BlakeSnake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who recreated the same page that every other sock did, only making it more difficult for the page to actually be created by an editor in good faith later on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Also to note, 68.195.200.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is yet another IP he's somehow found to use. It's like he's driving around northern New Jersey just trying to find people's unprotected routers to jump on and file false claims against me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• On the plus side, a thread started by me finally has a long discussion on it instead of about two replies. I suppose Ryulong started it really though. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 08:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Requests for page protection backlog

Is there anybody that can look at WP:RFPP, there are requests there from yesterday... Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 08:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

The article is a very busy one that has had several problems such as warring, which is hard to detect on an article this busy. For now is full protected. It would be helpful if a couple more admin would patrol the talk page, help with consensus building and make edits once a consensus is clear. I'm trying to limit my activity to the talk page, Nyttend is working talk and the page itself, but more eyes would be helpful so we could be more responsive to the editors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a high profile issue indeed. Doc talk 00:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Especially when you consider Jimmy Wales himself tweeted a taunt directly addressed to Mr. Putin. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Russian state media shouldn't have vandalized Misplaced Pages. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've never felt more right about full protecting the article then. It is shockingly slower than you might think on the talk page now and is going smoothly enough. Edit warriors have no interest in dialog, so that cuts the number of requests down to a very manageable level, and the discussion is quite sane. We just need for a few admin to constantly monitor and address concerns there, around the clock. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• The talk page is going smooth, but it is getting too large. It would be very helpful if someone simply went through and started archive discussions that are settled or don't belong. It really doesn't require an admin, but it does require an editor that is experienced and has good judgement in these things (ie: won't revert back if someone reverts them). Preferably someone who isn't doing a lot of editing on the talk page and just wants to help by doing some maintenance. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This is just a request for clarification, but was the article full-protected because of edit-warring between a few users? Nyttend noted this WP:ANI discussion in the protection summary and, judging by the discussion, it appears to me that the article was full-protected due to edit-warring between a few users, and that there's consensus not to have it full-protected. Heymid (contribs) 17:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• May I suggest that pending changes protection be introduced at this article? It has been fully-protected for a while, and this is notably causing problems on the talk page. I do think that at this point it would make sense to allow people to edit it. I also think that it might be worthwhile to allow IPs to edit, to avoid "biting the newcomers", so to speak. However, pending changes would allow us to filter out the edits that are disruptive. RGloucester — ☎ 19:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• No comment from me on that idea; I'd rather have that decision made by people who participated in the previous discussion, your "this WP:ANI discussion" link, or by people who haven't yet participated in any discussions of this sort. Nyttend (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

AfD discussions need restoring

Graham87 12:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Per this edit 50+ AfD discussions from yesterday were removed. The user has been notified, but I'm guessing is asleep right now. Can an admin fix this in the meantime? Thanks. Lugnuts 09:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Fixed. It didn't require an admin, because the page wasn't protected, but it probably required someone who was not a nincompoop. Graham87 12:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That ruled me out then. Thanks! Lugnuts 12:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that User:Cyberbot I stepped in and automatically relisted 49 of these on that day's new AfDs, so they're now appearing on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 19 and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. I assume this isn't too big a deal, though. --McGeddon (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Country data Lebanon needs attention

{{flagicon|Lebanon}} () Produces a blank box, and checking the country data I found all Lebanese flags were blank. The page is protected as well, and I didn't know where to report this so I'm bringing it up here. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 11:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed, it wasn't a template issue, some how https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Flag_of_Lebanon.svg/23px-Flag_of_Lebanon.svg.png got corrupted over at commons. I added a ?action=purge to purge the thumbnail once and it seems to have corrected itself. No idea why or how the image managed to get corrupted. Monty₈₄₅ 13:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Monty845: Are you sure it's fixed? it still doesn't seem to be working... ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: It works for me now, and did not before. Try purging your cache locally and see if it helps. Monty₈₄₅ 18:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Monty845: Well, I purged the thumbnail like you did and then purged my user page (where I'm using the template), but still nothing. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

What we need is a 3rd person to tell us what they see I guess... anyone? Do you see the Lebanese flag up there or is it white with a wikilink? Monty₈₄₅ 18:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see the flag in the original posting when it first appeared, but I do see it now. Deor (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Works for me as well--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm The fact that other people can see it now is frustrating. What am I not doing? Suddenly I can see the flag... Well thanks User:Monty845! ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on IBAN (or, perhaps more timely, please get admin Sjakkalle off my back)

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

I need clarification on IBAN, because I have no desire to violate it, but have recently been "sternly warned" of a block by an admin for violating IBAN , but I think that admin's interpretation of WP:IBAN is neither the letter or spirit of that policy. (I think this is partially to blame on the way WP:IBAN is itself written, I think there are probably some absent or ambibuous details there, and those omissions and ambiguity lead the kind of problem prompting me to open this AN.

I don't want to get excessively wordy here, the issue is simple, I think it's clear the intent (letter & spirit) of IBAN is to stop two users from interacting, or commenting on one another. For me and this instance, I'm not and haven't been interested or motivated about any user. But I am interested about content, of course (what WP articles are all about). In my case I have voluntarily elected to discontinue editing a subset of WP:CHESS articles, however I still watch them and track them, including making comments (right now, on a user subpage). This was interpreted by an admin as violation of an IBAN with a user. I think this is wrong, and an over-enthusiasitic and even aggressive interpretation, since it logically leads to gagging me on commenting on content, and re-casts it as a comment on a user I'm in IBAN with, which it was not and is not. I think the precedent of that interpretation is unwholesome to WP, since it effectively censors me from commenting on content (if said content happened to be made by user I'm in IBAN with). If the justification for such an interpretation is that such comments on content are "indirect comments on the contributing editor", I think that's a reach, and might also be pure bad-faith involved.

I'd like some help understanding how I can even refer to the user I'm in IBAN with, to avoid violation of WP:IBAN. (That's more rope for excessive interpretation of IBAN too. I think it is very confusing. For example, the admin has already accused me of violating IBAN. How can I logically or reasonably respond to that, without a reference to "the editor I'm in IBAN with"? I can't. Here's another example: I wish to followup on a block of me make by an admin, a block I feel was clearly abusive and without any policy basis whatever, and his only justification for the block are comments I made about the user I'm currently in IBAN with at this time. So how can I even address my complaint about the use of tools by this admin, without an indirect reference also to the user and/or the edits of the user I'm in IBAN with. I can't.)

I really doubt the purpose of IBAN is to gag an editor from valid and worthwhile comments about content or a complaint about an admin. But the way "indirect comment" is casually interpreted does step on those territories, and as mentioned I don't think that's consistent or the intent of IBAN, to censor at will. (IBAN prohibits making indirect comment on "editor Y". If content edits were also meant to be excluded, it would have carried that text.)

There are more than one issue here, as above. p.s. I'm not interested in receiving nasty remarks in response by editors who "don't like ", in order to get a rise out of me and thereby discredit my motivation or good faith in the topic of this thread. That seems to be par for the course on AN/ANI. I'm opening this AN because I've been threatened by an admin, and I sincerely don't believe I'm in violation of anything. And I think there are some real ambiguities also at WP:IBAN. (For example, it says that an editor may not revert the edit of an editor they are in IBAN with, "by any such means". )

Here's a pertinent point: the editor I'm in IBAN with contributed to an article Talk discussion that was clearly contradicting or taking issue with a position in that discussion which I previously took. (I have no problem with that. I consider the editor to have been content-focused.) When an admin asked the editor to please stay away from that Talk discussion, the editor strongly disagreed with the admin and stated he had every right to contribute to that discussion and that IBAN did not prevent that. (I agree with that position.) How is that editor's commentary of conflicting position on an issue, in any way substantively different, from my commenting on the content of an edit contributed by that editor? (In neither as was there a direct interaction. However for anyone that wants to interpret both as "indirect interaction", again I think that is not the spirit or letter if what IBAN is trying to stop, and effectively muzzles editors from commenting on some content. But even though the editor I am in IBAN with strongly supported his right to make comment in that Talk discussion, my belief is that it is not going both ways here, and Sjakkalle has contacted me and reverted and threatened me with block at the behest of the editor I'm in IBAN with. )

Sincerely submitted, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

p.s. It seems to me the Qs I'm asking are so basic (stopping users from interacting or commenting on one another, vs. gagging users from contributing content or content-oriented comment/discussion) that a prior discussion s/ have occurred sometime already to clarify. But I haven't found any. (If there is one already, please let know. .) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ihardlythinkso is under a mutual interaction ban with MaxBrowne. On July 3, Ihardlythinkso added an edit by MaxBrowne to a user subpage entitled "Headlong to gray goo". When I noticed that today it was over two weeks since it was posted, so I have not sought out any block here, but I did remove it since the post is a breach of the ban. Interaction bans prohibit "mak(ing) reference to or comment(ing) on editor Y anywhere on Misplaced Pages, whether directly or indirectly". Snarky comments saying that the editor is turning an article into gray goo is a flagrant violation of that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I never commented about an editor -- only the quality of an edit. (So please quit saying that in my edit I was "saying that the editor" -- that is wholly inappropriate and bad-faith insertion of motivation on your part. There's nothing "snarky" about my documentation in that user subpage. (That is your bad-faith and apparently malicious interpretation.) Your "flagrant" descriptor, when it isn't at all clear you are any valid base of reasoning, is also inappropriate. (Extreme terms support your posture? Only in a lynch situation. This is a sincere request for clarification, where I've gone to extent to show the ambiguities that exist .) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • p.s. Perhaps it is appropriate at this point to ask to change this AN to a one-way IBAN request from admin Sjakkalle to me. Explanation: I do think all of the Qs I've identified in this AN are valid and would benefit from clarification. However, the only reason I'm here is because I've been threatened by admin Sjakkalle (if he didn't claim I violated policy and threaten a block, this thread wouldn't exist). I have had nothing to do with admin Sjakkalle since I told him "goodbye" a long time ago in a thread at his Talk (I'm done talking with you Sjakkalle Coming to you for help as an admin, is simply leaning into the pitch Please tell me to go away if I ever stupidly and mistakenly go to you for any sort of help on anything whatsoever again. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC) ), however he has been pursuing me with disparaging remarks and recommendations for my sanction at every conceivable opportunity since then. (If diffs are needed to back up, I can do that. But it's a waste of my time if spuriously requested.) I have only ever responded to his false mud. He is definitely not neutral toward me and out to punish. (Please someone ask him how he even knew of the subpage edit that prompted his "stern warning" threat to block? It's obvious he is either stalking my edits or that the user I'm in IBAN with did and solicited a request to a favorable admin who doesn't like me, to do something about. This admin does not like me and has a grudge, it is plain to me since I have completely avoided him and have had no interest in any interface with him. But he constantly pursues and recommends sanction, and now threatens with a block, which prompted this AN thread re the basis. I would like this admin hostile toward me off my back! A one-way IBAN would solve that, and I wouldn't be asking for all the clarification time to address ambituity at WP:IBAN .) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• TLDR half of it. I'm probably an idiot for walking into this, but I've been called worse and occasionally for good cause. IHTS, adding the comment to your page isn't exactly a violation of the letter of the ban, but it steps on the spirit because it invites confrontation. Even if not for the iban, it borders on polemic. Again, not some giant, flagrant violation but at a minimum, a bad idea that invites trouble. I don't know Sjakkalle, but he has said he isn't trying to get a block, and only took the least aggressive means to deal with the problem. The solution is pretty simple: leave it deleted and please avoid logging opinions of someone you have an iban with, if for no other reason than it invites problems and is (at a minimum) against the spirit of the iban, which has a goal of keeping you two from even thinking about each other. Like Sjakkalle, I don't see any reason for action here, but I do agree that it shouldn't be there. Please, for the love of dog, let's not make this bigger than it really is. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey Dennis, is your post meant to do anything but irritate? Why don't you get your head on straight and show some logic and fairness instead of your typical politcal BS? This is not about please avoid logging opinions of someone you have an iban with as I've made it headache-splitting-painfully clear I was commenting on the quality of a content contribution edit, not commenting on an editor themselves which WP:IBAN is intended to suppress. (Why do I have to point out the obvious?!) And bullshit about "thought police" stuff. (That is not what WP:IBAN says or connotes; you're making that up to the tune of 1984.) You do agree it shouldn't be there. I don't. It is not an attack on an editor. It is a documented comment on the quality of a content change to an article. So do you support a block if I revert Sjakkalle's revert? What's your real position without attempting scatter and blur the issue?) p.s. This is the kind of crap that makes me hate the WP folks. (Admins supporting abusive admins. The big problem is abusive admins on the WP, and I'm requesting a clear and valid and needed one-way IBAN with one of them. Hello. Any substantive response instead of attacking me?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey Dennis, you've asserted the comment made on my subpage about the quality of an edit, is "polemic". Now back up why you make that charge (when, it is not). Why? (Is it because of the section-head, "Approaching Grey-Goo", invented or used by Mallues? Or if not, then what? If I changed the section head to "Edits stepping their articles to a lower-quality state", would that please you be removing "polemic" which doesn't exist in the first place?! What?! How about being specific so I can understand you? (And if you insist on reading my mind and enforcing or supporting enforcement about "thought-crimes", well, what is there left anyone could say to you to have a coherent exchange?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • To be clear, my post wasn't meant to be irritating, it was meant to be honest, and to say "can't we all just get along?" I really was sincere and meant no disrespect, and was trying to a truly unbiased perspective. You really shouldn't be posting stuff like that, but I don't want to see any sanctions. I'm not trying to be a jerk when I say "you are too verbose" because, well, you really are and it hurts your own cases. Compare you comments to everyone else's on this page. It is really, really long. I was just honest. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not interested in your "honesty" when it is non-substantive and ad hominem pretentious WP memes like "TL;DR" when I have a real problem (abusive admin harassing me), Dennis. {{tq|Unbiased perspective}, Oh gee, right -- when what you've contrubuted is nothing more than nagging and shaming and side-stepping the issues I've patiently and clearly spelled out. I don't need your "values" chastising me Dennis, and frankly I don't care to consider whether I share your values (probably I don't). So get on point and drop the political "make him look bad" BS.

        I have RENAMED my user Talk subpage to eliminate the reference to "Grey Goo" (used by Eric to refer to the inevitable degredation in article quality implicit in the unquestinoed WP principle "anyone can edit"; especially FA-status articles) for the tender-at-heart and politically-correct-easily-offended-through-bad-faith individuals I have so offended to the point of receiving threat to block! (Jesus-fucking Christ!). Clearly this was looking for any excuse to threaten and block me for nothing, and that is the point, and that is why I've suggested a change to IBAN request here per admin Sjakkalle interacting with me. (How about getting a grip and responding do the sincere issues I've patiently defined here, instead of all this ad hominmen crap that makes WP look so respectable to the uninvolved observer!? )

        Since the subpage has been renamed to remove the "Gray Goo" phrase which so furiously means a personally-attacking comment about a specific editor and therefore a violation of IBAN. Now that the subpage has been renamed in respect to those faint-at-heart to the OBVIOUSLY DERAGATORY AND SELECTIVE PERSONAL ATTACK conveyed by the Eric term "Gray Goo", perhaps you can leave me in peace now with my proclivity to document when I see low-quality edits affecting articles that I care about but have voluntarily decided to not edit do to hosile Wikiproject environment for the subsection of articles I know longer elect to edit. Hello. Give me a fucking break and get this abusive admin off my back, admin Sjakalle, please. (What more do you want to fucking put me through? An hanging and lunching and indef block here?? Why the fuck does anyone think AN is less than a cesspool then ANI?? ) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

        • That is the problem. You came here to get outside opinions and I gave you one, rather mildly. He is right, you are wrong. If you have an interaction ban, don't maintain lists of their edits. If that offends you, then so be it, the problem is your perception, not my actions. If you think saying "your posts are too long" is ad hominem, then you aren't even trying to understand what that phrase means. THIS is why I said I was crazy to get involved, because once again, you try to spin this around to someone else being the problem, but the problem here is YOU. You violated your interaction ban, I didn't. If an admin saying he doesn't want to give any sanctions and just removes the offending text is "abuse", then you live a sheltered life. I'm done here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
          • You're all ad hominem Dennis, and here's proof: You gave me an opinion, but what was it? (That I violated IBAN, or I didn't? It isn't clear. Yet you claim clarity now.) If you have a position that I violated IBAN, then I'd like specific reason, since as stated more than once, I have read WP:IBAN carefully, in order to be sure I'm in compliance, and nothing there detracts me from commenting on the quality of content edit changes. (WP:IBAN is about restricting interaction between users, and one user commenting about the other user, not on content. Your extension of that to "not even thinking about the other user" is ripe for abuse and sloppy indefensible thinking and position to take -- I'm surprised you would take such a position.)

            Your don't maintain lists of their edits is completely erroneous and manipulative characterization, since there was one edit only by the editor in question, and the purpose of my "list" was not editor-dependent at all, but a function of edit quality for articles on my watchlist. (So fuck you for that intentional sloppy & false accusation and attack on my credibility and integrity on this public board.) I am not "wrong" when you have offered no argument or discussion about the clarifications I've asked for, but resort to mere ad hominen, and admit to the world that you were disinclined to read because "too long" but still enter the fray to enter your judgments. (That's the kind of WP bullshit I hate so much, HELLO.) Your TL;DR is all you have, Dennis, and that is sub-skirting the issues I've raised, which were eminantly simple: 1) I commented on content not a user; 2) an admin is harassing me with out-of-policy threats.) the problem here is YOU You're just into bitching now Dennis: I've made my points here clearly and simply. If you can't understand them, and don't have questions for clarification what they are, and need to resort to your accusatory baseless BS, then that is your problem contributing to AN and/or when I am involved, and not my problem. I did not say the admin was abusive in reverting my subpage post at any time in any place, but of course you like to accuse me falsely of that bullshit. (I said the admin's threat to block without discussion was abusive; I still believe that; no issues I've raised regarding clarification of what says at WP:IBAN has been addressed here, the only thing is the "Grey Goo" complaint by those easily offended by a non-personal expression used by Eric, and that I have already changed for the easily-offended parties that have complained.

            I don't want you commenting on my "life" anymore, DENNIS -- I have not commented about *your* life and I don't intend to enter the kind of cat-fighting you like to drag this down to .) The fuck is, you've ignored both issues I have brought up at this AN. (Good going, admin! ) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Ihardlythinkso: all of your posts here are WP:TLDR, your wall-of-text is just going to put people off reviewing the IBAN (such as myself!) GiantSnowman 18:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I was going to add a prefaced comment, anyone claiming "TL;DR" that my reply would be "go fuck yourself". (Interpretation: I can't be bothered with understanding the issue; I just want to make a judgement because this is the unbridled Wild West Misplaced Pages and I can!) Do I have a "bad attitude"? Or do you? (I have a real issue here. It's called "harassing admin", threatening abusive use of tools. Hello.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Well based on your response and edit summary it's you that seems to have a problem. GiantSnowman 19:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, your very long blocks of text are very difficult to get through. I am sure you could put the same information in a much more concise form. Your suggestion that I should "go fuck myself" makes me want to go help another user. Seriously buddy, you come here for help and then tell those you are asking for help to fuck themselves. What do you think is going to happen?

Also note that posting here will draw attention to yourself as well as the accused so please don't be suprised or offended by that. Chillum 21:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have anything substantive to say? Or just bitching (when, I have summarized my two simple points of this thread more than once already: 1] I did nothing in violation of WP:IBAN which I've read carefully and exercised good-faith effort to be in compliance with, and 2] an admin is obviously hounding me). If you have nothing substantive to contribute here, then yes, go "fuck off" and contribute something elsewhere where you can make a substantive difference. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do have something substantive to offer. I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG and consider just walking away before you make things worse for yourself. You ask me to fuck off, but perhaps it is you who should take a nice long walk. I also left you a message on your talk page about our Civility policy. Chillum 21:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I see now you have simply removed the message. I will consider you to be aware of the civility policy. Chillum 22:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the contribution of Ihardlythinkso to this thread are increasingly disruptive and offensive to other users, I suggest that we just close this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, having read what you wrote here, Ihardlythinkso, please let me know if I'm understanding correctly that your question is, essentially, "I'd like some help understanding how I can even refer to the user I'm in IBAN with, to avoid violation of WP:IBAN." If I'm right that that is your question, then the answer is that 99% of the time, you can't. An IBAN prohibits you from speaking to or about, or referring to "whether directly or indirectly", the person you are interaction-banned from. Talking about them or their edits is prohibited, with the exception of where doing so is necessary to appeal or enforce the ban (for instance, if I'm i-banned from user:X, then I can say to AN "I would like my i-ban with user:X lifted" or "user:X broke the interaction ban on page Y, please sanction them"). Yes, interaction bans are very restrictive. That's their intention: they aim to keep you completely away, both in deed and in thought, from the other person.

  It would be much easier to give you a definitive answer if you had provided diffs of your specific situation with the admin and user in question (the one diff you provide is broken), but again, if I am understanding what you wrote correctly, you're saying you disengaged from editing a set of articles so that you could stay away from the user you're i-banned from, but that you're continuing to comment elsewhere on the edits made to those articles. If the comments you are making elsewhere are in regard to the user you're i-banned from or his edits, then yes, you have broken the explicit wording of your interaction ban. If you were commenting elsewhere on something on those articles that was not the user or their edits, then you did not explicitly break the ban but you are skating on very, very thin ice by continuing to monitor and comment on an article you left to avoid the other user.

  You are doing yourself no favors here today by submitting a very unclear statement and then being rude to people who ask you to distill or clarify it; we'd love to be able to give you a definitive answer, but we can't answer what we can't understand. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Block of User:Truebreath

I have blocked User:Truebreath for repeated copy and paste / copyright violations in their edits. Am posting here as I am involved with their editing. Anyone is free to unblock. Hopefully only once they understand the importance of paraphrasing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Notified. Zad68 22:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Good and necessary block - Blatant copyright violations, as that user had been engaging in, are worth a block to protect WP. User had been warned against them and was arguing that the copyright edits were OK, see User_talk:Truebreath#Copy_and_pasting_again. Zad68 22:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Potential Article Scam

Someone has inserted several links at the bottom of a talk page possibly to deter from a couple of constructive messages pointing out shortcomings of an article:

Talk:Robert_Falcon_Scott (bottom of the page).--37.230.13.71 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not a problem, just an annoyance. Those are references, just like in articles. Up higher in the page, people inserted refs in their comments, and they seem to automatically propagate at the bottom of talk pages (they don't do that on article pages, not sure why they auto do so on talk pages). Nothing to worry about. Once those discussions are archived, they will disappear. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly: It is a clear annoyance. How you can think that is not a problem, I don't know. It is definitely something to worry about because those links clearly deter the reader from a lot of messages on that talk page regarding article improvement. And why should the community wait for those "discussions to be archived", instead of just removing the completely unnecessary clutter of entirely unrelated links? I am curious about your subsequent explanation ;-)--37.230.13.71 (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth (probably very little), this IP is complaining on my talk page User talk:Robert McClenon and on Jimbo Wales talk page User talk: Jimbo Wales that he doesn't appreciate me sending him a welcome message: "So you've sent me yet another welcoming message to prevent neutral administrators of getting in touch with me. Well done!" I have no idea why he thinks that prevents neutral administrators from getting in touch with him. This may illustrate a competency issue. Here are diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=617768312&oldid=617763984

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&diff=617767186&oldid=617618974

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

1. You have sent me not only welcoming messages, but actual deathwishes

2. Sending someone a welcoming message may be the beginning of mentor-like state of relationship between a user and an admin

3. You tried to deter from the original topic of a post, once again. No death-wishes, this time. Robert McClennon +1.--37.230.13.71 (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed (see diff) with magic {{reflist-talk}} templates. (Ping to Ruhrfisch as I had to insert a few of those templates between old Talk page comments and their signatures, but I bet they won't mind.) At some point in the recent past the rendering of Talk pages was changed to reveal declared references that weren't made visible with inline calls to a template like {{reflist-talk}}. So now many Talk pages have a pile of unmoored references that have sank to the bottom. Please assume good faith, this was totally innocuous. Zad68 23:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

What other talk pages had the same kind of problem?--37.230.13.71 (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the same thing recently on Talk:Homeopathy: . Zad68 23:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

So Talk:Homeopathy and Talk:Robert Falcon Scott are the only talk pages where this peculiarity occured? And at the same time there's a user posting one of the most obvious smokescreens and that is all related to pure coincidence?--37.230.13.71 (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This happens on any talk page where <ref>...</ref> tags are used. I suggest you stop the conspiratorial nonsense, and concentrate on discussing article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Andy, but unfortunately, you don't seem to have enough knowledge about the matter to user words like "nonsense". (And I haven't seen you posting a single message regarding that article, before...

While, at the same time, there are multiple open questions regarding article improvement and the user who seems to be the originator of misdepicton has been invited to weigh in but has refused to give an answer for several weeks... So it's kind of a joke to tell me that I should "concentrate on discussing article content". Tell this BrianBoulton and Ruhrfisch, who have been somewhat cowardly been dodging the discussion for weeks and even months and counting...--37.230.13.71 (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP original poster is an obvious sock of blocked User:Commissioner_Gordon. --Amble (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on IBAN (or, stop admin Sjakkalle from hounding me

I received no substantive reply in the earlier AN, just ad hominems. I've been accused of violating IBAN, but I'm sure I didn't. (I read WP:IBAN carefully in order to be in compliance.)

On what basis has admin Sjakalle threatened me with block and accused me of violating IBAN? (IBAN restricts commenting on another user. I did not do that. I documented my concerns about the quality of an edit, and said comment was user-independent. So what gives? Extending IBAN to gag a user from commenting on content? The user I am in IBAN with defended his right very aggressively, when an admin asked him to discontinue posting to a thread where he opposed my opinions. So why now am I being gagged from making commentary about quality of edits irrespective of the contributing editor? It is clear that the user has stalked my edits, and complained ot admin Sjakkalle, who has now reverted my edit and threatened me with block for violating IBAN. That is a bit contradictory ?)

Sjakalle backed up his "commenting on user" accusation, with the false argument that the section title I used at my user subpage, was intended as insult to the editor I'm in IBAN with. That is not true. ("Gray Goo" is a term Eric Corbett used to describe the inherent problem with article evolution stemming from WP principle "anyone can edit". So I used it. It was not intended as a slam to any particular editor or editors, and for Sjakalle to accuse that is bad-faith and a leap. Nevertheless I can see how a very sensitive person might decide to take on hurt feelings over the subhead, but what are they doing stalking my user subpages looking to have their feelings hurt to begin with?? This doesn't make sense. Nevertheless, I have renamed the subhead from "Edits stepping their articles to gray goo" to "Edits stepping their articles to lower quality statuses" so stalkers in my user subpages will not get their feelings hurt by phrase "Gray Goo", which wasn't as mentioned intended as anything personal to anyone.

IBAN is being used here to censor commentary on quality of edits (me), but the user I'm in IBAN with has staunchly defended his right to make opposing commentary clearly aimed at my position taken in content discussion. Again, I support his position that IBAN does not restrict his right to comment on content. So what's the consistency with Sjakalle servicing clearly a request from the user I'm in IBAN with, to suppress my comments on content!?

There's plain evidence that Sjakalle has been hounding me with criticisms and supporting sanction votes against me at every opportunity, after I discontinued contacting him after an unsatisfactory discussion at his user Talk. I'd like for him to leave me alone, and this IBAN violation accusation is simply part of a continued campaign to disparage me when an opportunity arises. (What's he doing stalking my user subpage? I don't believe he did. Obviously the user I'm in IBAN with did, and contacted Sjakalle, who reverted my edito commentary and threatened me with block and accused of violating IBAN.)

I'd like Sjakalle to get off my back; I have had no contact with him nor do I want any. He has made numerous deragotory comments regarding me at every conceivable opportunity.

Ihardlythinkso (talk)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog