Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:59, 18 January 2015

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• 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

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

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

(Initiated 27 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 95 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 75 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)

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

(Initiated 66 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 57 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 49 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine

(Initiated 35 days ago on 7 December 2024) slowed for a while Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Seraphimblade 10:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Wicked (2024 film)#RfC on whether credited name or common name should be used

(Initiated 31 days ago on 11 December 2024) Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. Happily888 (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 22 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages

(Initiated 10 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance

(Initiated 10 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (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 108 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 74 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:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 65 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 45 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:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 14 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Proposal to streamline community sanctions enforcement

Since this board is where community-authorised general sanctions are enacted and the venue for appeals of admin actions made under the general sanctions, this seems like a better place than a village pump for this proposal.

Currently, discussions concerning enforcement of community sanctions take place over various different venues. GamerGate, for example, has its own enforcement noticeboard, whereas various others don't seem to have one at all and are presumably discussed here or at ANI. I propose we follow the example of WP:AE, which handles enforcement of all arbitration remedies (including discretionary sanctions), and create a central noticeboard to which misconduct can be reported and where uninvolved admins can discuss whether sanctionable misconduct has occurred and, if so, what sanctions to impose. The advantage of a central noticeboard is that it's likely to attract more admins, it's more prominent (and thus more transparent), it reduces the bureaucratic overhead of having to monitor multiple pages, it takes some traffic away from ANI (and into the hands of admins who are experienced and interested in sanctions enforcement), and it's clear where enforcement requests need to go. It also means that you're likely to get input from a wider group of admins, which mitigates against claims from tendentious editors that the process for any one topic area is invalid because it's dominated by admins who regularly admin in that topic area.

Eventually, if desired, it could be used to report violations of things like community-imposed topic bans, but I suggest we allow it to get off the ground before widening its remit. Thoughts? Comments? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

A centralized GS board would be fine, but per existing AN / ANI policy, participation should be open to all editors. NE Ent 20:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought that goes without saying. Comment by non-admins is welcome at AE, as long as the comments are on-topic and constructive (which is about the same as AN/ANI except that it's actually enforced). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Its enforced because its practically a personal fiefdom of a few admins. Generally the more noticeboards and distribution of tasks there are, the less likely you are to get 'more' involvement. Suspect this would just end up as another rug to hide things under/playground for admins. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. AE has 1,139 watchers; the GamerGate enforcement page 74. I know which process I'd use if I wanted to force something through on the sly (hint: I'd pick the one that was less watched than my talk page). And it's enforced because we don't allow people to hijack discussions with off-topic remarks like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not simply merge the community-sanction processes into AE itself? We wouldn't be concerned about the formalities about "whose turf" that is, Arbcom's or the "community"'s, would we? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There are many reasons why we cannot merge the processes. I recommend that you fellows take a look at a proposal made by Arbitration Committee clerk Callanecc: WP:CDS. This is the perfect time to implement it. It proposes to standardise the system of community discretionary sanctions, which already exists, but which is run on an ad hoc basis. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you elaborate a bit on those "many reasons"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Just noting first that I'm not working on community discretionary sanctions as a clerk. It does have to do with whose jurisdiction it's under, there are different processes and procedures which apply to arbitration enforcement and community sanctions no matter how close we try to make them. For one, having two different procedures for how they are enforced and appealed (see both provisions at Template:Arbitration standard provisions) and the haphazard community version of primarily completely admin discretion for both enforcement and appeals will cause confusion. Secondly actions by admins doing arbitration enforcement cannot be lessened as ArbCom has the authority to protected them and has before whereas admin actions enforcing community sanctions are protected by an understanding, so there are two different processes operating there as well. I can definitely see arguments in favour of merging the process, though it would need both the community's and committee's okay, since WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is in their domain and mentioned in their procedures which would need to be changed (which can't be done without a motion). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think perhaps the point of having *non-arbcom* sanctions is missed in this proposal. The community can certainly act independently from Arbcom, and should not have its ability to address issues withdrawn. In many cases, community sanctions have been applied in situations where Arbcom has refused to act; it makes no sense at all that Arbcom should then have sole control over the very sanctions it determined it should not apply in the first place. It perhaps might be better to think of it as different types and levels of sanctions which can be applied by different people, as part of a hierarchy of sanctions. Risker (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Quoting parts of the proposal: ...uninvolved admins ... more admins takes some traffic away from ANI (and into the hands of admins ... input from a wider group of admins, which mitigates against claims from tendentious editors ... Not why sure it "would go without saying" this isn't an attempt to restrict discussion to the subset of editors who have passed an Rfa. NE Ent 22:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please go and wikilawyer elsewhere. OR better still, go and write an article instead of derailing noticeboard threads with nonsense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• oppose I'd prefer to see these discussions continue at ANI/AN personally. I think a wider cross section of the community should be involved than shows up at AE or would be likely to show up at a new noticeboard. I don't feel ANI or AN are overwhelmed and I think the wider range of contributions here is largely (though certainly not entirely) a feature, not a bug. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not having a "wider range of contributions", but the nature of threaded discussion, which is often not conducive to dispute resolution. That's why AE works, and it is also why pages like WP:GGE work. AN/I doesn't allow for the regulation that AE does. RGloucester — ☎ 21:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The point I'm making is even if the AN/ANI discussions would be well served by more regulation (something I'm not certain of by any means), the likely loss of contributors would be problematic. I view that as a problem at AE already (the very small number of admins who work that). At AE it can't get too "fiefdom-ish" because ArbCom has the final say. With the community sanctions, that's less clear. Given that these are community sanctions, they should be discussed by the same community that is creating those sanctions. And as wide a community as possible IMO. Hobit (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

These things aren't generally discussed at AN/ANI—some are (in my experience usually because a conduct issue is brought to ANI and somebody points out the existence of the general sanctions) but others, if they're discussed at all, are discussed on obscure subpages like WP:GS/GG/E. I'm proposing that we have a simpler, consistent process. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I know a lot of them are discussed at AN/ANI. I'd prefer to leave that as the default place for these discussions. I worry quite a bit about the potential for railroading when the larger forum isn't there. Hobit (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - continue with the current scheme is best. I cannot see the point in making these changes - I cannot see any advantages in the changes. Contributing needs to be open to the community, as now, so that the watchers may also be watched.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There ... isn't a "current scheme", hence this proposal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support, for what it's worth. The proposal is to take action that would predictably improve the breadth of community attention to community enforcement requests. I don't see any disadvantage to this. At the very least it would give all community sanctions operations, across the whole encyclopaedia, a single. A single page to watchlist. I think mixing it up with WP:AE would be a mistake. Arbitration generates a legalistic protocol, but community sanctions don't (or shouldn't) have the same baggage. --TS 02:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Discussions that result in sanctions on AN/ANI often end up in a shit fight, not to put it too finely. A DS/CS/GS board should be made as a subpage to AN, much like ANI is and any open discussions/cases should be announced possibly by, but not limited to

1. having a transclusion much like the requests for closure (although that could become quite messy as the open requests attests)
2. having an infobox listing open discussions/cases, much like the existing WP:CENT/WP:VP one, or perhaps resurrecting the old RFC/U type one.
3. requiring that an announcement, much like the one Arbcom uses when they announce the end of a case or an amendment.

Basically, anything that brings in community engagement in a structured manner would be good. In a way, one could liken this to RFC/U but with sharper teeth. Blackmane (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support – I certainly support the proposal for a centralised CDS enforcement page. I too would like a merged ACDS/CDS enforcement page, but that might be more work than it is worth. I strongly support the WP:CDS proposal. We've already got community discretionary sanctions. This proposal does not change anything, in that regard, other than that it takes the present ad hoc process of running a community sanctions regime and codifies it in a way that will make everything easier. Structure is what we need. It has worked well for Gamergate, and it will work well for other CDS areas as well. RGloucester — ☎ 16:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment It might be worth explaining how this proposal is any different to the defunct sanctions noticeboard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a previous noticeboard. However, this proposal, as far as I can tell, is a mirror of AE for community sanctions, which presently have no centralised enforcement page. Some community sanctions have their own enforcement pages, established on an ad hoc basis, and others do not. A centralised enforcement page mirroring AE would reduce some of the bureaucratic nightmare of having many separate sanctions enforcement pages, would allow more eyes on each enforcement request, and would ensure that a structured forum for community sanctions enforcement requests would be available, as it is with AC sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 18:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with both Hobit & Toddy. Also contrary to Sidaway's naiive belief that it will improve attention, I've seen history show time and time again that it won't. That was among the major reasons why the community sanctions noticeboard was canned. I have no idea why HJM thinks it will be "more likely" to get attention, and any remarkably weak action taken against an effectively tendentious editor (as I noticed in a recent case) can't be boiled down to the enforcement page; that boils down to the most convenient approach that can be taken by that enforcing admin. I also see no benefit in setting up a venue which is plainly identical to AE, and it is well-acknowledged even within the Committee that it is an underwatched page by the community too. (In fact, as of the last few years, DS is a default standard response when there is a perceived problem in a topic area + no other measures or area-tailored remedies are being offered. While that can work many times, there are many times where it is ineffective and unhelpfully leads to those areas increasingly lacking in useful, clueful, and reasonable contributors being protected in the area. There is a difference between a minor imperfection and a major conduct issue; there is too much of a risk that the smaller will be conflated to equal the larger under this scheme or a scheme to merge.) They are two separate and different systems for a reason, and if it really did need to be dealt with using the arb DS style approach, then it should have already gone to ArbCom; that much was clear even during the abolishment of RfC/U. That said, I do acknowledge the stated intention of the proposal (and I'm not saying a single page is out of the question altogether), but I would suggest that more creative and community-tailored solutions are needed if attention is lacking. An example of a useful start to such a proposal can be found in Blackmane's comment above (though I'm not sure he realises precisely how useful the content of that comment is). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As per my previous comments, and as per Hobit, Toddy etc. No evidence demonstrated it will have the desired effect, especially when previous evidence suggests it wont. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support I know about 12 different topics which even have their own noticeboard for sanctions. Merging them all into one, maybe depreciating them (to give time to adapt) would be wonderful. Else, they're too convoluted to find and really only attract the same people each time. Tutelary (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• I oppose this, We've tried it before, it generates cliquiness, mob rule and even worse drama, and it also generates injustice and encourages rash judgments. It's not as if we're actin in ignorance here, we have ample evidence that this will go badly. I wonder about most of the boards, even WP:FTN, where my POV is the dominant one. I don't doubt the good intentions, but the idea is, I'm afraid, naïve. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support I've successfully gotten Syrian Civil War/ISIL Sanctions applied to disruptive editors but the completely unstructured nature of ANi makes it very hard. Editors jump in with comments that start with "I haven't looked into this..." and then it goes downhill from there. It is also easy to throw all kinds of unsubstantiated allegations around against the person bringing the case - which is pretty much like going to court and having the accused and all the buddies shouting accusations at the cop until the original issue is buried behind walls of text. Repeated accusations, even if completely false, start to hurt an editors reputation after a while as other editors skim past them without digging deeper. In a structured process each editor could make his/her case clearly, then allow comments below. Comments that are clearly not based on even a limited review of the facts could be struck. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a biography of a conspiracy theorist. Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is advocating for more sympathetic coverage, in a way which others believe risks legitimising the conspiracy theories. The theories themselves are covered under discretionary sanctions, as they include advocacy of the quack cancer cure laetrile, and conspiracy theories around the Federal Reserve. There are very few eyes on the article, and Atsme seems to me to misperceive his own biases as neutrality. I think the time may be nearing when an uninvolved admin will have to take an interest, and I am no longer uninvolved, having devoted some time to pointing out the problems.

I think Atsme is a decent editor, just wrong. I would not like to see this editor burned by advocacy of fringe and pseudoscientific ideas. Wise (and firm) counsel is needed. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for including a few nice words, JzG. I commented on your TP before I realized you had initiated this ANI. Your impression of me is misguided. Perhaps you were motivated to initiate this ANI as another form of intimidation to suppress NPOV at Griffin, or perhaps it had something to do with my request to you regarding your behavior as an admin, and your disrespect toward me: . The problem at Griffin has been about WP:PAG which I've had to deal with against staunch opposition who want the article to remain as is WP:SQS, WP:COATRACK as demonstrated in this diff . The goal is clearly to prevent me from improving and expanding a BLP to GA status. Why? Because it happens to be about a person JzG and a few other editors disrespect as exemplified by the wing nut drivel template JzG added to Griffin talk: . The POV goals are rather evident: . My writings on Griffin are not my claims as I have repeatedly been accused, rather they are NPOV passages I've written about the content of Griffin's book, and what the book claims. My work is RS and NPOV, and my user page speaks loudly for who I am, and what I am focused on accomplishing at WP. I may not be perfect, but I can certainly strive to be, and I should be able to do so without intimidation and ridicule. I am also not alone in my conclusions that Griffin needs work to make it policy compliant: Talk:G._Edward_Griffin#Survey. This ANI is based on nothing more than my suggestions on Griffin Talk to improve and expand a start-class BLP: . The FRINGE issue can be easily resolved by not including any mention at all about Griffin's book, World Without Cancer. But I have to ask all of you reading this ANI, is that what WP has become? If so, I consider it a very sad situation. Atsme☯ 21:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That is the language of conspiracy. Suppression? Intimidation? Yoiu assert that your views are NPOV, but you could not possibly be the judge, as they are your opinions (see m:MPOV). Your "neutral" suggestion absolutely is not neutral, and would violate policy. You are advocating for the subject, which is fine as far as it goes, but you are asserting that your advocacy is neutral, and the numerous long-standing editors who dispute your views are pushing a POV. Where we can assess neutrality, objectively form sources, it goes very badly for you. You give a strong impression of supporting laetrile, whereas there is a robust consensus that it is fraudulent and the province of the worst kind of quack. You also seem to think that the minimum qualification permitted to sell securities, qualifies a man to offer an opinion on matters of economic policy, setting himself against eminently qualified and credentialled experts in order to promote well known fallacious arguments against the Fed. That doesn't really do your case much good. I think you'd do well to heed the sage counsel on your talk page, and leave it before you get sanctioned. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

JzG, perhaps you've forgotten that Griffin is a BLP which is also covered under BLP sanctions. I'm surprised the quack template you added didn't result in sanctions against you, not to mention your inappropriate behavior and derogatory comments here and on the TP. The ongoing RfC Survey demonstrates there are long-standing editors who agree with me - one of whom has over 500 biographies to his credit. Editors who support my position support NPOV, and are not actively seeking PS-FRINGE articles to attack like what you've been doing. I have no bias or interest in any of the stuff you seem to be obsessing over - I'm a writer, that's it. My focus is on creating and collaborating to promote GAs and FAs. I don't believe it is our job to condemn or attack a BLP as you have done at Griffin. Your statement that I "give a strong impression of supporting laetrile" is ludicrous at best. I wasn't going to qualify it with an answer, but I will use it to further demonstrate your inability to maintain NPOV. FYI, I didn't even know what laetrile was until I happened across Griffin who is notable for his book, Creature From Jekyll Island. The Federal Reserve System has long been immersed in controversy without any help from Griffin. As far as I can tell, sanctions apply to editors who violate policy and cause disruption like what you and a few other involved editors have done at Griffin Talk and on my TP. I've done nothing wrong unless you consider my desire to improve/expand a start-class article to be a problem worthy of sanctions. I provided numerous RS that bring neutrality and balance to the article, and made suggestions as was requested of me by a collaborating editor. All I can do now is hope an uninvolved admin will take a closer look at your behavior because it certainly warrants review. Atsme☯ 02:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed an upsurge recently in attempts to present fringe/quack information in an unencyclopedic way. Several editors are skilled at presenting an impression of dispassionate neutrality, but the content they are trying to sell is anything but. This sort of thing is a significant danger to Misplaced Pages. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Dispassionate neutrality cannot be presented with "skill". It is either dispassionate or it isn't. There is no evidence to support your POV which consistently appears in overabundant quantities. The Griffin BLP is being held hostage by editors who consider themselves quack hunters on a mission to save the world from CAM and/or anyone who has a different POV from their own. They craftily employ WP:SQS and game the system to maintain coatracks that serve to discredit their opposition. The diffs I provided substantiate my claims as do the discussions I've read at various ARBCOM reviews. I believe WP needs to conduct some investigation into these matters - perhaps by the Foundation similar to what happened recently - particularly with attention focused on the most conflicted areas that demonstrate WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:COI as it applies to orthodox vs CAM. The project is clearly suffering as a result, and I agree there is significant danger to Misplaced Pages, but not for the reason mentioned above. Atsme☯ 15:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I Agree with Atsme. I see the CAM debate as stonewalling--unacceptable in the BLP. Based on this behavior, I share Atsme's concern for Misplaced Pages's quality going forward.--Pekay2 (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

+ + + hands Atsme fourth packet of half empty popcorn. ("it's salted caramel flavour!!) + + + Atsme is aware that I have been observing this debacle since he appeared on the Griffin BLP, but it has got past the point of a joke now, and is way into disruptive and tendentious territory. I have asked him to stop going down this path on a few occasions, as have other eds. I agree with Guy, fwiw, he is a good editor (see articles on American freshwater pondlife) but he doesn't have the first idea on how wikipedia deals with pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly construed, despite having been told now repeatedly and clearly by editors who are experienced in that area - not only Guy. I have no idea why he still refuses to see this, but he has become a timesink for too many good editors. Please could this now be ended with a broadly construed solution PDQ. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm in a similar boat as Roxy where I've been watching from afar and Astme's behavior in this topic has just become too disruptive even after trying to help them out with it. That was only met with hostility towards me even though I was uninvolved in the whole situation (I can provide diffs if someone really wants). It seems like they are a fine editor in their normal topics, but just don't have a grasp on how fringe content is dealt with. That seems to be causing them to flail about and cause the time sink for other editors. This is starting to look more like an ANI post though, so unless an admin wants to chime in that they'll take a look on their own, maybe this is better suited for WP:AE? Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The true disruptive behavior is evidenced by the spurious comments made by Kingofaces and Roxy, all of which are POV in the absence of even one diff. Where is that boomerang? Have you ever heard an editor being accused of disruption for wanting to improve and expand an article to GA while derogatory comments made against a BLP by an admin go unnoticed? Popcorn anyone? Atsme☯ 17:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Unilateral undeletion of content deleted by AfD

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

Administrator JzG has undeleted an article that was deleted at a recent AfD discussion, which was closed by a panel of three uninvolved administrators. This is unacceptable. No deletion review has been filed. Consensus was to delete and redirect the article, and that consensus should stand. I consulted the editor on his talk page, but he refused to restore the deletion. Please restore the deletion, at once. If someone wishes to challenge the result, I suggest that they should file a review, as is appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 00:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The article remains a full protected redirect (per the Afd). JzG simply made the history viewable for editors to discuss at WP:DRV (as JzG explained on their talk page). NE Ent 00:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no deletion review. The history must be deleted, as consensus was to delete it. According to the deletion review page, "admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{subst:TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins". However, there is no review, and hence this does not apply. No one has filed a deletion review. RGloucester — ☎ 01:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is Gamergate-related too, seeing as the only people interested in the subject presently are those that adhere to the conspiracy theories that propagate Gamergate as it is today. Also of note is that RGloucester did contact JzG concerning the undeletion but there is presently not deletion review for this subject. Simply a bunch of talk on Jimbo's talk page where he is oblivious to the Gamergate connection.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Absolutely absurd. There is no DRV, only some comments made on Jimbo's Talk page by Jimbo, an pro gamergate admin and a 9-11 Truther. JzG should self-revert immediately or lose his tools for unilaterally overriding community consensus and a panel of 3 admins. Dave Dial (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Nothing wrong. Let me quote the header for WP:DRV, which says that the page shouldn't be used to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion for these). WP:REFUND is only for non-controversial undeletions; why would it be recommended if history-only undeletions were generally problematic? Judging by the AFD, this is a routine non-notable term, something that would warrant covering in an article if there were more coverage; it's not being deleted because of real-world reasons such as copyright infringement. Unless there's something I'm missing that's highly objectionable (you'd request revision deletion if it were in another page's history), this kind of undeletion is harmless. Nyttend (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That is the most bizarre interpretation of a header that has absolutely nothing to do with this case. There is no "new, improved version of a page". It is only "recommended" in circumstances where the article was not deleted through community consensus, i.e. PROD, which is the only instance where such a "history-only undeletion" is acceptable. Please read the WP:REFUND page:

Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions or rejected Articles for creation drafts), or in "articles for deletion" debates with little or no participation other than the nominator. This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process. Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all.

Note the bold print. There has been no deletion review. All that we have is a deletion discussion that was closed as "delete and redirect". Community consensus was to DELETE the text of the article, meaning eliminate it from public view. See the deletion policy, which says "deletion of a Misplaced Pages article removes the current version and all previous versions from public view". Consensus was for deletion, i.e. "removing the current version and all previous versions from public view". To overturn that decision requires a successful deletion review, and no such review has even been filed. This is a unilateral overwriting of consensus that has no basis in any guideline or policy. As noted at WP:REFUND, a "controversial" page deletion done as the result of an AfD "cannot be overturned" by anything other than deletion review. An individual user can have the text of a deleted page provided to him, barring BLP/copyright issues, but the page and history itself cannot be restored, unless a deletion review determines that the process was in error. RGloucester — ☎ 06:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I noted it. This is a radically different situation: although I don't check every AFD, it's been a long time (years) since I saw a new AFD closed as "delete and redirect". It's greatly at variance with common practice, which routinely involves restoring inoffensive AFD'd materials upon the creation of a new page at the same title; this is why DRV sends people to REFUND, since ordinarily people don't complain. Please familiarise yourself with what the REFUND text means in practice: it's a way of telling people that we won't refund a page that went through AFD, i.e. "please put this page back; the AFD was stupid/silly/bad/a conspiracy". Rejecting a history-only undeletion on these grounds is badly at variance with the original intent. Nyttend (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you saying that a community decision to DELETE an article can be overwritten unilaterally by one administrator for no purpose whatsoever, given that the usual extenuating circumstances (a deletion review) do not apply? No "new page" has been created. No deletion review has been filed. None of the exceptions for undeletion sans deletion review apply. What is the justification for undeleting content that was deleted by community consensus? RGloucester — ☎ 06:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The AFD's decision was "delete and turn into a redirect" and it doesn't matter if that isn't a common practice nowadays. There is nothing going on at DRV. It is simply conspiracy theorists being given the time of day by Jimbo, again, which has led to the restoration of the article's history with no prior discussion other than JzG deciding to do so on a whim. This is the second time an administrator has restored the history without discussion and without any pretext for any official means on Misplaced Pages and this is setting a terrible precedent.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• This discussion is really frivolous. Having the history of an article accesible does not harm the project. There was no compelling reason for having the history of such article deleted and yes, a "delete and redirect" and not just "redirect" is really bizarre, and the reason behind it is apparently unexplained in the close. Please note I am 100% uninvolved, I never edited anything related to such article nor to any Marxism-related article. Cavarrone 09:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  It is not frivolous when there was a massive undertaking to determine the community's consensus and that resulted in a full out deletion and then turning the deleted article into a redirect. The restoration is out of process, under no real discussion, and not subject to any WP:DRV or WP:REFUND request. JzG vaguely responded to a thread on Jimbo's talk page where a conspiracy theorist and a Gamergate advocate (Gamergate discussions have been full of references to this concept) are complaining about the deletion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  The delete and redirect decision was reached (as explained on the AfD talk page) because there was primarily a consensus to delete, and we noted that in addition a number of editors had pointed out that the topic was covered elsewhere, so we therefore decided that redirecting was a sensible move (as essentially a non-admin decision). That redirect has been debated and changed a couple of times and that's been fine with me. Sam Walton (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  That's a pretty bizarre way to approach !vote consensus. If it was delete then it should have been deleted on the strength of the argument for delete. That's completely negated by the observation that it's notably covered elsewhere. Having determined both is really bizarre as "covered elsewhere" appears to be a an observation of a content fork, not a non-notable subject. --DHeyward (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  "If it was delete then it should have been deleted on the strength of the argument for delete." It was. Covered elsewhere was perhaps a poor choice of wording, but there were a few people arguing that the topic was covered in another article and others arguing for a redirect. The deletion arguments were strongest but it seemed to us that the term was a valid search term and there were a few arguments for a redirect so we enacted one. What I mean to say is, the outcome of the discussion was delete, but placing a redirect for the term seemed uncontroversial; perhaps I shouldn't have included 'and redirect' in the discussion outcome but it's done now. Sam Walton (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  ...or perhaps just close as a "redirect" if you felt a redirect should exist. A "delete and redirect" is a somewhat self-contradicting close. Cavarrone 17:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• The complaint seems to be that deleted revisions are now visible when an AfD was closed saying "delete". In other words, there is no serious complaint. It's not usually done, but it tends to be regarded as a matter for administrator discretion. It has no effect on the encyclopaedia, but does have the benefit of making the deleted revisions available for review by anyone. That would only be a bad thing if there were BLP issues or the like. --TS 09:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  The community consensus was that the deleted revisions were not to be visible though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Absurd complaint. History doesn't harm the project and it allows discussion and improvement. Trouts for complaining about something so trivial. --DHeyward (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• It is a long-standing practice that article history may be restored under redirects, even if there was a consensus at AFD to delete. The exception is if there are violations of BLP or copyvio or the similar. In most cases the deleted material is not harmful but merely unencyclopedic, and may have some elements that could be used in another article if an editor is willing to trawl the history. Unless there is a compelling reason to keep the history hidden, I see no misconduct by JzG. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  The "compelling reason" should be that page was deleted after a massive discussion on everything that has been extensively covered in the thread on Jimbo's talk page where the announcement of undeletion took place. Three administrators convened as to how to close the debate which ended up with deletion. Just because it was turned into a redirect after the page was deleted does not excuse the out of process restoration of the deleted contents. This has been discussed to death and just because some people enjoy beating a dead horse and can get an audience on Jimbo's talk page doesn't mean anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  Process is unnecessary in this instance. Somebody wants to see the revisions of a deleted article, so an administrator makes them visible. The encyclopaedia is not affected. To put it another way: if you think the community followed some process that had no effect on the encyclopaedia, try ignoring it and see what happens. Process is only tolerated inasmuch as it helps us to improve Misplaced Pages. It has no other legitimate function and must be mercilessly stamped out if it doesn't do that. Process too easily becomes an end in itself. --TS 11:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  But from my understanding there was no particular request for the deleted content to be viewable, formal or informal.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  Yes there was and you responded to the requestor on Jimbo's talk page. More to the point, who cares? Guy may have wanted it for himself or because the moon is made of cheese or simply because it was being discussed. If it doesn't affect the encyclopedia, the process used to restore history of a page isn't relevant. It's infinitely more preferable than complaining about invisible changes at ANI because rules. --DHeyward (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't understand. If anything can just be undeleted unilaterally, why do we have deletion reviews? The article has been undeleted, but not for any reason. What the hell is the point of deletion if nothing is deleted as a result? This is not an invisible change. It publicly displays content that was deleted as a result of a community discussion. DELETED, meaning, removed from public view, and not suitable for Misplaced Pages. It is now in public view again. What the hell is the point of deletion if it does not do what deletion claims to do? Why did we even have a deletion discussion if it could just be overturned unilaterally for no apparent reason? RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  WP:NOTABUREAUCRACY. Since there were no BLP violations in the Article there no reason to remove it as it still redirects to Frankfurt School. Avono (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Community deletions cannot be overturned unilaterally. This is a sheer violation of the very principles of this encylopaedia. The reason it was removed was because community consensus removed it. I will have to nominate it for speedy deletion under WP:G4. RGloucester — ☎ 16:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you intend to tell me that "#REDIRECT ]" is substantially identical to the version of the page that was deleted? Resolute 16:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because the history is visible, making the page identical to the original page. The history was deleted, and it must remain deleted unless a deletion review determines otherwise. RGloucester — ☎ 16:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined, discussion here seems pretty solidly against re-deleting the history, I'm not going to use CSD to over-rule that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a fascinating redefinition of "page" that I don't believe is supported by practice. Honestly, I think you are creating a mountain out of a molehill here. The history of this article appears to be under discussion on Jimbo's talk page, and there does seem to be a potential for DRV. The talk on Guy's talk page indicates that if neither of these things go anywhere, the history will be nuked again. This all seems reasonable as an attempt at facilitating discussion. Resolute 16:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion here is irrelevant. The PAGE WAS DELETED BY A COMMUNITY DELETION DISCUSSION. A DELETION REVIEW IS THE ONLY WAY TO OVERTURN SUCH A DELETION, ACCORDING TO THE DELETION POLICY. THERE IS NO DELETION REVIEW. THEREFORE, THE PAGE CANNOT BE UNDELETED. No one is filing a deletion review, and no one has done so in seventeen days. If they want to do so, I'll support a temporary undeletion as per the deletion policy. However, no such review has been filed, and hence there is no justification for an undeletion. There is no discussion to facilitate, unless someone opens a review, and they've not done so. RGloucester — ☎ 16:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(a couple of e/c's) Most people here are not interpreting this as "overturning a deletion". The article is still "deleted" in the sense that it isn't presented as an encyclopedia article. On many other articles, admins will userfy an article that's been deleted due to AFD, and this is not controversial. Not the same situation, I know, but it is further evidence that "deletion is deletion" isn't the precise black/white distinction you say it is. Apparently JzG restored the history because this is being actively discussed on Jimbo's talk page. It's not a big deal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It is overturning a deletion. The deletion policy says "deletion of a Misplaced Pages article removes the current version and all previous versions from public view". That means that the page is not currently deleted. It is very simple. It says it right at the top of the policy. It is a huge deal, because it is yet another instance of nonsense with this article. Being "discussed" on Mr Wales' talk page does not warrant undeletion. Anyone can request a copy of the article for their own use, as per the policy, but that doesn't mean that the page can be restored. RGloucester — ☎ 16:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment While Jimbo may be a very respected user, I don't think a discussion on his talk page is the same as a deletion review. We have procedures for making sure actions match community consensus. Community consensus as it stands wants the article deleted. I am really confused as to the justifications here.

Floquenbeam, when something is deleted the history is removed. AfD often ends in redirect without deletion, others like this one ended in delete and redirect. If the history as been restored then the deletion has been undone. I agree it has not been overturned, but it has been undone as though it was overturned.

I have no horse in this race. I did not participate in the deletion discussion and frankly the topic of Cultural Marxism confuses me. My concern is I do not like to see community consensus disregarded over something that happened on a user talk page regardless of who that user is.

It is fine to do this for the duration of a DRV, but I don't see a DRV and a user talk page discussion is not an alternative to DRV. Chillum 17:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, I don't have a horse in this race either, but I'm trying really hard to understand what the actual problem is here (beyond "rules weren't followed"), and I can't see it. And I am also curious how you square this very literal understanding of "deletion" with userfying an article that's been deleted, for example. If there aren't BLP or copyright issues, "deletion" is mostly about making it not an article anymore. It is not an article anymore. So problem solved, right? Sometimes the rationale for doing something like this is "because there's no harm, and a handful of people want it". --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the community put a lot of effort finding a consensus on this matter. It took many users participation and the closing by 3 admins to settle this matter. Now it seems that decision has been put aside with no real input from the community.

If someone wants it userfied in an attempt to bring it up to standards that is fine, they can take responsibility for the contents and try to improve it. If someone wants the page undeleted while a DRV takes place that is fine too, they can make their case on DRV and it can be restored or deleted again based on the outcome. But I don't see either case here.

This has nothing to do with literal understandings of anything, this has to do with the consensus of the community. Unlike DRV I don't see any time line for deleting it again once discussion is over. Chillum 17:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I really, really don't see this as "putting aside" the results of that discussion. Leaving the history temporarily visible, while leaving the article a redirect, seems so harmless, and marginally beneficial to some people, that I just don't get what the excitement is about. If he'd restored the article as an article, I'd be up in arms too. but he didn't. Maybe we're talking past each other; I haven't been swayed by any explanations I've seen so far of what the actual harm is, don't feel my questions are being addressed, and am mostly puzzled by the anger over such a non-issue, rather than personally having a strong feeling about the restoration of the history. So maybe I'll just move along. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"Temporarily" according to whom? There doesn't seem to be any time scale laid out, and no deletion review has been filed in what has been nearly a month since the page's deletion. If someone wants to file one, someone should do so. No one has done, and no one says they will do. That's likely because they know it will be a futile gesture. Just as Chillum says, and as I said above, I'd be fine with a temporary undeletion for a deletion review, as is allowed for by policy. However, that is not the case here. There is no such deletion review. It is simply a defiance of all of the painstaking processes that were repeated over and over again to ensure a result that was procedurally sound. RGloucester — ☎ 19:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Who cares? Even if it's forever. Really, it's history under a locked redirect. Why is process over function suddenly rearing it's ugly head? IAR if you really have an issue with it but there is no harm in keeping the history and, frankly, a puzzling logic process that it's notable for a redirect but also is a delete. Those venn diagrams don't cross. --DHeyward (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously RGloucester cares and so should everyone else who said that the page should be deleted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, if you have a problem with the closure, i.e. the result of "delete and merge", open a deletion review. Otherwise, there is no room for such commentary. RGloucester — ☎ 20:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm confused why such a drama is being made about this to be honest. You chose this venue to air your grievance; the community appears to have come to a consensus that the action was fine and does not want to delete the revision history for now. You disagree and want to re-delete the revision history immediately, so seek an admin to immediately act against the community consensus here? You should reconsider disengaging (and if you have not already considered it, then this is the time to do so). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:LOCALCONSENSUS applies here: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

I would say the HUGE AfD is a wider scale consensus and the discussion on Jimbo's talk page would be a limited group of editors at one place. Those who are interested in the topic will not see the discussion there, they will notice at DRV where such things are decided. Chillum 18:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I just notice on JzG's talk page that this is expected to go to DRV. If so then that should happen soon or the page should be redeleted. There is nothing wrong with undeleting a page for DRV. However "Per Jimbo's talk page" is not a very good reason to undelete, "For pending DRV" would have been far more clear.

I have no objection to the undeletion if it is for the purpose of review. If a DRV is not filed in a day or 2 it needs to be deleted again. Frankly I cannot imagine a DRV result other than endorse. Chillum 18:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Also it is still not clear on who intends to take this to DRV. Chillum 18:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No one does, which is why one hasn't been filed in the past month. There is no pending review. This is absolutely absurd. RGloucester — ☎ 19:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If they keep the redirect they might as well keep the history. Why not? --DHeyward (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Because the decision in the debate was "delete" and then it was replaced with a redirect not "just turn it into a redirect".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the deletion needs to be overturned at DRV. Reyk _YO! 20:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• ...wait, that sounds like the exact opposite of what I mean. Let's try again. The article should not have been undeleted without first going through DRV. Reyk _YO! 21:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• @28bytes: I object strongly to this closure, and particularly to the suggestion to "start a DRV to challenge the undeletion of the history". That is nonsense, and opposed to WP:DRVPURPOSE. The only people that need to open a deletion review are those that want to restore the article, as they're the ones that are requesting an overturning of a community decision. They've not done this, and so, the article must remain deleted. There is nothing for me to prove, here. This is very simple. The community decision was clear, and deletion review is open to all those who think the closure was inappropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 21:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The only way you can force the issue is to get the undeletion overturned at DRV. We don't decide whether things get (re-)deleted on AN. 28bytes (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion reviews are not venues for redeletion of content deleted by community consensus and undeleted unilaterally. They are a venue for overturning or confirming the result of a deletion discussion. There is no deletion discussion. This was a unilateral act, totally out of process, and inappropriate. WP:DRVPURPOSE is clear that deletion reviews are not a venue for such a thing. RGloucester — ☎ 21:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I've undone this close, because much as I greatly respect 28bytes, that second rationale is simply bizarre. DRV is for challenging the results of community deletion dicussions, not for challenging the unilateral reversal of a community decision. I don't really care whether the history exists or not, but if someone wants it available for the possibility of rewriting the article, it should have been undeleted, userfied (or sent to Draft space), and then the redirect placed back on top. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@28bytes: I also think that the closure is premature. The undeleting admin stated on their talk page that this was done for DRV consideration. It is still not clear who is considering DRV and what the time line is. When something is undeleted for DRV there is a timeline where it is deleted again unless the original deletion was overturned. If this administrative action was for DRV consideration then we need to know who is considering it. Chillum 21:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note I posted the above moments before the closure was reversed and did not know it was reversed when I posted it. I stand by my position though Chillum 21:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Probably my final comment here; I'm responding to several statements, not just Chillum's last. This is ordinary practice and explicitly permitted by the DRV guidelines. In this case, the page was deleted, and then it was recreated as a redirect. DRV's guidelines provide for the restoration of deleted revisions when a page has been deleted and then recreated in an acceptable format; they say "go to WP:REFUND" to have it done. REFUND is only for routine undeletions, things where any administrator may restore pages without discussion, and anyone's allowed to send a request there. In this case, JzG was perfectly entitled to take it to REFUND for a history-only undeletion and perfectly entitled to fulfill a history-only REFUND request. Why shouldn't he do both? Why should someone else have to request it or fulfill his request? This isn't at all the purpose of WP:INVOLVED; it's comparable to an admin performing a speedy deletion instead of tagging it for speedy deletion for someone else. DRV says that it's not to be used "to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion for these)". So in short, the DRV header addresses a situation where an ordinary page about a non-notable topic without objectionable content is deleted (regardless of the method; it doesn't say that it's just for prods), and then later someone creates a page that doesn't warrant deletion; in this case, it says that a history-only undeletion should be considered non-controversial instead of going through DRV. This is the case we have here, so if you object, please try to change the DRV guidelines. Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, I respect you as an editor, but this is the most bizarre interpretation of an irrelevant note that I've ever seen. Please read what the piece you are referring to says "to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion for these)". There is no "new, improved version of the page". This does not exist, nor does this phrase apply at all. This is a restoration with no purpose, contrary to community consensus to delete the material. There was no "REFUND request", anyway. Regardless, none of this applies please read the undeletion policy at WP:DEL. It says "In the case of pages deleted as a result of summary decisions and not following community discussions, undeletion may be requested at Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion. It serves two primary functions: the restoration of content deleted without discussion, and the userfication of content that is unfit for restoration. Requests for undeletion should be used to appeal most instances of proposed deletion and speedy deletion. However, appeals of the outcomes of deletion discussions and other deletion matters requiring community review should be made at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Be aware that pages restored to articlespace may immediately be subject to a deletion discussion". REFUND does not apply to to pages deleted as a result of community discussion. SIMPLE. RGloucester — ☎ 22:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite and Chillum: No worries. I still think DRV is a much better structured venue to decide the next course of action, but it looks like multiple people want to try to come to a resolution here instead (and no one seems to want to actually start the DRV), so OK. 28bytes (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I just want the thread to end so we focus on important things (like whether that symbol between "Mexican" and "Mexican" is a hyphen or a dash). Perhaps Black Kite would like to WP:SOFIXIT move the history to the Draft space as they suggest. Or any admin could lower the protection to semi and I'll move myself. NE Ent 23:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

After extensive centralized discussion, consensus was assessed by three administrators. Their closing statements collectively addressed the question of removal of access to the text after redirection. After much briefer, noncentralized, poorly advertised discussion, a single administrator arrogated to himself the authority to overturn the community consensus, even though no case had been made for bypassing the ordinary process for reconsidering the outcome. That's more like out-and-abuse than a reasonable action. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• OK. I have boldly moved the history of the article to Draft:Cultural Marxism (and restored it to its last non-redirect state), and restored the redirect over the (now empty) history of the mainspace article. Hopefully this will sort out (a) the objections of those that the history was restored in mainspace, and (b) the objections of those who wanted the history to work on whether that be for article-building or DRV purposes. As ever, if anyone thinks I have fucked up badly, feel free to revert. Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I want to know what the timescale is for this restored content. When will it be redeleted? No one has requested this to work on it, and in fact, there was no consensus to turn this into a draft or to "userfy" it. The consensus was to "delete". It must remain deleted, unless there is some extraordinary reason why the AfD should be overturned. RGloucester — ☎ 01:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's in Draft space, there is no WP:DEADLINE, but if a rational outcome is not shaping up within a couple of weeks (i.e. an article significantly different in nature from the deleted one), then it would be fair to nominate for XfD and I think also fair to notify previous AfD participants and other involved parties (including me, if you would be so kind) because there is a pretty clear view that this is not another kick at the can, it's an opportunity to cover the meme in terms which (unlike the deleetd article) don't violate policy.

I would not expect an XfD before mid-feb, I would not expect a draft substantially similar to the deleetd article to persist beyond the end of Feb.

And if the draft starts getting the same to-and-fro of extreme partisans, then we should aim to protect it and stabilise it. Misplaced Pages is not here to facilitate propagation of memes, we are here to document them if they are provbably significant (which I think this one is, based on what I've seen). Guy (Help!) 17:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for Interaction ban with Technical13

• Technical 13

After Persona Non-Grataing Technical 13 from my user talk page several months ago, Technical 13 has decided to stir up trouble for me at Bot Owner's Noticeboard by re-opening a thread that had been closed by an editor in good standing over a week ago. Since it is clear that T13 is most interested in causing more disruption by demanding a forcable revocation of bot flag (and thereby causing revisions that normally would be suppressed by the "Don't show bot flaged changes" watchlist item). I therefore request that a full interaction ban be placed between me and Technical 13 (enforcable by block) to prevent their wiki-hounding from repeatedly confronting or inhibiting my work. Hasteur (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• - Bot Owner's noticeboard history. Notice the back and forth reversions. Hasteur (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Further, from the user's own admission I am banned from their topic page, so the detente arms race of tattling or looking for the other's misdeeds is clearly not preventing disruption to the encyclopedia at large. Hasteur (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose "enforceable" IBAN, but a voluntary IBAN might help - Hasteur has used his bot in a way that may appear non-compliant with its approved purpose. It is perfectly appropriate for any editor to discuss the matter on a bot-related noticeboard. Hasteur repeatedly tried to remove another editor's valid concern and I was on the verge of blocking Hasteur before he came to AN of his own volition. I recommend that Hasteur withdraws this before it blows up in his face. I consider it reasonable and constructive to "confront" another editor's work when it seems like it might be inappropriate, and Hasteur's inability to deal with criticism (which he has repeatedly demonstrated in various AN threads) is growing to a point where it is getting in the way of constructive work. Hsteur is trying to wedge an IBAN between himself and those who find fault with his behaviour, and trying to shut everyone else off is not conducive to a collaborative work environment. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, at least without diffs showing harassment. I don't feel like doing the research to investigate whether there is harassment. As per Salvidrim, the discussion of bots should be collaborative. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Technical 13's ArbCom candidacy and talk page in which I attempted to ask questions about misuse of privileges only to have him (and others) close ranks and refuse to answer questions regarding validly germane topics to using privileges.
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive263#Template_Editor_User:Technical_13 - In which Writ Keeper suggests (off handedly) that T13 and myself need a Interaction ban over 6 months ago. See also that I advanced a hypothesis at that time that T13 was hat collecting. With the information we have in hand now (of putting their name up for ArbCom as a non-admin) I re-assert this hypothesis. See also other editors analysis at how T13's willingness to edit war to the "FuckYouImRight" point is a detriment to the wiki.
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive260#User_talk:Hasteur.23HasteurBot_being_naughty.3F - Yet annother case of Technical 13 tattling on me because they have a VENDETTA to cause me grief.
  • More diffs on request, but it's patently clear that T13 is more interested in tearing me down for percieved minor slights because I correctly called his out of order usage of Template Editor privilege. Hasteur (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing wrong with speaking up about a bot that appears to not be compliant with it's directive. There is a problem closing a topic when it's done by a user that's involved, however. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 16:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's wrong when he necromantically raises a thread which is dead that he absolutely ZERO interaction with before. Hasteur (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Possible Bot Issue: hat (Revision as of 14:00, January 8, 2015 (UTC)); Your closure of Misplaced Pages:Bot owners noticeboard#Possible Bot Issue: new section (Revision as of 14:39, January 8, 2015 (UTC)); Mdann52's contributions showing general inactivity; Your closure of Misplaced Pages:Bot owners noticeboard#Possible Bot Issue: well, it's been a week and apparently you're unable to reply (I see you haven't been on IRC in 10 days either, guessing you are away). (Revision as of 23:47, January 15, 2015 (UTC)). Let the chain of events speak for itself. I objected to the hatting within an hour of it happening, and generously gave the hatter a week to respond before taking it into my own hands to reopen the discussion. — {{U|Technical 13}} 22:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - This issue needs to be resolved. I still don't know why Hasteur ran his bot to remove the Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template category, so Technical 13 is right in my opinion to raise this at the Bot Owner's Noticeboard. JMHamo (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I improperly tagged the items because I thought that I had authorization under the Hasteurbot5 task. When a user started nominating articles in that category directly for CSD:G13 under the argument that because they hadn't been edited in over 6 months prior to the bot tagging them into the category that they were eligible right then and there for G13 (which has since been disproven by several administrators including those who were unknowing patsys for it Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Clarification_of_CSD_G13). As to why I ran a bot to remove the category, the bot process that did the tagging did not follow the authorization to the letter (the articles were not on Peterb's list) so the bot process should not have tagged them, so I had the bot undo the tagging so that I could seek a new authorization or annother editor who wanted the articles in the category could tag the articles under a future authorization. I removed the category mark the fastest and least disruptive way I knew as 2.7k page edits to remove the category would not have been feasable by mortal hands. Hasteur (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I would recommend a voluntary interaction ban and a warning that if future interactions create friction then a mandatory ban could be implemented. Knowing there is past friction it would be best for T13 to avoid matters concerning Hasteur. If there is a need to post at a noticeboard to alert the community about a problem then T13's involvement should end with that single post. They should then allow others to handle the entire matter including but not limited to making changes or corrections to the noticeboard thread and/or new posts made at the noticeboard etc. This kind of back and forth at the noticeboard is not helpful.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - These two have have been at each other for years (at least, it seems like it). Their squabbles have often occurred within Wikiproject Articles for creation . Based solely on my observations regarding the nature of their issues with each other, I am extremely doubtful that a voluntary IBAN would last. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 01:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You're exactly right about it usually being in the scope of WP:AfC. I've basically stepped away from AfC for that reason, it is not worth it to me to try and reason with the owner of that project. My only involvement with that project in some time has been to attempt to assist with putting together a mass mailing to the membership which failed because it was insisted that the mailing should only go to members active in the project, which isn't reasonably accomplish-able with the current system. Other than Hasteur's attack during the ArbCom election which was shot down by the coordinators, there has been quite a long stretch since there has been any discussion between Hasteur and I. The discussion in this section by the uninvolved editors and admins above is enough for me to know that I wasn't out of line bringing up that there was an issue that still needs to be discussed about a bot operating out of approval, and I'm wondering why we're still not talking about that instead of this. — {{U|Technical 13}} 02:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• The specific immediate problem is a good faith debate about the meaning of a deletion criterion, that can be seen either way and needs to be resolved by consensus, not fiat. In my opinion just as an afc reviewer, both participants have been very sure they're right, and they certainly said so, and could have been less sure of themselves about it. I don't think that by itself this would be enough reason for an i-ban. But there have been prior incidents also, and they need to be taken into account. I'm not going to express an opinion about that. And I've previously expressed my felling that AfC is quite literally worse than useless, with an overall negative effect on the project. I'm not surprised all sort of problems tend to show up worse there, because it is absurdly frustrating to try to work there (and I can only imagine how it must be for the newcomers). DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd like to note that debate about the meaning of G13 has been ongoing without any comments from me whatsoever. I've been watching it out of the corner of my eye, and I think that Hasteur's position on the matter that any bot edit on a G13 page makes it immediately ineligible for another six months is entirely ridiculous and he should know better. The reason I have chosen to not comment on that particular discussion is that I know that if I do, Hasteur will attempt to divert attention from the topic to be a conflict with me. That's not productive, and there is no pressing need for me to comment at this time because the proposal seems to be passing despite Hasteur's objections. — {{U|Technical 13}} 13:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Sheesh, what has the world descended to. Hasteur expecting someone to not edit that page when they have an issue with the tasks that your bot is undertaking is ridiculous. We all have to be responsible for our actions, and being accountable to even our critics is something we all have to face. Can we move on. If you can demonstrate that this person is pursuing you, then please provide diffs. If it is commentary in general discussion forums, so be it. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, looking through the list of revisions provided by Hasteur at the top we find : accusing another editor (not Technical13) of harassing me all over the place and in the same breath confirming I decided that enough drama had arisen from my unapproved use of the bot. Forgive me if I'm reading the situation incorrectly, but it would appear that an editor has been running unapproved bots, has admitted such, and is now attempting to obtain a super-injection to suppress legitimate reporting/fixing of their activities. …Perhaps an extended holiday for Hasteur might be one way of achieving Hasteur's desired interaction ban, with immediate further escalating holidays if unapproved bot usage occurs again. —Sladen (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Hasteur has trodden on a rake. I have been regularly dropping subtle (and not so subtle) hints in various venues that AfC has become more of a competition between users with programming skills than anything useful. A script "with so many bolt-ons it's beginning to look like a space station that doesn't need gravity to hold it together" was one of my more recent cynical quips. Compare AfC with NPP where we currently have about 3 patrollers and 'only' a 31,000 backlog, with 'only' 1,500 articles arriving every day. A sorry state of affairs for sure, but almost in direct proportion to AfC and without all the blather, bickering, and backlog drives for barnstars. And not even a mailing list.

I rather like the notion that some should take a holiday. At least some of those script writers need to understand that that they don't own anything around here - because that's what it's beginning to look like. Perhaps by the time they come back from vacation AfC will have been scrapped in favour of the consensus that was reached in April and hasn't been enacted yet - because we're looking for programmers who aren't going to squat the initiative. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This is shame because both editors have made valued contributions to the wiki. I'm left sobbing in the corner wondering why mom and dad fight so much. I think a voluntary IBAN isn't enough but I think interaction needs to be halted. The issues about who's bot did what is a separate issue upon which I express no opinion. I will say that script is awesome, no matter what sort of engineering was involved. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Too busy for sysop work

I've come to the conclusion that I'm just too busy off-wiki to be an effective administrator right now, or in the near future. I've had a very good 7.5 years. Can I go on furlough, or should I resign? Please keep out all criticism, constructive or otherwise; I'm not in the mood. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Just go over to WP:BN and ask to be temporarily de-sysopped, and then ask them for the bit back when you're ready. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That's right - that's a furlough basically. The best course for you, User:Bearian. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Or you could have just kept schtum about it, as no-one would ever check. Lugnuts 19:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I wish you'd stay--it's been extremely helpful for me to ask you to confirm something you can judge better than I can. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

: With DGG here, don't be a stranger, at least pop by sometimes. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Page move cleanup

What should happen when someone moves an article, then edits it to suit the new title?

• Koko Nigel (talk · contribs)
• Moved Blue-tailed Skink → Christmas Island forest Skink
• Moved Christmas Island forest Skink → Blue-tailed snake-eyed skink
• Moved Blue-tailed snake-eyed skink → Salamanders as pets

The article was originally permalink. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• After leaving the notification for the above, I noticed a new section at the user's talk referring to edits at Lord Derby's parakeet. This edit appears to be a copyvio from http://parrotfeather.com/asiatics/derbyanparakeet/ The salamander information appears to be a mostly a copy from somewhere: some is at http://infopetexotic.weebly.com/salamanders.html Johnuniq (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I histsplit and moved Blue-tailed Skink back to Blue-tailed Skink, left the histsplit new revisions at Salamanders as pets, and redirected the two intermediary titles to the original article. I don't have time to check if the "new" Salamanders as pets articles needs to be cleaned up, and something probably has to be done about the user before they destroy more stuff... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I can't find any revisions that appear to be in the wrong place; thank you Salvidrim! Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• THe article is a total Copyvio. An amalgam of several sources. Very easy to detect ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• I was preparing a message I intended to leave at the user's talk regarding another copyvio. However, I noticed something that means I don't want to spend any more time on this. The second paragraph from History of dendrobatid frogkeeping has been copied to Salamanders as pets (diff). The original refers to "dendrobatids" and "dart-frogs". The copy refers to "salamanders". The following paragraph was similarly copied and creatively edited. The copyvio I mentioned was this edit which copied text from here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments

The Arbitration Committee is currently voting on a motion to establish a central location for the logging of discretionary sanctions procedures and amendments associated with this change. Comments from community members are welcome in the community comments section. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vivek Nagul

An editor (@Annaprash:) has somehow managed to create duplicate AFDs at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vivek Nagul, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vivek Nagul (3rd nomination) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vivek Nagul (4th nomination) (note there was no '2nd' ever created) - the 1st and 3rd were closed by @Safiel: and the AFD discussion is now continuing at the 4th, which I have participated in. Would it be sensible to merge histories at 1st, to avoid future possible confusion? GiantSnowman 13:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Miniapolis 22:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment That was kind of a mess. I encountered the 3rd AfD first, which I closed as malformed, after which I opened the 4th AfD, wrongly assuming the 1st AfD was a previous AfD. After checking it a little later, I realized it had also been been opened by the same user, so I went ahead and closed it. But I agree with User GiantSnowman that a consolidation would be helpful. Safiel (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Can't create page due to Blacklist.

I want to create the page Urya-Oi!!! which is the transliterated name of a compilation album released by Japanese group BiS. I'm assuming it's the multiple !'s that's preventing the creation. Help would be appreciated thanks. BTW I'm not entirely sure if I'm posting in the right place (was redirected here from the permission error page) so sorry in advance if I am wrong.Fudobrain (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to be an autoconfirmed user to create the page (that is, a minimum of 10 edits + 4 full days of editing). I suggest you create the page in your user space first, and you'll be able to move it to mainspace in a day or so. Risker (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please put the content you want at Draft:Urya-Oi!!!, and leave me a message when you feel it is ready to be moved to Urya-Oi!!!. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Request to be permitted to open an account on Misplaced Pages and end self-imposed block

Hello,

I am the former User:R-41 A while ago I requested a self-block from User:Dennis Brown due to several problems. The worst of which was affected by a health condition I have that made me very hostile. I have sought to address this problem. I have other problems that I have sought to do my best to resolve - I have a problem of returning to make some edits on things that cause me frustration. However the main problem that caused the block was the hostile behaviour caused by health problems that I have sought to resolve. I cannot request an unblock from Dennis Brown because he has been away on a long wikibreak for months now.

I have contacted several users whom were affected by my combative and hostile behaviour in the past, including User:The Four Deuces and User:Oldsettler to apologize for my behaviour in the past, and to lay out a set of ground rules that I will use to make sure that I take breaks from Misplaced Pages to prevent further problems from occurring. I will describe these now.

(1) If I return I believe that I need to be under a six-month probation of observation by an admin who is willing to volunteer the time, and note any combative instances. If combative instances occur, if that admin could inform me I will take a break to calm down. If I fail to take a break and combative behaviour continues, that admin can and should block me.

(2) I need to avoid the risk of addiction to Misplaced Pages that I feared may have been the case before. To ensure that, I need to seriously limit my time on Misplaced Pages. At most 2 hours on only one day of the week - Saturday in the evening from 6-8pm EST, with no exceptions. If I use excessive time on Misplaced Pages, I need to have an externally-enforced wikibreak.

(3) I need to open a new account because my inexcusable behaviour that I did in my former account may not be forgivable by all those affected. Thankfully the users The Four Deuces and OldSettler appeared to be understanding and forgiving.

I don't know if this is the right place to post this, it's been a while since I've looked at Misplaced Pages policies. If it is not, if you could redirect me to where it is, that would be appreciated.

--70.53.113.91 (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Normal procedure is to log in to your account (R-41), read WP:GAB, and post an unblock request via {{unblock}} on your own talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the recent conduct of what appears to be a similar IP address to this one who also claimed to be R-41 , I don't think that this request should be actioned, and I don't think that R-41's block preventing them from editing their own talk page should be lifted. As far as I'm aware, there's no way of verifying that either of these accounts are in fact R-41. If R-41 wishes to return to editing, Misplaced Pages:Unblock Ticket Request System might be the most appropriate approach. Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The most recent edit by 70.26.113.85 was just over a year ago, 12 January 2014. When blocking R-41, Dennis Brown cited a request by R-41 ("previous and current user request", with a link to a previous request) in the block log, so that part is clearly true. Normal procedure is meant for un-requested situations; we shouldn't impose WP:EVADE in a situation where the block is solely because of the user's request, since if your request is the only reason for the block, we should remove it if you change your mind. Nyttend (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops, sorry: for some reason I read those edits as having been made in January 2015. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought that too. I only realised my error after confusing myself: one of the most recent edits was to R-41's sockpuppet investigation, but that page hasn't had much of any editing recently (and it's all been registered users), so where did the edits go? Eventually I noticed the year issue, but it took a while. Nyttend (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I read this request (particularly item #3) as a request for a Clean start. Of course, there isn't a need to request it. Maybe just a note telling the IP to read and follow WP:Clean start? --Tgeairn (talk) 07:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Point 1) contradicts that: this account is asking for an admin to keep an eye on them as part of a new account. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it contradicts it, I see it more as "cleanstart plus". The bottom line seems to be that a self-requested block can be revoked on request, and an editor under one is alternatively free to create a new account if they wish. This request here is really nothing more than asking for admin mentoring and shows a good understanding of the editor's previous problems. I hope someone will offer to help. Squinge (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm still breaking, came back to vote in an RFA and after seeing why I was pinged, felt compelled to respond as I was heavily involved. I will just say that I think R-41 has the right idea and approach, a probationary period under his old name. Clean start doesn't exactly apply here for a variety of reasons that would take too long to explain. As I was the blocking admin, and worked some of the sock cases, I'm familiar with the case but feel the decision should be the communities, not solely mine. It was a mixed block, part due to previous request, part due to the then current behavior, and is very, very consistent with his medical claims now, thus I find his claim credible. I would support unblocking, monitoring and the probationary period as previously described as being consistent with our ideals, that anyone can make a mistake and everyone deserves a second chance. I probably won't be able to follow up due to real world issues, and leave it to the community to decide. Normal restrictions of avoiding drama and/or meta areas for 6 months would be a good idea. Dennis - 2¢ 15:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The editor-in-question is currently 'evading' his block, via his IP contributions. That's not a good sign. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) GoodDay, as Nyttend mentioned in the discussion above, and I agree with, WP:EVADE shouldn't typically apply to requests for self blocks. Anyways, back to the real reason I wanted to post here. I believe that this user is sincere and hope that this request is granted based on the comments of Dennis Brown and others. Since part of the self imposed conditions are things that can be handled in a technical manner (such as (2) I need to avoid the risk of addiction to Misplaced Pages that I feared may have been the case before. To ensure that, I need to seriously limit my time on Misplaced Pages. At most 2 hours on only one day of the week - Saturday in the evening from 6-8pm EST, with no exceptions. If I use excessive time on Misplaced Pages, I need to have an externally-enforced wikibreak.). I would be happy to put together a custom wikibreak enforcer userscript for this user to help them achieve that goal if the community decides to grant this request. Please ping me if that is the case and if that is a desired device. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} 16:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP has been making edits to mainspace articles before & after its request here. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Could be a shared address and considering this was a self requested block not really relevant. Avono (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I think User:Technical 13 and Dennis Brown's approach and proposed resolution is both rational and humane, and captures the spirit of WP ideals perfectly. Merely a comment from an uninvolved non-mop. Irondome (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Formally, self-requested blocks are not really supported anyway. I don't see the big deal. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm neutral supportive regarding unblock, but offer some concern about recent extensive but unsourced changes to articles from the IP that posted this request. The area of interest seems to be Fascism, Socialism, Marxism. The IP's contributions indicate this is User:R-41, as it also posted repeatedly , to TFD's talk page - a user with whom he's had some negative interactions . JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

An unblock would make that less of a problem, in that if it is this user, then we can engage with them and even possibly restrict their ability to do some things. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog