Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:05, 28 November 2014 editKoshVorlon (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users16,029 edits →Again, a UAA topic ban for Hoops gza ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:09, 28 November 2014 edit undoNE Ent (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors20,713 edits →Administrator eyes appreciated: remove personal attackNext edit →
Line 254:		Line 254:
	::It isn't a "bottleneck". Any uninvolved administrator can impose sanctions at any time under GS/GG. The enforcement page is a place where non-administrators can request action and provide evidence. This deliberative process provides an appropriate way to deal with complaints, and doesn't allow for unproductive threaded discussion. There has been no problem with answering requests. They've all been answered in a timely manner. I've seen AE requests linger for weeks, and that hasn't happened at this page. ] cannot be used for community-established sanctions. Please work within the processes provided to you, as this will result in a better ending for us all. ] — ] 06:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)		::It isn't a "bottleneck". Any uninvolved administrator can impose sanctions at any time under GS/GG. The enforcement page is a place where non-administrators can request action and provide evidence. This deliberative process provides an appropriate way to deal with complaints, and doesn't allow for unproductive threaded discussion. There has been no problem with answering requests. They've all been answered in a timely manner. I've seen AE requests linger for weeks, and that hasn't happened at this page. ] cannot be used for community-established sanctions. Please work within the processes provided to you, as this will result in a better ending for us all. ] — ] 06:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
	::: From ] {{tq\|request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions,}} or {{tq\|request other administrative measures, such as revert restrictions, with respect to pages that are being disrupted in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions, or}} or {{tq\|appeal discretionary sanctions to uninvolved administrators.}} Seems appropriate given GamerGate is discretionary sanctions. ] (]) 06:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)		::: From ] {{tq\|request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions,}} or {{tq\|request other administrative measures, such as revert restrictions, with respect to pages that are being disrupted in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions, or}} or {{tq\|appeal discretionary sanctions to uninvolved administrators.}} Seems appropriate given GamerGate is discretionary sanctions. ] (]) 06:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::~~Your density is beyond belief.~~ There are two types of ]: ArbCom DS and community DS. The reason that page is called "Arbitration enforcement" is because it is only for the enforcement of remedies specified by ArbCom cases. These are not ArbCom sanctions. These are community issued discretionary sanctions, and hence cannot use the "Arbitration enforcement" page. There is nothing wrong with the present channel. ] — ] 07:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)		::::There are two types of ]: ArbCom DS and community DS. The reason that page is called "Arbitration enforcement" is because it is only for the enforcement of remedies specified by ArbCom cases. These are not ArbCom sanctions. These are community issued discretionary sanctions, and hence cannot use the "Arbitration enforcement" page. There is nothing wrong with the present channel. ] — ] 07:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

	== Redirect/Disambiguate Allen Bernstein ==		== Redirect/Disambiguate Allen Bernstein ==

Revision as of 12:09, 28 November 2014

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

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)

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources, Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction. "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Assume no clue.

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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.

Shortcuts

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.

Technical instructions for closers

Technical instructions for closers
Please append `{{Doing}}` to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with `{{Close}}` or `{{Done}}` and an optional note, and consider sending a `{{Ping}}` to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with `{{Not done}}`. After addressing a request, please mark the `{{Initiated}}` template with `\|done=yes`. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with `{{Already done}}`, `{{Close}}`, `{{Done}}` `{{Not done}}`, and `{{Resolved}}`.

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

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

Administrative discussions

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

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

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

(Initiated 11 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

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

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

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

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

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

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

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

(Initiated 41 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Done Soni (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Initiated 38 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 32 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	22	22
TfD	0	0	0
MfD	2	1	3
FfD	1	19	20
RfD	9	40	49
AfD	0	1	1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:JTG Daugherty Racing#Requested move 22 November 2024

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

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

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

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

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 57 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her

This is a request to review the close at Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Here. I questioned the close by talking about a lack of consensus to support closing the Rfc by agreement and told him/her the closing should be inconclusive. According to WP:RFC/U:

"However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past. In case a wording has not been agreed upon, the RfC/U should be closed as if it was being closed due to inactivity (or closed due to other dispute resolution)."

There was no discussion of a summary, resolution, or clear consensus that "all participants" agreed to. According to WP policy, the close should have been due to inactivity or closed due to other dispute resolution, certainly not by agreement. I understand that consensus does not require unanimity, however, all opposed arguments, especially when backed by WP policy, need to be addressed and considered. I explained this to the closer and he/she tried to disregard my arguments as being irrelevant to the scope of the RFC. When I proved that the RFC included determining whether a source could be used within a particular article and that my argument was relevant, the closer offered a new justification of his/her close by using majority opinion. Majority opinion does not determine consensus and does not override WP policy least the policy itself gets changed. When I explained that simply going with majority opinion and ignoring policy based arguments was disallowed, the closer ceased showing interest in discussing it further or trying to substantiate the close with a justification that wasn't against WP policy. Seeing as there is no policy based justification for the close, I suggest that the close be changed to "due to inactivity" or moved to a different dispute resolution forum that addresses the aspect of appropriate uses of questionable sources, and/or whether a source is questionable or not.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The policy cited by the OP has to do with closure of a user conduct RFC, which doesn't appear to be applicable. The RFC was a article content RFC, which has different and less rigid closing guidelines. If the OP thinks that the close was improper, the venue for considering that is WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get bureaucratic about going to WP:AN.--v/r - T P 17:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TParis, that the bureaucracy shouldn't be a big issue. However, if editors are unwilling to examine this here, then I'll relist this on the other AN. Regarding RFC/U, I was mistaken in citing it, however my objection is still justified by WP guidelines regarding closing and the analysis of consensus. There is no clear consensus and the closer even admitted to ignoring policy based arguments which is against article content RFC guidelines for closing/moving discussions. There are also other matters like forum shopping that I didn't discuss with closer, but don't think it's necessary since there wasn't a consensus to begin with.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't really an RFC. Looking back in history when it was open , it wasn't transcluded anywhere other than that page, so you never saw ANY input from anyone that didn't come to that page. That is fine for a discussion, but you don't get any "uninvolved" opinions that way. I guess you can call it "RFC", but really it is just a local discussion. I also note that you can go to WP:RSN to get better service when it comes to determining if a source is reliable or not. Not exactly what you are asking for, just saying that when you are looking for "objective opinions", you pretty much have to ask outside the circle of editors that are arguing over it. Dennis - 2¢ 23:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make the RFC. The only thing I'm asking for is that it's closure gets reviewed and hopefully overturned. If you and other editors feel that it doesn't even suffice as an RFC because it didn't seek external input, then that's fine with me.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved from WP:ANI and retitled to "Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her". Cunard (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This wasn't an RFC. That said it still falls under "other closures" on WP:Closing discussions. From my view of looking at the arguments, from a policy perspective the closure seems appropriate. Could have been more detailed, but, with proper attribution, it seems a fairly straightforward understanding of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:SELFSOURCE. Given you need to show the closure to be unreasonable understanding of consensus and that the closure wont be challenged "if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if it was made on the basis of policy." It doesn't seem like the closure should be reversed to me. --Obsidi (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus. No consensus was presented or agreed upon by the editors involved. On top of that, valid policy based arguments were completely ignored. Sorry, but WP:AttributePOV does not override WP:QS which specifically states that questionable and self published sources should only be used on topics/articles about themselves. Even the WP:Selfsource, that you referenced, defines where self published sources can be used and that's in articles about themselves or topics about themselves. A film review, is a review about a third party and is not about author or source itself. That means on articles about different topics, they are not considered reliable. If WP:AttributePOV was enough to merit inclusion of opinions simply because they are quoted and attributed, then we'd could put facebook messages from young earth creationists alongside peer reviewed scholarly works. Sorry, but WP has clearly defined policies regarding reliability and questionable sources have very limited use on wikipedia. So the comments/opinions citing WP:AttributePOV for inclusion of questionable sources are actually against policy and not aligned with it. WP:AttributePOV is for sources already deemed reliable and says nothing about self published works and questionable sources being permitted in any article so long as they are properly attributed. We have multiple policies that strictly prohibit that.

Without revising the discussion here. The point is that the closure admitted to ignoring arguments after demonstrating a lack of understanding of the scope of the discussion. That means their rationale for closing is inherently flawed because they didn't understand the purpose of the discussion to begin with. Furthermore, when this was pointed out, they admitted to just siding with "majority opinion" which is also against WP policies regarding consensus. There was no consensus, valid policy based arguments were ignored while other arguments that violated WP policies were included, and that lead to an erroneous closure review.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a review of the closing, not a second bite at the apple. With that in mind, after looking briefly at the merits, I would conclude that the close was within expectations (although a bit brief) and there is no obvious failure in process that forces us to overturn it. This doesn't mean it is "right", only that it is within procedural expectations. Every close is always "wrong" in someone's eyes, and the purpose of review isn't to judge the merits of the discussion, it is to weigh them only enough to determine if the close is reasonable, and that someone who is completely uninvolved could come to the same conclusion. That doesn't mean that everyone uninvolved MUST come to the same conclusion, only that the closing is reasonably within the range of "sane". On that point, it passes. Now, that said, it was only a local consensus, it was not a real RFC. You can go to WP:RSN or follow the instructions at WP:RFC to do a proper RFC, with the goal of getting opinions from people who aren't emotionally invested in the outcome of the discussion. That is always the best solution, as it will offer unbiased insights. If so compelled, I recommend doing so slowly with a neutral and balanced approach, without indicating your preference in the wording of the initial proposal. Dennis - 2¢ 18:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know how you guys can offer input without addressing the points/arguments put before you. When closing an argument the closer is suppose to ignore arguments that are against policy and is suppose to evaluate the arguments put forward by those involved. The closer did not do this and has admitted to this. He/she didn't understand the scope of the discussion, admitted to ignoring policy based arguments, and admitted to going with a simple majority which is not how consensus is determined and is also a violation of rules pertaining to consensus. So, no, it wasn't "within expectations" for multiple reasons. It's not simply a matter of "disagreeing" it's a matter of WP policy and allowing the use of questionable sources to make claims about third parties on articles/topics not about the source itself is against WP:QS and WP:Selfsource. Local RFCs are not allowed to change or ignore policy unless the policy is changed. Again, it is not "sane" to allow Ken Hamm's facebook quotes to stand along side peer reviewed scientific works about the age of the earth, and that's what the closure of this RFC does. It shows a lack of understanding of the relevant policies determining the appropriate use of questionable sources, ignored valid policy based arguments, and went with a simple majority instead of evaluating the merits of the arguments. That's not how closing is suppose to be done.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you haven't guessed by now, the best solution is to do a real RFC instead. Because the last wasn't transcluded to a larger audience, I think it would be in good faith to do so. If your interest is finding a solution, to get input, to get a true answer from the community, that is your best option. Dennis - 2¢ 22:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis were you going to actually address the arguments made about this closure being against policy or just continue ignoring them?Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. (After there has been sufficient discussion, would an experienced editor assess the consensus in this closure review?) Cunard (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the timestamp, I had thought this was already archived.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the closer didn't understand the scope of the RFC and admitted to ignoring policies and policy based arguments in the RFC, there is also an issue of Forumshopping that was done on this topic by the creator of this local RFC. This issue has been brought up and discussed on multiple noticeboards and noticeboard talk pages numerous times, with the creator trying to find some avenue or spin to insert Breitbart.com as a reliable source even though multiple editors in almost every discussion explained why it couldn't be used or explained specifically where it could be used. The RFC certainly didn't disclose these other noticeboard discussions.

RS Noticeboard

NPOV Noticeboard

RS Noticeboard again

Verifiability Talk Page

Sorry, I don't know how to link directly to a topic, but just do a search for "breitbart" or "Victor" and you'll see that's quite a bit of forumshopping.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Starting an article on the film "A Nigger in the Woodpile" (1904)

The article List_of_American_films_of_1904 has a red link for A Nigger in the Woodpile. I have secondary sources from which I can create an article on this film. I cannot do so because it gives me a "permission denied" template then recommends I bring this up here, which is what I'm doing. Please unlock this title so I can proceed. Thank you. Zombiesturm (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

When I had a similar issue (I think a film title with Bastard, or something along those lines), I created it in my sandbox and then got an admin to move it to the mainspace. Lugnuts 18:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I put in a barebones stub, only the creation requires admin privileges. You should be able to edit it without issue now. Seraphimblade 18:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Zombiesturm (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Seraphimblade - would you be able to do the same with the talkpage, with just creating it with the {{film}} project template? Lugnuts 18:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't suppose that the second the article is created, we could go on ahead and put it on indefinite semi-protection? Or at least pending changes? I totally WP:AGF with everyone here, hope for new accounts, and am grateful for the huge amounts of work IP editors put into this place, but we can't even trust the rest of the internet with Cheese. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've created the talk page accordingly. As to preemptive protection, that's not really done, but I imagine any disruption will be dealt with swiftly. I doubt most of our vandals are into early 20th century silent films in any case. Seraphimblade 20:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a real film and part of film history. Pretty much all film from such an early time is notable to some degree. It might be a troll/vandal magnet but I think it too obscure. I have watch listed it. Chillum 23:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I created "Run, Nigger, Run" back in March, and in 9 months it has yet to be vandalized. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sanction Shortening Request

Moved from WP:AN/I by RGloucester

I sincerely apologize for the drama yesterday. I was upset that someone else doxxed me, and I just lashed out. I took some time to think, drew a bit, and in general took the rest of yesterday and most of today to calm down. In light of yesterday's drama, this will probably be turned down, but I request to have my topic ban shortened. That is all. --DSA510 Pls No H8 22:53, Today (UTC−5)

@DungeonSiegeAddict510: This is the wrong forum. Move this to WP:AN, and please follow the appropriate instructions. RGloucester — ☎ 22:59, Today (UTC−5)

@DungeonSiegeAddict510: I've done it for you, to make it easier. RGloucester — ☎ 04:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you. --DSA510 Pls No H8 04:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to point out that User:DungeonSiegeAddict510 wasn't topic banned for yesterday's drama, but was topic banned for disruption. I think the topic ban should remain in place. In the meantime, surely there are other articles this user can edit in a positive manner. Dreadstar ☥ 06:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I commend DungeonSiegeAddict510's apology. It's rough being doxxed and it's understandable that such an act might prompt some poor behavior or judgement. But I think that it's best to stay for him to stay away from the issue a bit and if can be a productive and non-disruptive presence on non-GamerGate articles for a while, then we can revisit shortening the topic ban or consider removing it altogether. Gamaliel (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies are great but they enter into diminishing returns when used often. This is a different issue than the Kangaroo Court thing that brought you a hair from being sanctioned but for an apology? I may be a softy but I am willing to accept a second apology in as many days.

That being said I can see the point of view for those seeking sanctions against you. Chillum 08:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

One editor posts a picture of Hitler to the talk page, and you tell that editor: "You sir, made my day. You'll probably be indef banned, but you will forever have a place in my heart for that edit." Cant you see how that does not help in improving the article? You were banned for WP:FORUM posting, in other words not trying to improve the article with reliable sourced information but just trying to talk about the subject on the talk page. So far I have not seen a reason to believe that has changed. --Obsidi (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Not just yet It's been less than a week since the topic ban was enacted, and there is virtually no activity on your account outside the Gamergate controversy (there is some, but it's either ancient or consists of a few scattered minor edits). An apology is a good step to take—it's something I rarely see around here, and as such I'm impressed. But to lift a topic ban like this we really need to see a pattern of improvement in behavior. I would strongly recommend you try finding some topic area you like editing outside of Gamergate. Even if it's all minor edits, even if it's all discussion of improving articles, even if it's discussion of improving policy: so long as there's a pattern of improvement that those reviewing the topic ban can hang their hat on. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Not just yet Your post at AN/I and ArbCom throwing the nuclear weapon indicates that you're completely wound up in GG to not be productive for any use in the topic area. Endorse Mendaliv's suggestion, but also editing outside of the topic area for the full duration of the topic ban is going to earn a lot of good faith that your actions so far have burned. Hasteur (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment - I'd like to hear from DSA ... How are you going to change your behavior regarding the editing of this topic? Because from what I recall (vaguely), a lot of your posts on the GamerGate talk page weren't very productive to me. That said, you should indeed follow the suggestion to edit something else during this time (are you not interested in anything else?) starship.paint ~ regal 07:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Revdel problem

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T20526

Boeing 777 article history

Firstly, I don't want an argument as to whether or not the user name is "grossly offensive". What matters here is the problem I am describing. A user with an offensive user name made a vandalistic edit to the Boeing 777 article. This was quickly reverted by ClueBot NG and the user was blocked by Jehochman. I atempted to revdel the user name from the article's history, but was only partially successful. This is due to Cluebot NG's use of the User name in the edit summary. I realise that this is only going to create a problem in a very small minority of edits, but... Is it possible for the software to be tweaked so that where a user name is revdel'd, all occurrences of user names are suppressed, not just the user/bot that made the edit. Alternatively, could the bot be recoded to have a filter so that when potentially problematic user names are encountered, the user name is not repeated in the edit summary. To be clear, I have no complaints about the bots edits, ClueBot NG does sterling work and is a real asset to the project. Pinging its operators Cobi, Crispy1989 and methecooldude so that they are aware of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Can't you just apply RevDel to the edit summary for the bot's edit? I'm not sure that there would be a big benefit to one-click RevDel everywhere, and it seems extremely hard to implement — for example, a human might just write "Rv " manually, and how would the software detect it? Also, see the WP:STOCKS section "I missed that day at target practice" — some time ago, a high-activity user was accidentally oversighted, causing tons of server problems. If someone misclicks and RevDels a high-activity user's username, this will probably affect thousands of pages, including (perhaps) ones where the user was mentioned without a link. Finally, how should the bot know which usernames should or should not be filtered? Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

D'oh! - why did I not spot that? Anyways, that has been done. Aren't there filters in place that trigger bot reports to WP:UAA? I appreciate that not all names triggered are problematic, but I don't see the harm in not repeating a user name if there is a potential problem. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Advice requested regarding mergers and moves of Bach articles

I'm at my wits' end dealing with a situation with which I was asked to help, so I've decided to punt and bring it here for wider attention.

Gerda Arendt created articles on variant forms of Bach's Magnificat (or different Bach Magnificats) which Francis Schonken regards as undesirable forks. He added material from them to a previously existing article and then proposed them for merger. He then started a merger discussion, closed it in his own favor despite objections (one of which took the form of removal of a merger template) and implemented the mergers. Gerda brought the situation to me for review at User talk:Yngvadottir#Magnificat, where I eventually determined that a new merger discussion needed to take place, to be closed by a neutral party, and that Francis had not raised any compelling reason why the articles should not be reverted to their state prior to his implementing the merger, to facilitate that discussion. I announced that to that end I would be reverting his actions, and did so. (See my contributions for November 21, reverting edits by him earlier the same day.) He meanwhile left several messages on my talk, which I stopped to answer, and then began reverting me. I re-reverted him once and then left the situation after notifying all who I had seen participating in the former discussion, plus one who had appeared on my talk, and suggesting that one or more WikiProjects be notified. The new discussion is here. I have asked a couple of times subsequently whether the articles are now in a condition that facilitates the new discussion; the answer has not been clear, complicated by statements that Gerda had agreed to some part of what Francis did (and this is the point where my unfamiliarity with the topic and inability to keep strings of letters and/or numbers straight, which I believe makes me suited to acting neutrally in the dispute, becomes a disadvantage). However, I was concerned by this edit, in which Francis accuses me of involving myself in the dispute and demands I revert and censure others, and I now see edits such as this at the new merger discussion and this section on Gerda's talk (with an objection by another editor), in which Francis is in my judgement overstepping the bounds of civility. There was an earlier instance of his accusing Gerda of battleground tactics and reminding her, in my view inappropriately, of the ArbCom case concerning infoboxes: that concerned his moving an article on a mass, also by J. S. Bach, and is here in my talk page archives. I remain neutral on the issue(s): Francis obviously has relevant expertise and it might be that he is correct and can achieve consensus for his view. However, in my judgement he is making a fair discussion of the issue next to impossible, and Gerda's not chopped liver as an expert (or an article writer) either. I've considered re-reverting and massive application of protection, but I'm not sure I could get it all right even if that heavy-handed approach is appropriate. So I'm bringing this here for the consideration of more and wiser heads; I will now inform both editors. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I asked Yngvadottir because I wanted to avoid going to a noticeboard ... - Clarification: there is only one Magnificat by Bach, however he wrote two distinctly different versions, first (1723) in E-flat major (BWV 243a), then (1733) transposed to D-major (BWV 243). There are other differences outlined in the merge discussion. Even for works with fewer differences, it has become common practise, initiated by Nikkimaria in the summer of 2013, to have individual articles for all versions. I started such an article on the first version. The problem I see is that Francis first copied massively from the new article to the old one, only then demanded a merge to the old, when de facto he had merged already. I believe that we should have two articles, but need to decide how to avoid redundancy. I don't think we need admin action but a fair discussion of the proposed merge, keeping in mind that it happened already and would need to be reverted if consensus is against it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

ps: reading it again, I think that Yngvadottir thought of several Magnificats because several redirects point to the two versions of the one. When I wrote the new article, Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, I moved the old one from Magnificat (Bach) to Magnificat in D major, BWV 243, to disambiguate by the different key, but think now that it was not necessary, because the later version is the one commonly performed today. Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

pps: handle advice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that, or the other half of the conversation at the other person's talk page. Pinging Francis Schonken to come here and explain himself. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: For what it's worth, I got tired of beating my head against the wall with Francis Schonken, who seems to think that consensus is "whatevere I want." The failrue to collaborate and the tendency to edit against consensus - and to do rather poor quality editing when he does - is worrisome. The individual articles are not POV-forking, they are not stubs, and they all are fine as stand-alone pieces. Francis Schonken is creating a problem in search of an issue. Montanabw 03:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd probably have agreed with a merge, but that's neither here nor there, because unless I'm misreading, it looks like Francis self-closed as favorable a merge proposal where two out of two other people had opposed the merge. Question - did anyone take this to a wikiproject? It's irrelevant to the behavior issue, but could help, or have helped, with content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Gerda stated that it was put to the WikiProject but there was little interest. As to your reading of the first discussion, Roscelese, that's what I see too. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The merge discussions are way too long, for my taste. The question he raised was if BWV 243a should be merged into BWV 243, - a version before he started copying into it from the other. To first create "his" version and then request that what he copied from should be redirected makes no sense to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI...

There's currently a backlog (155 pages, 22 media) at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion if someone feels like heading that way. Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 07:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Spanish arrival to Chiapas

Per below, at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

The Guatemalan user ("Simon Burchell") stubborn not add a template to the article partly about his country. I request help please. Thymepeekk (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Also posted here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#disruptive editing on Spanish conquest of Chiapas. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've commented at the above thread. Somebody close this please to avoid multiple discussions on the same topic. Philg88 16:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Clarification /Closure review of Siteban of Djcheburashka

Ricky81682 clarified the close as a block not a siteban.--Obsidi (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

I am requesting clarification on the current status of User:Djcheburashka as to if the user is indef site banned or only indef blocked. I requested clarification from the closing admin here, but it has been almost two days without a response (the admin did post one other edit during that time period ).

Evidence suggesting that the user is indef site banned:

The admin closed this discussion by saying "User:Djcheburashka is hereby indefinitely banned"
The edit summary says "closed - editor is banned"
The blocklog says that the user was "banned"

Evidence suggesting that the user is indef blocked (but not site banned):

On the users talk page, the admin wrote: "Pursuant to this discussion, I have indefinitely blocked you" (could just be a block to enforce the ban though).
The user does not appear to be in the Category:Banned Misplaced Pages users.
There were only 3 of 15 (20%) people who supported a siteban in the discussion (and 2 of them were highly involved). Should the user have actually been sitebanned I would like to review the closure as I believe that would have incorrectly interpreted the consensus.

Either way an appropriate template should be added to the users talk page. And if they are not banned I would ask that the closure be edited and the blocklog corrected. Blocks are different then bans (Misplaced Pages:Banning_policy#Difference_between_bans_and_blocks), and a block could be reviewed by any admin, while a ban would require community consensus to overturn. As such we should be clear which one applies to a user. Normally I would like to wait for the closing admin to answer questions, but so far I have not received a response in almost two days so I brought it here that it might be resolved. --Obsidi (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I too think it would be good to get everything consistent and clear. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

According to my tally of comments, consensus does not support a site ban. The latter seems to be a drastic measure for a new user who didn't fully understand the process, and yes, I realize in some instances it is not an acceptable excuse. An indefinite block also seems harsh for what some editors perceive to be unamenable behavior, and I am but one voice among many. I have always respected the decisions of our admins, but I tend to be more lenient and forgiving of new users, having been in that position myself in the not so distant past. Atsme☯ 19:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It should have been an indefinite block not a ban. I'll correct the close. Also, it's is not a vote but a view of the consensus. The consensus from those arguing for an interaction ban to those arguing for sanctions to even those arguing against sanctions admitted that the editor has been problematic and has at the very least responded with bad-faith comments and tactics in response. Those arguing against any sanctions only kept saying "he's a new editor" which is a very weak version of WP:AGF. No one has provided an explanation for why an editor who has a serious issue with bad-faith tactics should be permitted to continue here. Simply saying "be patient, be patient" when an editor is repeatedly and hostile to everyone else is not a solution. I saw no evidence that anyone even suggests that the editor was improving, merely that everyone else needs to understand that he's still learning. Bold editing is not slapping POV notices on pages and edit warring to keep them there without any serious interest in discussion. That's inappropriate behavior from an established editor and being new (which seems to have been debated) really doesn't give you a pass. It is somewhat bizarre to argue that for an editor to be too new to get the general way things are done here about consensus but should here making large-scale policy-based arguments at the same time. If the editor responds with something other than "my antics should excused because I am correcting a great wrong," and actually shows the competency to discuss incremental changes and to avoid grudges, then I think they could be a productive user. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I do not appreciate the desire to immediately come to ANI rather than waiting even a day for me to provide a response on my talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the block and rationale. I assume that the OP meant no disrespect by asking for clarification here. Ivanvector (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Review blocks of new users who commented at Talk:Punjabi language

Hi. I would like to ask for one or more outside admins to review the indefinite blocks which I recently placed against Jimidar, Jaspr8, Harvard2014, Jaskaran singh sachdeva, and Soulmine22 in connection with a sockpuppetry investigation (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Babanwalia).

A discussion was started at Talk:Punjabi language over the question of which writing systems should be mentioned in the article — specifically, over whether the article should mention Devanagari (the customary writing system of the Hindi language) as one of several writing systems used for Punjabi. Several brand-new accounts, which had never edited on Misplaced Pages before, showed up on the article's talk page to register opposition to the idea of listing Devanagari as a writing system for Punjabi. The arguments brought forth by these new accounts are, for the most part, recitations of personal experiences that the users have never seen Punjabi text written in Devanagari. Statements of this kind, of course, are generally discounted here as "original research" (WP:NOR), though there were a couple of outside sources cited which might or might not be good enough to satisfy WP:RS.

I blocked five of these new accounts after they were reported in an SPI case (see above), because when a bunch of posts like this appear all at the same time in a discussion, more often than not it means someone is trying to influence the outcome via sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. However, the originally suspected sockmaster (Babanwalia) has made what I consider a reasonable case against his being responsible for this set of events.

One of the five new accounts (Jimidar) turned out to be someone who is active on the Punjabi Misplaced Pages (pa.wikipedia.org), and I've unblocked him. One of the remaining four (Harvard2014) has now asked for his block to be reviewed — and if you look at his unblock request, you'll see there is a strong feeling here (also reflected in the SPI case page) that the SPI is simply a pretext for an effort to suppress the anti-Devanagari viewpoint in the Punjabi writing system discussion.

I, personally, have no ties whatsoever to the Punjab region, the Punjabi language, or any other language or ethnic group in the Indian subcontinent, and I took my actions solely as an SPI clerk and not with a view to promote any side to this argument. However, just to be sure the people in question get a review that is not only fair, but is also seen to be fair, I would like to ask other admins to look at Harvard2014 and the other still-blocked users and decide whether there are reasonable grounds for unblocking any or all of them.

For that matter, it probably wouldn't hurt to get some neutral outside input at Talk:Punjabi language regarding the writing system debate. My only real concern there is that any content decisions should be based on the applicable Misplaced Pages sourcing policies, including the WP:BURDEN subsection of the verifiability policy. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Given the Checkuser said the accounts are Unrelated (not Possible or even unlikely but totally unrelated), I would unblock all of them. Yes its possible meatpuppetry is going on, but it would have to be from some kind of online source. If you just talk to your friend into posting, you are going to be from the geographic region and as such at least be "unlikely" to the checkuser. Its possible some website out there (or online friends) is referring people to this page, but I wouldn't care that much about this. And if you find out who is doing it, ban them. But, given we KNOW that is occurring for gamergate, and yet we have not banned all the SPA's for that, these shouldn't be banned either. Even so the closure of any RfC's or other discussion should properly analyze the arguments made and discount the statements unsupported by RS, thereby ignoring these SPA. --Obsidi (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Obsidi you state "If you just talk to your friend into posting, you are going to be from the geographic region". That's an incorrect assumption. I have many family and friends who live all over the world that could potentially be used to support my position in arguments and checkuser would find us unrelated. I think many people could say the same. Checkuser is just one tool that can be used in an investigation, and an unrelated finding only means that there is no technical evidence linking the accounts. That's why we say that

CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. I can't understand why you would say "Its possible some website out there (or online friends) is referring people to this page, but I wouldn't care that much about this". Why would you not care if a group of individuals were editing in concert in order to skew an argument and undermine a neutral consensus from forming? I'm not saying that there are definitely nefarious tactics being used in this case, however your arguments make no sense (at least to me).--Jezebel's Ponyo 20:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes its possible they contacted friends from all over the world and asked them to participate. Yes checkuser is just one tool, but its important for what it suggests as much as what it says directly. I would rather that these SPA's who are not presenting policy based arguments have their views appropriately discounted for not making policy based arguments during closure. Just mark the posts as {{subst:spa|Example}}, that's why we have the template. --Obsidi (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's more than likely some of the users involved were canvassed to contribute through an off-wiki mailing list. Personally, I would recommend leaving the accounts blocked for now and require that they submit an unblock request first. The blocked accounts don't have any contributions outside of the RfC and I think they should demonstrate their willingness to edit outside of this context. While they'd be welcome to contribute to RfC discussions, I'd also like some assurance that the accounts won't engage in a group-like mentality to sway the conversation in their preferred manner. Mike V • Talk 22:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In The News needs you

Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates is a lightly watched page that has the very important function of selecting items to post in the top right corner of the Home Page. We need more participation. You could help by:

Review nominations and leave comments.
Nominate articles about topics that are "in the news". The simplest way to understand the criteria is that ITN items should receive coverage in multiple news outlets, preferably in more than one country. There is also a list of news events that are, by default, considered to be ITN-worthy. The list is located at WP:ITN/R.
Help improve articles that might be failing in their nominations because the article need updating or expansion.
Decide if an item has sufficient support and is ready to post. Any editor with sufficient skills can mark and item .
If you are an administrator, you can post items that are ready. We have a timer that indicates when the next update is due.

ITN is one of the easiest ways to get your work featured on the home page. Please consider participating. Thank you, and have a great day. Jehochman 18:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A situation has developed that requires help from a second admin (besides me). Is there somebody around who could take a look at this thread and advise? Jehochman 19:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that uninvolved admin eyes would be valuable on this. Jehochman has posted an item to ITN which many editors think (and are saying loudly) didn't have consensus to be posted. It is not the first time that Jehochman's posts at ITN have raised eyebrows. I realise a good number of those are somewhat on the old side; the two very controversial items in the last month show that the lessons have not been learnt, despite assurances they would be. I'm loathe to suggest that any admin step away from ITN, given the general lack of admin involvement, but some of these threads have been extremely disruptive and have made ITN, always a fairly controversial place to work, even worse. The best solution here would be (a) for Jehochman to listen to what others are saying and be more ready to self-revert where he's mis-read consensus and (b) for more admins (and perhaps a more diverse group of admins) to get involved in ITN to take some of the pressure off those who work pretty hard there. GoldenRing (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about revdel'ed content

BLP subject writes to OTRS with concerns about a paragraph added to their bio that is inappropriate and unsourced, and serious enough that it merits an RD2 revdel. Subject then asks for identity of editor, I reply we have nothing more than their username (not an IP in this case). Matter apparently closed. Subject writes back two days later asking for a screenshot of the revdel'ed material. Under the deletion policy and access to deleted material, can that be provided to them? §FreeRangeFrog 18:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Was the content deleted (not revdel) in the normal manner for BLP violations? Was the talk page used? Was the community involved in that decision? Should OTRS volunteers get involved in aiding unknown and likely COI conflicted individuals possibly prepare legal action against editors? I know, that's a lot of questions, but proper procedure should be followed. COI conflicted individuals who misuse the OTRS system to make an endrun around following normal procedures and PAG are problematic, and we should not enable them. Our normal way of dealing with BLP matters must be followed. OTRS does not make an exception, even when dealing with BLP matters. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If it was deleted for BLP issues, it's a valid deletion reason. The policy says that a valid reason needs to be given for normal review of the information. Taking a screenshot and sending it to them isn't normal review or a valid reason. If they asked for the identity of the editor and that was refused, and now they're asking for a screenshot, it sounds like they're setting up for a legal dispute - of which, they'd need to go to the Office. Dusti 19:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Seems likely to me that they are trying to use the screenshot of the material as evidence to seek a subpoena for the users IP address. ~~I would refer them to: Misplaced Pages:Libel and ask them to send an email to info-en-q@wikipedia.org and ask for it.~~ --Obsidi (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I know it's going to feel like I'm picking on you Obsidi, but again your reply makes little sense. You are suggesting that the subject email info-en-q@wikipedia.org in order to request the rev-deleted material when the opening statement of this thread states that's exactly what they have already done. I understand you are trying to be helpful, but perhaps, you could use a little more experience prior to providing advice at the Administrative Noticeboards? It seems to be your primary activity on Misplaced Pages. --Jezebel's Ponyo 20:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I meant legal@wikimedia.org. --Obsidi (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, so the revdel was perfectly valid, and any admin or 'crat or oversight member can verify that. That's not my concern. OTRS is used for this routinely because bio subjects would rather write an email than try and figure out a talk page, or otherwise call attention to the material. That's the reason we don't ask for oversight or revdel ON Misplaced Pages, we have other channels for that. COI is irrelevant, I'm not deleting sourced criticism of a politician or anything like that. Now, as to the purpose of the request, I think that's also irrelevant, since they could have taken a screenshot themselves and used it for whatever purpose (legal or otherwise). My question is: Can we or should we provide that information after it has been removed from public view? §FreeRangeFrog 19:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

They have to provide a valid reason for the request. At that point, it's up to the admin that's responding to the ticket in ORTS to decide if it's a valid enough reason to them. Dusti 19:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The point in the policy says: Any user with a genuine reason to view a copy of a deleted page may request a temporary review (or simply ask an administrator to supply a copy of the page). Note that these requests are likely to be denied if the content has been deleted on legal grounds (such as defamation or copyright violation), or if no good reason is given for the request. Dusti 19:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Repeating problematic content can get you into real trouble. Leave it to the professionals. -- zzuuzz 19:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't provide the requested information. In past occurrences, I've deferred the customer to legal and told them that we may require a subpoena to release such content. This helps prevent frivolous requests and ensures that the requests are for legal purposes only. Mike V • Talk 19:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've replied to them and told them we regrettably cannot provide such information (regardless of their motive in requesting it), the reasons why, and referred them to Legal. Thanks everyone for your guidance, I appreciate it. §FreeRangeFrog 19:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No, and please refer matter to WMF legal. NE Ent 19:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

User:John Donato

A page was moved all over the place, involving pagenames: WP:Dony Boy (record producer), WP:Life, Dony Boy (record producer), Gum donato, Normal Life Style, The great bible, Book:Holy bible, The Holy bible, Dony Beatz (record producer), User:John andro -- all a mess created by John Donato (talk · contribs) ; this needs cleanup. I don't know if there was an original article somewhere in that mess, but as redirects, they're inappropriate and as some pages have been speedily deleted, they all point to nowhere. I found out about this mess by a request at WP:RMTR that indicated move vandalism revert was required. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Anthony Appleyard for deleting the mess. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like cleanup has been done already. §FreeRangeFrog 22:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've just patrolled and tagged a new page Dony Boy by this same user with WP:CSD. Looks like it's been created and re-created a few times. Mediavalia 18:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, a UAA topic ban for Hoops gza

We've been here before (here, for instance): Hoops gza's contributions to WP:UAA are greatly appreciated but also greatly overdone. Recent conversation is found at User_talk:Edgar181#Usernames. Recent examples include a username "Da Cow", which they wanted blocked for being the pronunciation for "Dachau"; "Ratbastardassn", which I think may mean an association of rat bastards and thus in reference to the user themselves; and "Bangminah" which I think they think is a way of saying "bang a minor". Other users/admins recently involved are Yngvadottir, Edgar181, Connormah.

The problem here is twofold: a. a lack of good faith on the part of Hoops in terms of what users intend their name to be or to mean, and related to that an overemphasis on the US English pronunciation of certain things ("Da Cow" being the best example); b. UAA is already backlogged on a regular basis and plowing through report after report is tedious, so if that work is made more difficult it is to the detriment of the project. I suggest, and I do this reluctantly, a topic ban for Hoops gza. Mind you, last time this came up I was not in favor of it, but after plugging away there for a few days, yeah. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of the username policy is that it does not matter what the user's intentions are, but rather how the Misplaced Pages community interprets the username. For User talk:Da Cow 2.7 (you didn't spell the username correctly, ergo leaving admins unable to find it), an admin even requested that the user change the username (see the user's talk page for proof of this). For "Bangminah", I don't know what you're talking about - you are completely fabricating information about why I made that report. I never made a connection to "bang a minor", in fact I noted that Bang Minah is a famous person, and therefore this, too, in my estimation, is a username violation. I reported "Ratbastardassn" because it has the word BASTARD in it. That is an offensive word in the English language. If you look through the Users list (search "Bastard", for instance), you will see that usernames containing bastard and its variations are blocked on a regular basis as username violations. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Lately, I've definitely noticed from Hoops gza both a high volume of UAA reports and a high error rate. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

My main problems with the reports (for the umpteenth time it seems) is that many of them are borderline "violations" that are more subjective (not blatant and serious violations of policy) and that a great deal of the accounts have either never been used or have not edited in months to years - both points of which are in the guidelines at the top of UAA. I find myself pretty much in accordance with Drmies' two points. Connormah (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

For Bangminah you said "offensive and disruptive", so don't give me that "famous name" jive: you said it was offensive. Bastard, as I responded at UAA, meh. Really. "Bastard" here is something the editor applies to themselves, so they're not trying to insult you. That I didn't spell out Da Cow's name completely is that there's no point to it, and that another admin said something too is immaterial. Your point about the user name list is immaterial. You've been asked before to stop interpreting these user names so narrowly and you couldn't. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Judgment is required to work out when names need to be reported in order to avoid overwhelming the system. Hoops gza's enthusiasm is good, but the reports are not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Support Unfortunately, I think a temporary restriction for Hoops gza on making reports to UAA is necessary. Numerous attempts to get Hoops gza to work within the guidelines for reporting usernames have not worked. Dealing with the bad reports takes too much effort away from handling usernames that are actually problematic. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Support - this has been raised several time before, but Hoops does not seem to be learning from experience. If he wants to work in this area, I suggest a three months' break during which he watches the page regularly to see which reports are accepted and which declined and why. JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Support - and as JohnCD suggests, then look at the reports on the noticeboard (including how other reporting editors explain why they are reporting a name) and how they get handled. Also, I'd urge the editor to review the guidelines posted there. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Support When the administrators acting on noticeboard complaints are throwing their hands in the air due to a specific editor exacerbating the backlog problem through the repeated inclusion of frivolous reports, it's fair to ask for a topic ban to help prevent further unnecessary bulking up of the backlog. Hoops gza has been given ample opportunity to step back and better vet their reports at UAA, to no avail. It's time for a topic ban. --Jezebel's Ponyo 21:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Support. I can't fault this user's enthusiasm and good faith, but after a quick review of their edits to UAA I see a concerning pattern of newbie biting, failure to assume good faith of new users, and a regrettable attitude when asked nicely to take a little more care with their reports. Hopefully someone can step up to the plate and mentor this user, so their enthusiasm will not go to waste. Lankiveil 10:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC).
Oppose If you want to ban him for being innacurate, you may as well as ban the bot that's filling up the bot side of that page, it's wildly inaccurate. Further, per "Da Cow", it's entirely possible that a user would try to escape notice by changing the spelling of a name so that it sounded like something else (i.e: "Dachau", "Da Cow"). So his posting wasn't out of line. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrator eyes appreciated

The enforcement request page for the Gamergate general sanctions could use the eyes of more uninvolved administrators to respond to requests. Please watch the page. RGloucester — ☎ 06:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Radical idea: Get rid of the page and/or redirect it. It's only serving as a bottleneck in terms of the full sanctions enforcement request page. The enforcement page for ArbCom has 1000+ watchers. Even if you get 15 more people to watchlist it to make it 70, it will never be in the full capacity of the full. There's tons of uninvolved admins at the general enforcement page. Tutelary (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a "bottleneck". Any uninvolved administrator can impose sanctions at any time under GS/GG. The enforcement page is a place where non-administrators can request action and provide evidence. This deliberative process provides an appropriate way to deal with complaints, and doesn't allow for unproductive threaded discussion. There has been no problem with answering requests. They've all been answered in a timely manner. I've seen AE requests linger for weeks, and that hasn't happened at this page. WP:AE cannot be used for community-established sanctions. Please work within the processes provided to you, as this will result in a better ending for us all. RGloucester — ☎ 06:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

From WP:AE request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions, or request other administrative measures, such as revert restrictions, with respect to pages that are being disrupted in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions, or or appeal discretionary sanctions to uninvolved administrators. Seems appropriate given GamerGate is discretionary sanctions. Tutelary (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There are two types of discretionary sanctions: ArbCom DS and community DS. The reason that page is called "Arbitration enforcement" is because it is only for the enforcement of remedies specified by ArbCom cases. These are not ArbCom sanctions. These are community issued discretionary sanctions, and hence cannot use the "Arbitration enforcement" page. There is nothing wrong with the present channel. RGloucester — ☎ 07:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Redirect/Disambiguate Allen Bernstein

Hey guys sorry to bug you but I've spent the last 3 hours creating a new article and now I have to go do other things in the real world. The new article is:

Allen Irvin Bernstein

But there's already a redirect page sending searches for "Allen Bernstein" to Roxy Bernstein. At the moment I can't remember how to make a disambig page containing both names, but seems like it would be a good idea, if anyone wants to take care of that. Appreciate any help on this. Textorus (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Done at Allen Bernstein - tweak if necessary. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much. Textorus (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Page creation needed

I request that Mᵫller is redirected to Müller per Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Redirects#Redirect request: Mᵫller. It appears to be create-protected. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 19:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Done TheCatalyst31 19:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Bad redirect. You should have tried to find at least one example of this ligature in use. It is not used. 80.132.64.10 (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Clean-up request for a template's history

Hi. Casually I discovered this template and, looking at the "revision history", I noticed that it was filled of trolling, heavy isults, personal attacks etc; by an anon vandal and some indef-blocked sp; from March 2012 to April 2014. I would request a clean-up of this revisions from the chronology, as is the practice (if I remember correctly) in these cases. I request it also to discourage this habit to use the "edit summary" for trolling; and to delete the vandalized versions, continuously restored by vandals with a simple counter-rollback. I hope this is the right place for this kind of notices. Btw, thanks for attention. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@DerBorg: Just taking a quick look, I don't see anything there that meets WP:CRD. Can you give an example of exactly what you want removed? Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Categories: