Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:27, 30 January 2015

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for comment

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

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

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

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

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

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

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Israel#RfC

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

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

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

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

Deletion discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

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

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

(Initiated 78 days ago on 7 October 2024) A merge + move request with RM banners that needs closure. No new comments in 20 days. —CX Zoom 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:JTG Daugherty Racing#Requested move 22 November 2024

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

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

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

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

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

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

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

Review of Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter

The closer wrote:

There is certainly some support for moving the draft to main space, but I still see endorsing the original deletion (and salting) to be the consensus opinion.

The closer's decision to endorse the original speedy deletion was within discretion and reasonable. I do not contest that part of the close.

The closer erred in assuming that salting was the consensus opinion. Not a single editor in the DRV supported salting. In fact, after Draft:Kirby Delauter was posted, five editors commented favorably about the draft. No one commented negatively against the draft.

Because the draft addressed the undue weight and BLP1E concerns present in the deleted article, the original reasons for speedy deletion no longer applied.

Overturn the salting part of the DRV close and move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter.

Cunard (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, most of the material in the draft was not really suitable for a BLP -- it's all local coverage. I support the continued salting of the article title for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• The DRV closer failed to be clear or explicit regarding the salting of the title. Did he overlook it, of did he consider it a question for WP:RFPP? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It was my estimation that the consensus included salting. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is true, that consensus supported the salting, the original action and the indefinite continuation, I rather doubt it. In any case, I think you should have said so, and pointed any desires for continued debate on the salting question to WP:RfPP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the title wasn't salted by the DRV closer, it was salted by the admin who speed-deleted the article in the first place. The DRV was closed as "endorse" which would generally be seen as an endorsement of the close and protection together. Mine was one of the opinions on which the close was based and I can confirm I didn't really consider the issue of salting, in fact the discussion I had with Hobit and Thincat was one about recreation in draft form. The natural next step is for a draft to be moved to main-space. Nonetheless, I did "endorse" the deletion which included salting. RoySmith interpreted my comment (and others) as an endorsement of both and without explicit commentary to the contrary, I'm not sure how he could have done otherwise. It's overly bureaucratic, yes, but I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. Essentially, we all got caught up on the SD/IAR issue and ignored the protection. St★lwart 04:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed, or not, per the consensus of discussion there. The DRV discussion did not reach a consensus on continued salting, in my opinion, due to lack of direct discussion of that specific question. RoySmith did well enough to make a clear decision on the actual question posed in the nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely, "removed, or not". St★lwart 05:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. – RoySmith insisted that the consensus was to maintain salting despite the new article draft. The suggestion that this should go to WP:RFPP does not make sense because that would be asking an WP:RFPP admin to unilaterally overturn RoySmith's close. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Because nobody had specifically addressed the question of whether the protection should remain and so in endorsing the deletion, we were endorsing the protection. Had I (had we all) had the foresight to see it coming, we might have included a line or two ("oh, and un-salt"). We didn't address it and so Roy didn't address it in his close. Self-trout for that one! Post-close, his response makes sense. I don't think that prevents an admin at RFPP reviewing the case and making a determination about protection. I can't imagine anyone would object to them doing so. They are really overturning the original protection (on the basis that it is no longer needed), not Roy's close. St★lwart 09:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd rather not start an WP:RFPP post after starting this AN request since that could be viewed as forumshopping. If you or another editor want to make the WP:RFPP post, that would be fine with me. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Look, it's quite clear that the only possible policy-based outcomes were to redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government if the draft didn't meet WP:N (or, say, if BLP1E is applicable), or to allow recreation of the draft if it did meet WP:N. (On this point, I'd rather not take an opinion - this whole affair has been stressful enough for me). But once the blue shield is down, there's nothing to be done except wait until attention has moved on (or the tech bloggers pick it up, and the whole mess becomes too embarassing to the project). WilyD 10:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this, but I find the blue shield dig offensive. I have absolutely no problem with the community deciding my close was faulty, and I am glad that this discussion finally got started in an appropriate forum. But I do resent the implication that I'm reflexively defending a fellow admin because of cabalistic loyalty. If you take a look at the DRV archives, I think you'll find that I've handed out more than my fair share of trout. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If there's an argument to delete rather than have a redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government (probably the outcome I'd advocate if I weren't already sick of this train-wreck), it wasn't presented during the DRV or in the closing summary. It's a tough DRV to close (and I think you generally do a good job at DRV). But the cumulative effect of endorsing and closing as endorse is exactly how a blue shield works, little misbehaviours/overlooks/blind eyes by everyone to defend their friend/colleague's significant misbehaviour. If the point stings, that's unfortunate, but we can't avoid mentioning our problems because they're painful to deal with - then they only fester. WilyD 10:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion certainly were presented at the DRV. A redirect is a poor idea since it is possible that Delauter might end up mentioned in another article (SmokeyJoe suggested Streisand effect, for example.) If a reader is typing "Kirby Delauter" in the search box, they would probably prefer a list of articles (if any) that mention him, rather than being shuttled off to a specific one. As for your doubling down on this "blue shield" crap, I have to wonder: if someone closes this thread with no action, will they too be part of the blue shield? Is the only way to avoid a charge of corruption to agree with your opinion of what should happen with the Kirby Delauter page? You seem to have ruled out the possibility that the people who agree with the deletion and salting are doing so in good faith. 28bytes (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is in good faith (as assumed) is neither here nor there, it is still admins preventing ordinary discussion by the use of tools and confirmation of the use of tools even where the numbers were against it, and the consensus by those who addressed it was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you might be assuming good faith (and if so, I thank you) but my concern is with people who are not, and who are moreover explicitly assuming bad faith and attacking the character of the people who disagree with them. Regardless, I don't see much benefit to be had in continuing to argue with you about whether the DRV close was correct; perhaps we can agree to disagree on that? 28bytes (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I would not think it helpful to read any of that as you do (if you give him the benefit of the doubt ie good faith) statements like "blind eye" "overlook" and even mis behavior could be negligent, not malicious, but mistaken acts (in this case) would still wind up in the same place as intentional acts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion rather than having a full article were made at DRV, no arguments were made for deletion rather than redirecting to the only page where the subject is mentioned. (The argument that under different circumstances different choices might make sense is axiomatically true, but invariably irrelevant. WP:RFD sorts out cases with multiple possible targets routinely, and never, ever, ever comes to the conclusion that deletion makes sense.) Reasonable, good faith editors can conclude that the draft/subject meets WP:N, and thus should have an article, or that the sources are mostly local, BLP1E and/or NOTNEWS applies, and thus the article should be redirected to the only page on which he's mentioned (as we would with any other politician who doesn't meet WP:N or its stepchildren). I don't believe that anyone endorsing the decision is acting maliciously, I suspect they're trying to protect their friend from having their misconduct exposed and ignoring that we're ultimately here to write an encyclopaedia. Wanting to protect ones friends is an admirable enough trait, but in this context there's no harm in having your action overturned, so there's nothing to protect them from anyways. WilyD 18:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• When I !voted to overturn the speedy the matter of salting didn't occur to me (it isn't a really a DRV issue anyway). Now I re-read the DRV discussion I can't see anyone saying they supported continued salting though obviously if anyone had been in favour they might not have thought it appropriate or necessary to say so. Interestingly, the last !vote was to endorse the deletion and to allow a new draft. Cunard's draft was presented quite late in the DRV and I think it deserves (and ought to have) community discussion. I don't know the best way of achieving this. Thincat (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• For the record I endorse both the original deletion and salting, and User:RoySmith's closing of the DRV, for the reasons I offered in the DRV. And I find User:WilyD's "blue shield" remark above (implying that everyone who disagrees with his opinion is corrupt) to be reprehensible and out of character for an editor and admin whom I've otherwise had a good impression of. The fact is, the only reason there's a draft of Kirby Delauter right now is because of a stupid remark he made on Facebook and the reaction to it. That it now contains details about Delauter's family and career as a businessman and local official does nothing to alleviate the fact that he's known for one thing. If, a couple of months from now, people still think this local politician is of lasting notability and therefore merits an encyclopedia biography, I'd be willing to reconsider my position in light of new evidence of that. Perhaps by then tempers will have cooled and there will be less of a desire to make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks. 28bytes (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the admin endorsements of the IAR speedy were well intentioned but they did give a very unfortunate impression which possibly may not be so obvious to war-weary admins. It was not a good idea to have handled a supposedly "textbook" case in a non-textbook manner. If this is the right place for community discussion about the contents of the draft (is it?) I'll give my views. Thincat (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thincat, the proper place for community discussion about the contents of the draft is AfD. In my view, the draft complies with BLP and NPOV (and no one has suggested otherwise), so there is no pressing reason not to move the draft to mainspace and list it at AfD. If, as 28bytes notes, people want to "make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks" in the article itself, the editors can be blocked and the article can be semi-protected or full-protected as necessary. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And in my view, the draft doesn't show why he passes WP:NPOL. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't have to pass NPOL if he passes WP:N. And the largest newspaper in the state wrote an editorial about him. That's mighty fine coverage. And coverage unrelated to the "one event". There is massive coverage about the one event. Hobit (talk)

• I reiterate that the salting should be undone and there was no consensus to salt, so overturn. I also think Roy Smith was wrong in his reading. He says correctly that there was not numerical strength to endorse, but ignores that fact that non-admin i-voters could not see the deleted article - so of course we were disabled in offering opinions on whatever was deleted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  DRV is not AFD Take 2. We don't need to be able to see the article -- we just need to see if the closing admin read the discussion correctly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And he read it wrong: there was no consensus to salt, there was not numerical strength to endorse, and he incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No one requested to see the deleted article. Presumably they'd either already seen it, or felt that their !vote did not depend on what was the article content actually was. I can email you a copy of it if you'd like. 28bytes (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

28bytes, during the discussion, and still, the deleted version remains here), explicitly cited during the discussion. Final version, without attribution of course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

NB. If it weren't for the speedy deletion, the cached version would carry an AfD notice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SmokeyJoe. 28bytes (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I now see, Smokey Joe linked to that cache version without the attribution in the discussion apparently after I participated or I just didn't see it because I took the speedy for BLP at face value that it had a really bad BLP problem, so we should not see it. None of that, however, changes the fact that the consensus was to overturn the salt, and numerically the !vote was not to endorse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your point is non-responsive and still supporting overturn - the closer incorrectly discounted the numerically strong views of those who wanted to allow a real attempt to write and judge in the ordinary process an article. The consensus was not to salt by those who addressed it, so he was wrong there too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. You say the closer "incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article" but you provide no evidence that there was anyone who could not see it and wanted to. Cunard, for example, stated that he had read the article via Google cache. If anyone wanted to see the deleted text, all they had to do was ask. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense and again non-responsive - we could not see the deleted article and so offered no opinion on it - that is exactly what was said at the time but the closer incorrectly took that as somehow endorsing, and the consensus by those who addressed the issue was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying "non-responsive" like we're in court. What is it exactly that you want me to respond to? 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The closer got it wrong - I've offered why I think they got it wrong. I did not ask you to respond at all but if you do, don't go off on how we could see a speedy deleted article, when the very purpose of speedy deletion is for us not to see it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, there are a lot of issues here.
  • The deletion was out of process as was the salting. Neither the speedy nor the salting could be justified by our deletion or protection rules. The bar for endorsing such action should be very high. There is no way that high bar was met.
  • The draft had unanimous support in the discussion of all those that indicated they'd looked at it. I believe 5 people supported it and no one objected. It's hard to understand how a draft with 100% support of everyone who indicated they'd read it could be prevented.
  • The above two issues are related the (out-of-process) deletion meant that there wasn't time to try to fix the article before it was deleted. If we'd followed our regular process, we'd probably still have this article.
  • Not a single person in the discussion indicated why this article was important to speedy out-of-process. IAR should be used when there is a reason to use it, not just because someone feels like it.

Hobit (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, I think the right way forward is to move the draft to article space and allow an AfD as desired. That's where we'd be if someone hadn't been working outside of process to begin with and that's where we should get to. IMO the draft meets our notability requirement and is well above any speedy criteria--it should get a discussion. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• DRV reviews deletion decisions. Salting is tangential to DRV's scope: we do discuss and review it sometimes but it doesn't always receive the attention that deletion decisions receive, which I think is why this issue wasn't really bottomed out at the DRV. Personally, I think the purpose of salting is to prevent bad faith editors from perenially re-creating material in despite of a consensus. I think the salting should always be removed when a good faith editor wants to create an article in that space.—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• I am not familiar with the intricacies of DRV or salting but I wanted to weigh in here because I have read the draft and feel strongly that it belongs on Misplaced Pages. It seems that bureaucratic/administrative process is interfering with making an excellent article available. Unless I am missing something, it seems that no one can provide a reason for its exclusion from the main space, other than that this is where the process has ended up. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Severe backlog at WP:ANRFC

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

FYI, there is a severe backlog at WP:ANRFC, with over seven dozen sections that need to be addressed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Reasons for Backlog

There would almost never be a "severe backlog" at ANRFC if a couple of individuals (non-admins) hadn't decided that about 90% of all RFCs "needed" to be listed there, regardless of the views of the people actually involved in the RFC. I asked them a few months ago to actually ask participants if a formal close was wanted (WP:RFC directly says that a majority of RFCs should not be formally closed), and they refused on the grounds that identifying and respecting the wishes of the participants in a discussion was "too bureaucratic". I disengaged when every comment there made me start thinking about hat-collecting and résumé stuffing for RFA. "I spent last year writing completely unnecessary closing statements for 500 RFCs!" could become the new version of "I've created Featured Portals!".

On a related note, if someone could change the "Skip to TOC" link to become a "Skip past the needlessly bloated RFC list" and get to the actual AN board", then I'd certainly use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'd argue there wouldn't be such a backlog if some of us non-admins hadn't been told in the discussion on the talk page that "only admins should close anything that will require administrative tools to finalize". I'll note that there were a couple three of us working through everything listed and "keeping the red at away" there and most of us have stopped pending the closing of WT:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes. From where I'm standing as a non-admin, asking an admin to delete a page is no different than asking an admin to move a page that isn't a simple move or move-over-redirect. — {{U|Technical 13}} 20:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's very annoying to be told not to do things that you're competent at, although specifically for deleting a page, your work might not actually save the admin any time (as s/he would feel obliged to review the discussions thoroughly anyway). However closes that might require admin tools appear to account for just 14% of the current list. That should leave non-admins with plenty of work (or make-work) if they want to do it.
    Perhaps we need some sort of WP:DYK-style quid pro quo rule: if you aren't involved in the discussion, then you can only list one discussion per month at ANRFC "for free", and after that, you can only list as many as you've personally closed that month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that said baclog contains numerous discussions that do not require a formal close and/or do not require admin involvement. I closed a few the other day and was found that many of them are minor content disputes where consensus is exceedingly obvious. Why do we need to jam up this noticeboard with that sort of thing. Perhaps an RFC on ANRFC is in order to establish better guidelines for what should and should not be posted there, them we can add to the backlog when that needs a closer... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• WhatamIdoing, I understand that 14% isn't much. My personal experience is this:

I was working through a backlog of RfD requests that the "normal" closer felt too involved to close.

Many of which were clear cut "no brainer" discussions that had strong support one way or the other. (most, or all, of the !votes were for one side or the other or there was only an objection by the creator with no justifiable "reason" other than they were being defensive of their work).

These were XfD discussions (which are suppose to be closed after seven days nominally with preferably less than three relists for a "21 day" discussion period) that had been sitting around for three or four months because there is apparently only one or two admins that close discussions at RfD.

I was then told (or it felt like I was told) that non-admins are not competent enough to close any discussion which requires an admin to carry out the result despite there being a specific {{Db-xfd}} for this purpose.

This made me feel unappreciated for the closes I had done, whether they required an admin to carry out or not, made me feel like I was incompetent, despite getting many thanks and few complaints about the discussions I had closed, and left me feeling bad for helping out in a place where there was an incredible backlog.

People (including myself) don't appreciate being made to feel incompetent, unappreciated, and bad for doing good work and as a result no longer want to contribute to closing discussions until the issue that caused that bad feeling is resolved. In this case, it will be a matter of how that RfC is closed for me.

• Beeblebrox, I would love to be part of an ANRFC reform proposal. I'm guessing such a thing should probably wait at least a month or three before being proposed because I'm guessing people are a little burnt out on the topic because of the current NAC discussion.

— {{U|Technical 13}} 01:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got phase two of the BASC reform RFC on my to-do list as well, so I won't be putting anything together anytime soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the answer is to subdivide the page. WP:ANRFC for things you need to be a sysop to close, and WP:EERFC ("Experienced editor requests for closure") for the content-page-discussion sort of things that may or may not need closing. (Necessary or not, it's no real effort to close them.) Scrolling could be reduced even further by having a link to ANRFC rather than a transclusion, if anyone's in serious danger of carpal tunnel.—S Marshall T/C 16:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The page does say that requests for obvious closes shouldn't be listed (only ones where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implication). On the other hand, I find there are obvious requests listed quite often. In the end though, it would take more effort to discuss whether to close or to discuss why signed comments were deleted, than to just close them (which as you say requires no real effort). It might be the matter is moot since User:Nyttend has deleted a massive chunk of the requests, though I'm not convinced that completed requests should simply be deleted like here until it is agreed that an archive is unnecessary (given that completed requests have been archived to-date). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't find it now, but I recall objecting when the archiving first started. Why would we need an archive of requests to close discussions? We don't archive AIV, RFPP, UAA, etc, why this? If and when we do the proposed RFC this is something that should certainly be discussed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

We archive them? I had no idea that anything got archived. For a long time, I've removed items from the list once I've fulfilled them. I agree with Beeblebrox that there's no need to archive them. Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm personally not fussed as to which it is, but if we are going to enforce what's said on the page (which is fine), that goes for everyone. In the same way the page currently says that requests for obvious cases shouldn't be listed, the page also currently says completed requests are archived. Currently, neither is apparently being followed, so either the page needs to be properly changed to reflect the agreed position(s), or people need to properly follow what's said on the page; doing neither is unhelpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• AIV and UAA should not be archived because they are trouble user specific issues (so, kind of a special case like BLP). PERM is archived and RFPP is archived (kind of) all of the other AN boards are archived (AN ANI 3RR BON (current)). It makes sense that ANRFC would also be archived. — {{U|Technical 13}} 18:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree with Nyttend's wholesale removal of the closure requests.

  Three "consensus is clear" discussions; the discussions are forgotten and the consensus unimplemented

  Here are three "consensus is clear" closure requests he removed:

  1. Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack/Archive 3#Request for comment on media section (initiated 2 December 2014).

     The discussion has a clear consensus to remove or severely trim the media section. Yet, 22 days after the the bot removed the RfC template, the "Media coverage" section still is in the article at its bloated size.

  2. Talk:Elizabeth Warren#RfC: What should be in this article: a short summary of United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, or a longer version? (initiated 7 December 2014).

     There is a clear consensus for the "short summary" of the election, but the "long summary" still is in the article 17 days after the bot removed the RfC template.

  3. Talk:SupremeSAT(Pvt.)#Proposed merge with SupremeSAT (initiated 9 December 2014).

     The discussion has a clear consensus for a merge, but no merge has been done 15 days after the bot removed the RfC template.

  The consensus in these discussions will be ignored if the discussions are just forgotten. My purpose is to ask the community not to forget. That aim has motivated me to list closure requests at ANRFC for the past three years.

  Oftentimes, an experienced editor's RfC close provides the spark needed to get the consensus implemented. Or the close helps editors better frame the next discussion so that the dialogue doesn't just peter out.

  Mariah Carey birth years discussion; a "consensus is clear" close is referenced 16 months later to enforce the consensus

  Here is a "consensus is clear" closure request from September 2013: link. The consensus was already implemented. Mariah Carey's two possible birth years were added to the article. An admin wrote "no need for a formal close of this". I asked again for a close after someone reverted against consensus, and Armbrust (talk · contribs) closed it.

  In January 2015 (16 months later), a new editor disputed the consensus version, saying only one year should be listed. Another editor responded with a link to the RfC, Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 9#Request for Comment: Birth Year. Had the RfC not been closed by an uninvolved editor, it would have been far more difficult to ensure the consensus is respected. "Read an uninvolved editor's summary of the RfC" is more likely to be heeded than "read this long, unclosed talk page discussion".

  Of course something like this doesn't happen to all "consensus is clear" discussions. But it is impossible to distinguish between the two types because we cannot see into the future. It is impossible to determine whether the consensus will be overlooked or ignored in the future. And it is not worth the time to hazard a guess because as S Marshall noted above "Necessary or not, it's no real effort to close them" and as Ncmvocalist wrote, "it would take more effort to discuss whether to close or to discuss why signed comments were deleted".

  Archiving

  I support archiving of the noticeboard for transparency and easy reference. I've referenced discussions in ANRFC's archives before (in fact, I've done that just above about the Mariah Carey birth years discussion), as have other editors. And it allows editors to easily determine who requested a close rather than laboriously paging through ANRFC's history.

  It takes no more effort to archive a discussion than to remove it. First, see an example here using the OneClickArchiver. Second, ClueBot automatically archives closed discussions (example from 21 January 2015). Since it is easy to maintain an archive, I don't see a pressing reason to remove it given the benefits of having one.

  Recent backlog

  The recent backlog is because I did not update the closure requests list for around four weeks. (I usually try to update it every two or three weeks.) In the past when a large number of requests has been added, the backlog has returned to a reasonable number within two weeks.

  "Experienced editor requests for closure" noticeboard

  S Marshall's idea for an "Experienced editor requests for closure" noticeboard is worth exploring. A concern I have is that a separate noticeboard will have less visibility and not improve the backlog.

  Cunard (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• When I first started contributing to ANRFC, I asked Cunard "C, is there a userscript available to make the technical component of closing these discussions easier? I know there are scripts for XfD discussions, and I'm wondering if you know if there is one available for this." to which he replied, "I don't know of a userscript for closing these RfC discussion, sorry!" As a result of this, on January 9, 2015,‎ I created and started working on User:Technical 13/Scripts/Gadget-closeRfC.js. Currently, all the script does is sort the page based on a weighted value for how long each section has been waiting on a response. I decided to not develop the script any further than that pending the result of the NAC deletion discussion that has been closed with a final weighing of the result waiting on the result of the subsequent "Vandal Fighter" new usergroup discussion. Currently, using the script seems to interfere with using OneClickArchiver to archive sections, the TOC isn't sorted (but could probably just be hidden since the sections are all sorted and the goal would be to start at the top and work your way down), and the script doesn't "do" anything except sort. I'm hoping to add the ability to review and close discussions from ANRFC itself (opening the discussion being assessed in a new window/tab/or a moveable popup interface) and do so with less work (only have to click on close, select an outcome, and click save and it both properly closes the discussion and marks the ANRFC listing as done for you). If it turns out that NAC deletions are ultimately shot down, (which I'm not convinced there is consensus to do based on the multiple "I don't want to delete things based on non-admin closes so no-one else should be allowed to either" comments which add little weight to the consensus but is ultimately up to the closer, Dank, and anyone he recruites to help with the close if needed, to decide), then I would be happy to have the script make use of the sysop-show css class that is available to hide things that don't concern non-administrators to hide those sections. This will in effect create a page where it appears as "Experienced editor requests for closure" to non-admins and ANRFC for things you need to be a sysop to close. The best part of this possible solution will be that both of those pages will be the same page. It would reduce fragmentation and give the maximum possible viewership possible without driving another wesge in between administrators and other editors. — {{U|Technical 13}} 01:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. This needs to not degenerate into an edit war. The restored list of requests should be left in place pending discussions in whatever venue, which are plainly called for. Formerip (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• There's no requirement WP:AN and WP:ANI threads have formal closures. If they go to archive without being acted on that should be a hint to the filing party / participants. Not a bureaucracy, remember? NE Ent 01:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Cunard, you requested an admin to look into a lot of items; your requests were handled by being rejected because there wasn't any need for formal closures for these. Please don't forumshop by adding new requests for lots of closures. Nyttend (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion of the requests was a no-tools affair, so your decision to delete has no special status over Cunard's decision to restore. BRD applies.

Even if there's a problem with the number of requests appearing (I'll reserve judgement on that for now), I don't see how mass deletion is going to be an effective solution. Even in the unlikely event that Cunard had let it slide, we'd be back in the same position within a few weeks. Formerip (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's another approach: How about we re-org ANRFC, so that the difficult XFDs and closes that were requested by participants get listed in one section, and all discussions listed en masse by uninvolved editors are put in a separate section? Then the short list of (more urgent) ones could be transcluded here, and anyone who wanted to do routine closing could follow the full page separately. Would this satisfy the people who want to have formal closes written for almost everything, while controlling the effect that has on this page? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Benefits of Formal Closure

Some posters to the above section have said that the listing of all open RFCs is unnecessary and is itself the cause for the backlog of requests for closure. They have pointed to the policy on RFC closure, which says that often RFCs do not need formal closure, especially if consensus is clear. Other posters have said that, even in such cases, formal closure is useful. I agree that formal closure is useful even in (and sometimes especially in) cases where consensus "should" be obvious. Just because consensus "should" be obvious doesn't mean that it is obvious to everyone.

I have closed several RFCs where I thought that consensus was clear, but that required follow-up for either of two reasons. Either one of the posters ignored the consensus, in spite of the formal closure stating the consensus, or one of the posters objected to the close and requested that I re-open the RFC to allow them to insert a statement. When there was move-warring against consensus or edit-warring against consensus, formal closure put the enforcing administrator on firmer ground in enforcing consensus. Formal closure establishes what the consensus is, unless reviewed. Otherwise the resulting WP:ANI thread would itself have had to establish consensus before warning or blocking, causing drama on a drama board. In cases where I have been asked to re-open a closure, I have instead asked for closure review. Without closure and closure review, the most likely result would have been edit-warring.

I think that listing 30-day-old RFCs for closure is useful. Maybe the policy should be changed so as to encourage formal closure in seemingly non-contentious cases. (A case is only non-contentious if no one comes out of the woodwork to start contending.) Maybe there should be more encouragement for experienced non-administrators to close open RFCs rather than to treat them as not needing closure.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

On the off chance that my semi-close yesterday concerning non-admin closures of deletion discussions is contributing to some of the drama today ... it shouldn't. I asked for more information on backlogs and offered to do what I could. I hope no one got the idea that I would just invent some remedy that wasn't already supported in the RfC, if the backlogs suddenly got bigger. I made the suggestion because I can see the possibility that some kind of recommendation might help, but I need the supporters to document what they see as the problem for me; there wasn't enough in the RfC to go on. (It might not be a bad idea to have an RfC some day that discusses how to close RfCs on user-rights, so that voters will know what closers are looking for.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is just coincidence, Dank. A couple of days ago, there was a large influx of new items to the request list and this prompted discussion. You can see from the timestamps that the mass removal actually happened before your close. Formerip (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's an ongoing issue, look at it right now, over 40 requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe this thread was started when there were over 90 requests, so it's certainly improved in a fairly short amount of time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert, there are benefits to formal closures. If there were none, then (I hope) you wouldn't waste so much time writing them. There are also several serious disadvantages. The two that seem most salient to me are these:

1. When you formally close something that doesn't obviously "need" closing, then you're indirectly telling the participants that you don't trust them to be able to figure it out and act on it. (Some discussions do require a formal close, including all XFDs.)
2. When you formally close something, you are officially enshrining the result of one discussion as The Consensus™. Even if your closing statement is a perfect summary of that discussion, the very fact that you posted a formal closure makes it much harder for future editors to follow one of our most important policies, which is WP:Consensus can change.

Overall, I support formal closures when the participants want them, not whenever one editor sits down to look over the entire list of dozens of RFCs that have happened during the last few weeks and see which talk pages have such "bad" editors that they didn't write something that looked like a formal closing statement before he got there. We've got someone listing about 90% (ninety percent!) of all RFCs that happen on the English Misplaced Pages. I support respecting the participants' wishes, which means actually finding out what their wishes are before posting a request for a closure.

I specifically do not support requesting a formal closure as a mechanism of prodding people to implement the consensus. If someone's really worried that the consensus from some discussion hasn't yet resulted in the article being changed, then he should make those changes in the article itself. He should not post a link to an admin board to ask someone to write a summary of a discussion that might (he hopes) make some other editor finally edit the article; that means using at least three people's time (the editor listing it, the editor closing it, and the editor fixing the article) to do the work of only one (the editor fixing the article). If he really can't edit the articles themselves in these cases, then he could leave a note at the talk page and ask whether anyone wanted a formal closure, or even just leave a nice note that says, "It looks like everyone's agreeing with this, so does anyone want to implement it?" It's not that hard, and it would be more respectful, more efficient, and more consistent with our basic principles than the current approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing. In fact, I was not pleased with at least one of the requests for closure a while back as I was fairly sure closure was not actually sought, so I pinged the user who initiated the discussion and it turns out that was indeed the case (see this for more detail). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I'm not sure your comment really reflects how most editors think. I think most editors see the XfDs, RfCs etc as forming a class of discussions where a close is expected as a default, even though they understand that closes are not always needed and that they may take a long time to arrive when they are. They only start them when the process of them "figuring it out and acting on it" on their own (which is what regular talkpage discussions are for) hasn't worked and/or when technical intervention is needed. It's true that things may develop in any given discussion so that a close it not needed, but I think it's totally false to suppose that involved editors are going to see it as affront to their dignity.

I also think you're working on the presumption that all but a very small number of these discussions end with a crystal clear consensus, which I don't think is the case. I think there can be a presumption that any discussion in the class does need closing where the result is not a totally foregone conclusion, from the point of view that an editor has, in good faith, asked a question using a process which purports to be about providing answers. If they haven't withdrawn their request and they also haven't received an an answer, then a close remains due on the account.

The main question, AFAICT, is whether we should or can sort discussions that need closing from ones that don't. Formerip (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ugh. Look what's going on right now. We just topped 50 requests at ANRFC, and now the board itself is seeing multiple request for review of closures. We need to wrap those up so we can open discussions of reviewing those reviews to make sure they were done properly...

Seriously, this is getting way out of hand. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yep. The jaw-droppingly-awful possibility of a separate RfC board (equivalent to AfD) and an RfC review board (equivalent to DRV) looms. The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureacracy... but maybe we do need that.—S Marshall T/C 23:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an example which the undo is somewhat harmful articles: List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country

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

A little search in internet show these brand do exist but the undo is harmful which is driving people away. should improve it rather than hitting the Undo button directly

• Please follow the rule Misplaced Pages:Revert_only_when_necessary 183.178.222.138 (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Concerned user: User:Discospinster

Diff List: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country&diff=642013762&oldid=641978233

• Evercoss https://www.google.com/search?q=Evercoss+mobile
• Mito https://www.google.com/search?q=Mito+mobile
• Polytron https://www.google.com/search?q=Polytron+mobile
• Advan https://www.google.com/search?q=Advan+mobile
• Axioo https://www.google.com/search?q=Axioo+mobile

Diff List: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country&diff=642149897&oldid=642134642

• Vivo Electronics https://www.google.com/search?q=Vivo+Electronics+mobile

183.178.222.138 (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Backlog which i didn't clarified one by one 183.178.222.138 (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country&oldid=642013762
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country&oldid=641577492
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country&oldid=641102473
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country&oldid=640511167

It would be wise for you and the other editors to read the note at the top of the list:

... Subjects without articles will be removed per WP:NLIST. Write the article on a given subject before adding a link to the article to list pages, cf. WP:WTAF.

--David Biddulph (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure is it what you mean, can you help ? 183.178.222.138 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

He means that typically on lists on Misplaced Pages, they are not meant to include every single example of something, but rather, every example that is notable - as in, has its own article. Almost every one of your examples don't have their own Misplaced Pages articles, which is why they were removed. Discospinster was not wrong in doing this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I really doubt the link decision, so we can simply say others work are not notable, mis-format, below-standard, without reference. The obvious facts here is that peoples are driven away indeed. The simple concept, please "improve it" rather than "undo" it, at least there is option to improve one of them and ask others to follow. leaving it open actually are providing others chance to complete the Misplaced Pages:Stub, why wikipedia didn't ban Misplaced Pages:Stub 183.178.222.138 (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if you really because of the notability reason, after some research, It seems that he should include the link WP:CORP in the reason. a guideline means a thousand words. or we expected that everyone is an "expert" and this is an "expert only community do not welcome newcomers" 183.178.222.138 (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a side note, really searching for smartphone not related, or minimal link to China or Chinese Company, trying to avoid to any extent, can someone else give a hint 183.178.222.138 (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt driven away, but, I really don't see how he could have handled it any other way than undoing it. They didn't need fixing, they needed to be removed, because they didn't fit the inclusion criteria. There is a message at the top of the article not to add items that don't have their own article, and there's talk about it on the talk page too, so it's not like this is completely out of the blue or anything. Also, "Revert only when necessary" is not a rule or policy, its merely an "essay". Essays are more of a suggestion or an ideology than a rule that has to be followed. Some essays even directly contradict one another, you literally couldn't follow them all. They're more of a philosophy than something you can actually hold against someone, unless its connected with breaking policy or something. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not telling ideal, but do you know that some people are actually risking their life to type on the keyboard to try to get their message got read ? and get their ideal broadcast ? obviously it is not the case now, the worst i can have now is losing my job, and I hope that i will not be put in jail for saying that i am looking for phone (not related to china), which may be likely in next 20 years. 183.178.222.138 (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but a statement like that falls into the WP:ATA category. Also remember that editing Misplaced Pages is not compulsory. In other words your statement is not a reason to restore the info to the list article. MarnetteD|Talk 19:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

History merge clarification

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

Hello admins,

I seem to be in a dispute with user Jeffro77 regarding the necessity of merging histories of two pages resulting from cutting and pasting. The pages are Puerto Douglas and Port Douglas, and both are being discussed at RfD at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 23#Puerto Douglas. To summarize, it appears that user Luxure attempted to move another page on top of Port Douglas as a primary topic, was not able to, and then decided to move Port Douglas to Puerto Douglas as a placeholder, but either gave up or was not able to complete all of the required moves. Jeffro77 restored the Port Douglas disambiguation page by typing out a new one in that place, and redirected Puerto Douglas to the "new" page. I am of the understanding that this situation requires the histories of the two pages to be merged per WP:ATTREQ but Jeffro77 obviously disagrees. It may not technically be a cut-and-paste move but I don't think that exempts Misplaced Pages from attribution - Jeffro77's new page is essentially identical to the former dab page before all this happened. Can one of you fine administrative folks please advise? Ivanvector (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector is simply incorrect. The page at Port Douglas was erroneously deleted after a misguided request by User:Luxure. I retyped it from scratch, and then the admin who deleted the page, User:Callanecc, subsequently restored the old history once he realised the deletion request was unfounded ( See User_talk:Callanecc#Speedy_Delete). Similarity to the other redundant redirect page is merely coincidental because both pages employ standard Misplaced Pages syntax for a disambiguation page. The original intent to move the Queensland locality article to Port Douglas was also incorrect, as it is not the only locality with this name, and there has been no consensus that either is the 'main' subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Jeffro77 is correct. I intended to move Port Douglas, Queensland to Port Douglas by moving the current Port Douglas disambiguation page to a placeholder (to be deleted Puerto Douglas.) I realised the error of not being able to move it to a blank page and subsequently undid my errors. Luxure Σ 00:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, I did not see that the page had been deleted and then restored. Pinging Callanecc as the deleting admin. I do still think the histories need to be merged before the Puerto page is deleted, to preserve the article history. Ivanvector (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to merge their independent histories. Creation of the superfluous page was merely some misguided housekeeping. I have no objection to either a) deleting Puerto Douglas, or b) deleting Port Douglas and renaming Puerto Douglas to Port Douglas. The latter will maintain the fairly mundane history of the page that was previoulsy moved from Port Douglas (but shares no editing history with the page that currently has that name).--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like this whole situation came about as a result of an erroneous page move. Having reverted that move, everything seems to be back to normal for now, and as of now, there's no histories that need merging or redirects that need deleting. @Luxure: Can you please explain exactly what you want moved where? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As indicated above, User:Luxure wanted to make Port Douglas the main article for what is currently Port Douglas, Queensland rather than a disambiguation page.(The misunderstanding was compounded because he thought that the page title had to exist for the destination name prior to the move, so an additional superfluous page was created.) However, there has been no discussion about whether it should be the main page for that name. Currently the page is a disambiguation for articles about two locations, however it was also pointed out by another editor that Douglas, Isle of Man may also be known by this name.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

See here. With all those markers gone, it still comes up as Australia not Canada or Ireland. Luxure Σ 01:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You may not be aware that Google search results are also affected by your own location and search history. It may be that unaffected search results also predominantly indicate the Queensland location, and this is all good discussion content for proposing the move, which should have been done prior to the attempted move. (You might upset a good few Brits and Loyalists by suggesting that Ireland would appear in search results for the Isle of Man.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: Ha, I don't even know where I pulled Ireland from! I also tried google.com giving me identical results. Luxure Σ 04:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether you use the .com.au or .com site. Google still knows who you are. Be afraid. Be very afraid. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack, reverting the move addressed my concern about the history, and apologies all around for any perceived unnecessary pointiness. Ivanvector (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Review of Block on Cwobeel

I would like a review of a block on Cwobell. Cwobell made three edits to these pages first time ever, first sourcing to IMDb , , and , as according to Cwobell he/she did not know that iMDB was not an acceptable source (Cwobell claims to have checked the RS/N archives, and what he/she found was inconclusive). Once Cwobell was made aware of it, Cwobell looked for others sources and found a book as a source to the Susan Sarandon list , followed by a request to improve the sourcing as Cwobell saw that a few of the items were not matching the source . The result of these actions was a one week block, and an indefinite ban on lists of awards and nominations . I think these edits were made in good faith, and his comments were based on the understanding that there was no harm done. In his/her unblock request, Cwobell made it clear that I was not going to continue using IMDb and that I did not intend to pursue any further edits in the area . Casprings (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

First the block was an arbitration enforcement block. Second, Cwobeel's first edit to "List of awards and nominations received by Susan Sarandon" was to remove the unsourced BLP tag, change it to unsourced and restore the entire unsourced article. The IMDb sources was not valid or cited inline as required and it did not match. When that failed, he pulled up a poor book source and restored it for the third time, but it took 11 other sources to just fill out the missing awards. Then even after all this was known Cwobeel denied any wrongdoing - even when multiple errors were found in a check. Good faith or not, Cwobeel edit warred contentious material and did not adhere to the most basic tenets of BLP then claimed it was "innocuous" despite being wrong. I don't know about you, but Nicolas Cage was not nominated in three different films for the 2008 Razzie Awards for Worst Actor as Cwobeel re-added. Nor did Nicolas Cage win that 2009 Scream Award. There is more, but this will suffice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel's block was imposed after a discussion at WP:AE. If the block is to be challenged, it should have an {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}, which generally needs a request from the person blocked. A longer discussion of the block can be seen in this version of Cwobeel's talk page. It appears that Cwobeel has chosen to retire rather than appeal further. His departure would be unfortunate but in my opinion the BLP concerns were worthy of bringing to his attention. All his responses prior to the block indicated his belief that the worries about BLP were excessive. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So much for WP:AGF. The editor didn't know that IMDB can't be used as a source. He does now. Unblock without all this bureaucracy bullshit, knowing that if he starts citing unreliable sources, a block can be resumed. Lugnuts 08:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• The block was made by me. Because it is an arbitration enforcement block, it cannot be reviewed in response to this request by a third party, but only by way of an appeal which Cwobell themselves would have to undertake. See WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications: "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction". This discussion is therefore moot.  Sandstein  12:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

What's that word I'm after? Ahh, found it. Lugnuts 19:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've now unblocked the user per a request on their talk page.  Sandstein  06:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Samir Becic

I'm not sure where to post this question. I was going to move Infobox person Samir Becic to Samir Becic, but it appears that page was salted. There was an AfD in 2012, so I initially tagged it for speedy deletion. But it appears that additional sources have been added since that discussion and I reverted. My question is...should this article be deleted again; if not, can an admin remove the protection so the article's title can be corrected? APK whisper in my ear 09:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done by Shirt58. Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 11:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am the admin who previously salted this title, and I've deleted it again. Additional sources notwithstanding, the content of the article is essentially the same sort of PR-style fluff that has been deleted countless times, with a few minor changes. The creation by a new account with no other edits is also of concern, as this seems to be part of the M.O. in getting this article recreated (see also the history of Samir Becic (model); the use of a different—or, in this case, wholly inappropriate—title is usually a tell-tale sign of attempting to circumvent the salting). I've deleted the article; if anything, this should be discussed by the community at large somewhere (possibly WP:DRV) before recreation. --Kinu /_c 15:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. APK whisper in my ear 17:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kino. I understand your position. Claiming something is PR fluff doesn't make it so, however. Samir probably is notable and meets the other criteria for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. A LOT of press has come out on him since your deletion in 2012-- 3 years ago. I've repasted the content below. I removed "award-winning" from the first line. I don't see any thing else that could be construed as promotional.

2601:E:280:1C00:4D5E:4F3A:560A:36D9 (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've decided against reverting this edit and have collapsed it instead. However, this discussion does not belong here. Blackmane (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Review Closure of debate : Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact

This debate Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact was closed last night at 8:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC) less than 24 hours after it was opened on 10:43, 26 January 2015. Arguments were presented on both sides.

I'd like to challenge closure on the basis that the debate wasn't given enough time to reach a consensus, or for editors to respond to criticisms of their comments. Also it didn't leave much time for other uninvolved editors to learn about the debate.

The closure was not decided on a policy basis, or on a careful, considered review of citations.

Robert Walker (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn - Apparently the most of the same editors who recently participated on the the supposed article talk page were now arguing on the noticeboard. Such discussions should be avoided but quick closure without that included lack of policy based rationale cannot be justified. Closing admin could've commented in place of closing after adding his point of view. VandVictory (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn A complex discussion like this needs more than 24 hours to reach a valid consensus. --John (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Why wasn't I, the closing admin, notified of this? Anyway, discussions get closed whenever the situation has become clear and it appears unlikely that it will shift further. This was the case here. Buried in the vast volume of talk from a few highly entrenched editors, there was a clear situation that one group of editors had reliable literature to cite in favour of their view, and one or two other editors simply didn't want to hear about it. It was a WP:GREENCHEESE type of situation, it was getting highly repetitive, and it was producing more heat than light by the time I closed itc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Could be closed with a different summary, you could tell that the users must try somewhere else, like Rfc, DRN, in place of copy-pasting same discussion. VandVictory (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. My apologies. Though I'm a long term wikipedian I am not well up on protocol and didn't realize that I needed to do this. As soon as you said it I realized my omission. Robert Walker (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Also - both sides had citations in support of their claims which at least fulfilled the usual criteria for citation sources for wikipedia. This is an example of a paper in the American Journal of Human Genetics by one of the authors BladesMulti cites - Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India. Robert Walker (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where this paper was brought up during the noticeboard thread, but then, I also don't see how it would serve to cast doubt on the finding in question, of general academic acceptance of Indo-Aryan migration. Judging from its summary, the results of that paper appear to be fully compatible with it. Where exactly was this paper discussed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The relevance is that he gave an earlier citation by the same author. I thought better to link to his latest results here, The relevant part of the paper is the Discussion section starting: "It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown" but this is not the place to discuss the content dispute itself, I just mentioned it to show that there are citations on both sides of the dispute. Robert Walker (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. This is not an overturn vote, because in my opinion the basic decision was probably correct. However, the close seems to be mainly based on a judgement that one side consists of "knowledgeable editors who are familiar with the literature". I don't think this is an appropriate way to close because, for this type of discussion, the closer's assessment should be based on the evidence put forward, not on which side gives the best impression of knowing what it is talking about. If the close is overturned, it would be good for editors to concentrate more on sources. Formerip (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Those sources are clear: the IAMt is mainstream theory, whereas the "Out of India" is not even rejected in mainstream academics, but simply ignored. The issue is highly contentious, since the IAMt is opposed by Hindu nationalists. Robert came here by following me, and started to participate, acknowledging that he doesn't know anything about the topic. Which is clear from the sources he's referring to. No hint of any knowledge of the relevant sources: Mallory, Witzel, Anthony. If the closure is to overturned, focus will be on those sources. Two sources:

• Mallory & Adams (2006), The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World:

"Currently, there are two types of models that enjoy significant international currency (Map 26.1). (p.460)

"There is the Neolithic model that involves a wave of advance from Anatolia c. 7000 bc and, at least for south-eastern and central Europe, argues primarily for the importation of a new language by an ever growing population of farmers. (p.460)

"Alternatively, there is the steppe or kurgan model which sees the Proto-IndoEuropeans emerging out of local communities in the forest-steppe of the Ukraine and south Russia. Expansion westwards is initiated c. 4000 bc by the spread from the forest-steppe of mobile communities who employed the horse and, within the same millennium, wheeled vehicles." (p.461)

• Witzel, Michael (2001), "Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts" (PDF), Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 7-3 (EJVS) 2001(1-115):

"The 'revisionist project' certainly is not guided by the principles of critical theory but takes, time and again, recourse to pre-enlightenment beliefs in the authority of traditional religious texts such as the Purånas. In the end, it belongs, as has been pointed out earlier, to a different 'discourse' than that of historical and critical scholarship. In other words, it continues the writing of religious literature, under a contemporary, outwardly 'scientific' guise. Though the ones pursuing this project use dialectic methods quite effectively, they frequently also turn traditional Indian discussion methods and scholastic tricks to their advantage The revisionist and autochthonous project, then, should not be regarded as scholarly in the usual post-enlightenment sense of the word, but as an apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking aiming at proving the 'truth' of traditional texts and beliefs. Worse, it is, in many cases, not even scholastic scholarship at all but a political undertaking aiming at 'rewriting' history out of national pride or for the purpose of 'nation building'."

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Future Perfect's closure note may not have stated it overtly, but the "knowledgeable editors" (of which I was one) were using and citing the most recent and most reliable sources for the topic at hand. The religio-nationalistic argument that was being made was based on a profound repetition of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, using the WP:GREENCHEESE tactic. There was no discussion occurring since the opposing editor's sole argument consisted of "this hypothesis is completely false", despite the fact that it is accepted by virtually every scholar in the field. His sole position was to reject 200 years of scholarship in favor of his thinly-veiled religious viewpoint. Since there was no discussion, there was no need to proceed with the pointless exercise of burning through bandwidth. --Taivo (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As I indicated, my objection was only to the rationale of the close. Regardless of whether the effect was correct, this matters because, in other circumstances, we may get editors eloquently spouting nonsense and favoured by a closer solely on basis of how their jibe-cut looks. I don't think we should be satisfied with closes that leave open the possibility of having reached the right decision only by happy accident. And there certainly were arguments and sources put forward by the other side. They may have been junk, but that's something that absolutely must be addressed in the close. Formerip (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support boxing of thread - As noted below, the closure was not a formal closure, since there is no procedure for the formal closure of WP:FTN threads, but the boxing of a disruptive thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn - Though contentious subjects requires wider discussion, I further agree with FormerIP that it could be closed without any results. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn The neutrality of the article Vedic_Period was being disputed Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute when the debate Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact was opened by closing the debate too soon before other editors could participate including me since I had disputed the neutrality. Many of the points raised in Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute were not even raised or debated. A total of 7 editors in 24hrs debate decided that scholars who do not agree with the Kurgan_Hypothesis are 'fringe'. This is not a fair process of debate. Using the hastily arrived so called 'result of this debate' User:Joshua_Jonathan deleted the WP:NPOV banner and also reverted some of his own previous edits which he had made to bring about some amount of balance in the article as a result of the debate we were having on Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute. Thus closing the debate should either clearly say that there were no result so that we can restore the deleted edits in Vedic_Period and restart the WP:NPOV debate there, else we should reopen the Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact debate.Indoscope (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn. It is grossly unfair to have a discussion for less than 24h and generate a "verdict", either let it run for others to participate or purge it entirely. I am an active editor, with good reputation and I must say I didn't even know of the discussion's existence and it got closed right away -- with a "clear verdict". Now, that is sheer mockery of a discussion and is against the the idea of collaboration! --AmritasyaPutra 09:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - The original thread that was boxed was not a Request for Comments or any other sort of thread for which formal closure is used. Talk page threads that have no formal status are often boxed when they become excessive. I agree with other editors who suggest re-opening the discussion, not because the closer erred, but to permit further discussion, but that the topic be re-opened as a Request for Comments. I note that, in that case, it will run for 30 days, not for a week. If the topic is re-opened, an admin will need to watch it so that any irrelevant comments or personal attacks can be hatted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hatting maybe better. I also think that the better place for an RFC would be the article's talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn Although I seriously expect a fuller discussion would reach the same conclusion, a minimum of a week is what is generally required. Collect (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

In looking at the thread whose closure is being reviewed, I see that the thread had been open for only 24 hours, and that it appears to consist of one author supporting the fringe "out-of-India" on Indo-European languages theory and multiple editors, citing established scholarship, dismissing the "out-of-India" theory. However, the discussion was lengthy and heated. The discussion was then closed by administrator FPaS. The thread was not an RFC, and was not in any other way a thread having any sort of formal status, and so it is not clear to me whether closure review applies. There did appear to be a snow consensus against out-of-India, but the discussion was not one for which consensus needs to be identified. If anyone thinks that consensus does need to be determined as to "out-of-India" as opposed to the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis (IAMT), then the mechanism to do this would be a Request for Comments, for which formal closure is appropriate. I think that FPaS was justified in boxing the thread, not so much because consensus had been determined, as because the thread was becoming disruptive in itself. For that reason I support the closure, and am not sure what the requester wants to have overturned. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I will note that the originator of this "closure review" thread did not participate in the original thread. Why does he want the closure reviewed? What does he think needs to be discussed at more length? The thread was noisy and unproductive. If the requester wants a longer discussion of IAMT vs. "out-of-India", RFC is available. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd suggest reopening the debate. There's nothing wrong with Future Perfect's close in itself, but the close hasn't stopped the argument. It's just moved the argument here. Send it back to the appropriate place, let them wrangle for a week and then re-close it. Sure, the close would very likely be exactly the same, but if we go through fair process, users will no longer be able to argue that the close was arbitrary or premature.—S Marshall T/C 11:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree. But then a RfC, at the FTN, with notifications at the relevant noticeboards (India, linguistics, history, etc.). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "fair process" is mandatory not optional. A "clear conclusion" and closure in less than 24h is undeniably premature. --AmritasyaPutra 15:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

So, that would be at Talk:Indigenous Aryans, wouldn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC opened

I've opened an RfC at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Let's keep it civilised. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a good idea because that wasn't even a question in the FTN section which I had started. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bladesmulti the original question raised by him was "Should we regard Indo-Aryan Migration theory (IAMt) as a historical fact? In terms of making references to it, or using the hypothesis as the actuality for generalizing the historical events.". This has been turned in this RFC to is "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Which was not the original question at all.Indoscope (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Bladesmulti asked a question at the Fringe Theorioes board has no bearing on whether or not a different editor can propose an RFC on a different (albeit related) question. Why do you think it should? Paul B (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a different, though related, question to me - original question was about mass migration and had the Indo-Aryan migration theory article as its prime focus. Since Indo-Aryan is a language group if I understand right - and since languages can spread without mass movement of people (examples include trade, temporary conquest by a numerically small group with superior technology, missionaries, many other reasons). I am saying that not to re=open the debate here - but to say how the two hypotheses are clearly independent. Logically they could be both true indeed (you can have simultaneous mass migrations in two directions at once, or at different times), or both false, or one or the other true. Robert Walker (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes

Resolved by motion that: The Committee will conduct a Review focusing on matters broadly arising from the Infoboxes case. Evidence will be invited specific to the following point:

1. Are the sanctions of Pigsonthewing in the infoboxes case fit for purpose or should they be revised?

Procedure: The Review will be a simplified form of a full case, the named party being User:Pigsonthewing. Any editor may give evidence providing their evidence is directly relevant to the numbered points above; is supported where appropriate with diffs; and complies with the usual evidence length requirements. The evidence phase lasts for ten days and will be followed by a decision on the substantive issues by motion. No workshop will be held, though relevant comments may be made on the /Review talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Reviewing RfC closure : Battle of Chawinda

None of the sources supported the victory results that were recently added to the infobox, except one source primary source. The closure was based on the vote count, while one of the editor who voted is now indefinitely blocked for block evasion and other 2 editors were topic banned. I am not very sure if topic ban actually effects here, but it all happened during the RfC's run. That alone puts the "support" votes much below compared to the "oppose" votes. Some of the comments were actually riddled with faults, one of them goes like:

Comment: After taking a glance at the sources, I cannot figure out that the term Major is supported on a wide scale except The Canberra times. I think the best way is to reach a consensus; I suggest the term should be The largest tank battles and Pakistani Victory. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Now if the consensus is to mention victory of Pakistan here, while none of the sources actually support it, I find it better to say that the RfC closure was inappropriate. Kindly share your opinions. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just rechecked, there were 8 "oppose" and 5 "support". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Closer: I gave the Canberra Times little weight in the close, as I said in my closing statement. When I checked the book sources they did appear, unambiguously, to say that Pakistan won the battle.—S Marshall T/C

• An interview of a Pakistani Military general, that's a WP:PRIMARY source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• ...which is one of several reasons why I didn't give that source much weight.—S Marshall T/C 01:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• WP:Milhist notified.—S Marshall T/C 01:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support close - The real question is whether the closer used appropriate judgment, and whether the close result could reasonably be derived from the RFC and the sources. It should be noted that the closer downgraded the degree to which the battle was categorized as a Pakistani victory from "major Pakistani victory" to "Pakistani victory". No one argued that the battle was an Indian victory. The battle could have been referred to as: indecisive (which the war was); as a Pakistani victory; as an Indian defeat, which the closer notes is a Pakistani victory; or as a decisive or major Pakistani victory. The closer split the difference among possible options, using reasonable judgment. Some of the participants could have been taken to arbitration enforcement under WP:ARBIPA for personal attacks, but that has nothing to do with the close. The closer used reasonable judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support close. The previous commenter has this right, I think. It appears hard to argue that "Pakistani victory" is not supported by the sourcing. "Major" is harder to call, but I think the call made was well within reason and to continue arguing about that would be to argue over almost nothing. The suggestion made here that the close was unduly dependent on a head-count also appears false to me. Formerip (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• I had mentioned the vote tally below. It was 8 - 5. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support close. I will mention that I did make a couple of brief comments during the RfC, but did not engage in any of the to-ing and fro-ing that went on. The "Pakistani victory" close is entirely consistent with the Osprey third party independent RS mentioned by several editors in the RfC. Weighting the arguments appropriately based on the reliability of the independence and reliability of the sources raised on the RfC completely justifies this close. Votes are only tangentially relevant here. The quality of the sources and arguments IAW policy is what should carry the day. Well done to the closer on sorting through the chaff. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• You were also involved in the RfC, and which third party source actually mentioned "Pakistani victory"? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• None of them used those words. The exact words they used were "bloodbath... for Army", "debacle", and "the Pakistani forces... defeated their ... foes". Are you seriously arguing to overturn the RfC on this basis?—S Marshall T/C 14:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• They are not equivalent to victory or defeat, and your other quotations talks about the 25th regiment fighting other small force, not between the nations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support close - it may well be that none of the sources use the term "Pakistani victory" but they use sufficiently similar words and descriptions to ensure that such a conclusion is not original research. That's like every news outlet describing a two-man foot-race in which a participant "lost to his opponent". That's sufficient to draw the conclusion that "the opponent won". The arguments on that basis were deemed stronger than anything numerical from those who disagree (though that is their right) with the arithmetic. St★lwart 15:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Contested claims requires better sources, and correct representation. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, within reason. You can't simply contest any claim you like and demand better sources because existing ones don't agree with your POV. I could claim the Earth is flat and demand better sources than the Hubble Telescope's images and the confirmation of astro/cosmonauts on the ISS (those are primary sources, are they not?). You can't accept that it was a Pakistani victory and at the same time oppose it being described as a "Pakistani victory". And you don't seem to be suggesting it wasn't a Pakistani victory. So if the result was a Pakistani victory and the sources confirm as much, what are you contesting? St★lwart 05:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I believe that OccultZone's desired outcome is to describe the battle as inconclusive, or to remove the "results" parameter from the infobox entirely.—S Marshall T/C 13:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, now at this point I do have a valid objection to deal with. First, OccultZone challenged my close saying it was based on the vote count, although in fact I closed with the numerically smaller side. Then he challenged my close saying it was based on a primary source, although in fact I had specifically disregarded that source in my close and I removed it from the infobox when I implemented the consensus. Thirdly, and he's persisting with this one, he claims my close is wrong because although the sources call this battle a "bloodbath" and a "debacle" for the Indian army, they don't specifically call it a "victory" for Pakistan! Because of this objection, the statement that the battle was a Pakistani victory was tagged with "failed verification", and is described as a "contested claim" by OccultZone above. This line of argument needs no answer from me.

  However, fourthly OccultZone says that the Zaloga source which says the Pakistani army "defeated" the Indian army is not actually talking about the Battle of Chawinda. According to OccultZone, Zaloga is actually talking about the Patton tanks of the Pakistani 25th Cavalry commanded by Lt Col Nisar in their engagment with the 17th Poona Horse (who despite their name were actually armed with Centurion tanks, a considerably superior vehicle). This was one particular engagement in the Battle of Chawinda, not the whole battle, and this is actually a reasonable concern about that particular source.

  However, I'd say that the other two book sources are enough to put the matter beyond doubt. Pakistan won the Battle of Chawinda.—S Marshall T/C 12:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Although an RFC is not a vote count, I would say that the closer honored the vote count well. The vote count was 5 support, 8 oppose, after deleting sockpuppet votes. Now a requester wants the close reversed because the majority opposed the original statement. The requester appears not to have read the question correctly, or to be reading it oddly. The original question was whether the battle was a major Pakistani victory. A majority opposed that statement. Therefore the closer, while giving a more nuanced reasoning, did what the majority wanted, and changed the characterization from "major Pakistani victory" to "Pakistani victory". The majority got what they wanted, even if they have to read every word to realize that. No one said it was an Indian victory, and I didn't see any arguments that it should be characterized as indecisive or a bloody draw. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse close - well reasoned reading of the discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Socks are out and about

Don't know if anybody got anything like User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#hi. If you have but haven't bothered to investigate, it turns out to be a blocked sockpuppeter who would like me to block two other editors. They would also like me to create a couple of articles. I have done none of these things. Though I did create a fake FB account to see what they wanted. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1.1)

(i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.

(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.

(iii) Notifications issued under Gamergate general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from the date of enactment of this remedy, then expire. The log of notifications will remain on the Gamergate general sanction page.

(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under Gamergate general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the central discretionary sanctions log.

(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.

(vi) Administrators who have enforced the Gamergate general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at Arbitration enforcement.

1.2)

Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

(i) Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;

(ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;

(iii) There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;

(iv) The default position for BLPs, particularly for individuals whose noteworthiness is limited to a particular event or topic, is the presumption of privacy for personal matters;

(v) Editors who spread or further publicize existing BLP violations may be blocked;

(vi) Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;

(vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.

2.1) Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

4.1) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

5.1) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

5.3) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Misplaced Pages. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

6.2) TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Misplaced Pages as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

7.2) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

7.3) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Misplaced Pages by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

8.2) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

8.3) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 48-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Misplaced Pages, except The Devil's Advocate's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

8.4) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

8.5) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Misplaced Pages by motion of the Arbitration Committee. Further, the committee strongly suggests that The Devil's Advocate refrains from editing contentious topic areas in the future.

9) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Misplaced Pages as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

10.1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Tutelary (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

12) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic bans preventing ArmyLine (talk · contribs), DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs), and Xander756 (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. The topic bans for these three editors are converted to indefinite restrictions per the standard topic ban.

13) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs) from editing under BLP enforcement. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Titanium Dragon is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

14.1) Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

15) Willhesucceed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

18) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles, especially GamerGate-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Misplaced Pages policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

• Quick note to readers Several links reading "standard topic ban" go to the nonexistent WP:AN#Scope of standard topic ban. Apparently this is a reference to remedy 2.1, Any editor subject to a topic-ban... Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Added an anchor. T. Canens (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• By "(including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE)", I presume you mean "(including, but not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE)". Squinge (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• You're correct; this was raised at the "Discuss this" link, and Courcelles fixed it on other pages where this announcement was posted. Nyttend (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Request immediate TfD closure

I would like to request the immediate closure of Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division. This TfD was originally initiated as a delete TfD on November 29, 2014; was re-opened as a merge TfD on December 8, 2014, and remained open for 25 days until it was closed as a "keep" by a non-administrator on January 2, 2015; it was re-opened pursuant to a DRV for an inadequate/inappropriate NAC on January 22, 2015, and it has now been open for seven days since then. During the last seven days, four more discussion participants have evenly split 2–2, adding to a cumulative !vote of 13–7, or 65% opposed to the proposed merge. It is time that this TfD be closed: it has been open for a total of 32 days, and has attracted 20 participants -- more than all but a handful of TfDs in the past year. It is also evident there is no consensus to support the proposed merge; it's time to draw a line under this one. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No, "this TfD" was not "reopened on December 8"; the December nomination was a new one. This has been pointed out to you previously. Also pointed out to you, more than once, has been the fact that TfD is a discussion, not a "vote", so the concept of a "majority" is irrelevant. A closer acting properly will weigh the arguments presented. Your attempt to sway the closer in your closing statement is a further breach of WP:CANVASS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy, there is no breach of WP:CANVASS here. What is stated above is a factual recitation of the history of this process in which you (1) have nominated the template for deletion on November 29, (2) renominated it for merge on December 8, (3) took it to DRV on January 8 to re-open a messy non-administrative close, and (4) the merge nomination was re-listed on January 22. As I stated above, the present merge TfD nomination has now been open for a total of 32 days (25 + 7), and has attracted 21 participants. As for your false allegations of "canvassing," those have been refuted in the TfD itself, but I do note for the record your active lobbying campaign to get previous discussion participants to change their !votes (see here). Perhaps not exactly "canvassing," but it would seem you have little lobbying campaign of your own underway, eh? BTW, if you're going to make false accusations of canvassing, I suggest you take them to WP:ANI, rather than WP:AN. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Protonk

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

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Protonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Protonk (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

24 hour block and 3 month topic ban pursuant to GG sanctions, logged here

Administrator imposing the sanction

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Statement by Protonk

Please bear with me through a somewhat indirect appeal, as the justification for my block is so Kafkaesque I cannot diagram the single sentence which provoked it to defend my actions without inviting further sanction.

I was blocked under the GG discretionary sanctions for this edit (admins can review the diff). The justification was (near as I can tell) "advocat ignoring policy" and "repeat an egregious BLP violation" (diff) while doing so.

The statement that I made is unambiguously true, sourced to multiple reliable sources in the gamergate article, and central to the dispute at hand. Further, the only way to read defamation or denigration from that sentence is to rip words out from the incredibly limited context I provided. I'm not even making the half-assed claim that you have to read that sentence in light of my entire oeuvre or even a whole paragraph in order to gain context--you just have to read the entire sentence. Like I said above, I can't diagram said sentence here, so forgive me an analogy.

We have on Misplaced Pages an entire article devoted to a scurrilous accusation, one which is obviously provably false. An accusation which not only violates BLP it caused the BLP policy to come into being. In it we state "The article falsely stated that Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy." We recognize that the embedded statement "...Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations..." is a BLP violation. It's a false, unsourced claim about a living person. The encompassing sentence is not a BLP violation because it is a true, sourced claim. It cannot be one regardless of the awfulness of the original claim. There is no transitive property of BLP.

Further, the same basic idea is already present in our current article: "Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "rambling online essay", containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." Snipping out the meandering clauses we get "...Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post......Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." I'm really struggling here to see the substantive difference between that and what I wrote. If the distinction was that I didn't cite my source, a 3 month topic ban seems a bit harsh.

As for the charge of advocating ignoring policy: fuck that. The interpretation of BLP which I decried in that edit is perverse and nonsensical (see this redaction for a good example, paying close attention to what was and wasn't retracted). If our policy is arbitrary enough that an admin (admittedly one who is pretty intemperate and not very smart) can get topic banned for three months over a single edit for content that is already in a wikipedia article then I have absolutely no regrets in advocating we ignore it. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by HJ Mitchell

Statement by CIreland

I am an admin and I saw the deleted edit in question. I am involved.

Contrary to Protonk's remarks above, the edit makes a false and defamatory assertion about a living person. Gjoni never made the conflict of interest accusation about Quinn that Protonk attributes to him; that accusation was made by "others" with their own reasons for doing so. This attribution is agreed by multiple first-rate reliable sources and by Gjoni himself. Our own article describes these events with an abundance of supporting citations. By repeating the misattributed assertion, both Gjoni and Quinn are unfairly treated.

That being said, I think the sanction, in particular the topic ban, is unduly harsh. I do not doubt that Protonk was acting in good faith and simply fell into a trap that has caught many otherwise careful and thoughtful individuals; Gamergate is quagmire of rumours, innuendo, agendas and half-arsed journalism. There are a number of second-rate sources floating around the internet (particularly some written when the controversy was fresh) which could easily lead one to the same erroneous statement as that made by Protonk. However, an error is all it is. CIreland (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Statement by Strongjam

Way out of my depth here I know, but I do want to highlight that HJ Mitchell has been very active in patrolling the page I personally do appreciate it. I think the block here was over-zealous, but no matter what the outcome I hope HJ Mitchell continues to help out in the topic area, and that more admins would join him in doing so. — Strongjam (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note, @Strongjam: moved from AE, consolidating requests. Courcelles 04:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken

Which is the operative appeal, this one or the one at AE? BMK (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• This one is older. I've closed the AE discussion and linked to here in the hatnote. Courcelles 04:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Protonk

• Comment The wide latitude given AE administrators to block other users when they are judged to have violated discretionary sanctions means that I think we often stray over into WP:PUNISH territory. Is it a possibility that this happened here? jps (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I recommend lifting this sanction. Protonk is undoubtably a good faith editor, and there has to be some room to discuss things that are all over the press and in our articles without getting whacked with the BLP block hammer and the GG topic ban club. Jehochman 04:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Our GG article currently contains a quote from Quinn about the accusation against her: "... the same accusation everybody makes towards any successful woman; that clearly she got to where she is because she had sex with someone." Can someone help me understand why it was necessary to redact Protonk's comment? Did it contain sensitive information not already present in the article? I'm straying into foreign territory here, but this seems very odd to me. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why in particular it was redacted. However, the comment by Protonk incorrectly attributed that view to her ex - he did allege that she had engaged in affairs, but didn't comment as to why. - Bilby (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Protonk's comment, in its entirety, was: "IMO any policy that requires the statement to be redacted is perverse and should be ignored." Can you point to the part where he attributed something to her ex? - Dank (push to talk) 05:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

In the bit you redacted. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The bit I redacted wasn't said originally by Protonk, so he's not attributing anything to anyone. - Dank (push to talk) 05:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Time for bed, so: looking at everything so far, I recommend lifting the sanctions, and in particular, lifting the block before it expires. Having said that: Harry, I have no doubts about your effectiveness, diligence or cluefulness. Protonk's opinion might easily be seen by some as objectionable and even unhelpful, and I'm sure you were doing your best to be impartial. That said: it didn't contain sensitive information and it was an opinion concerning policy, and we're on a slippery slope if we start penalizing people for having the wrong opinions. - Dank (push to talk) 06:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the issue is that Quinn's ex never stated that he believed Quinn engaged in affairs to try to gain a professional advantage. Attributing this view to him without sources to back it up is indeed a BLP violation. If Protonk was aware of the distinction and knowingly misrepresented the ex's views, the topic ban is justified (and other editors have been blocked for similar chicanery). If Protonk made a good-faith mistake the topic ban is excessive (that said, I am dismayed that any admin would advance the argument that IAR / "fuck that" applies to WP:BLP, ever.) TotientDragooned (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Really? Even mentioning what one of the central starting accusations of Gamergate actually is is now worthy of a three-month topic ban? That's an absurdly overzealous reaction, and the fact that the actual statement is talking about how needing to redact exactly that sort of statement is nonsense is a kafka-esque bit of nonsense. Sure, 24-hour block, whatever, smack him on the nose, but the article itself says "Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson.". To turn around and say that it's a massive BLP violation to combine that with the next sentence of the article is absurd. For fuck's sake, no wonder so many admins are refusing to come anywhere near this disaster zone, no matter what mealy-mouthed statements our glorious arbcom overlords make praising them. --PresN 06:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Protonk

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Noting above two administrators commenting as "editors" - do you wish your comments to be considered as reviewing administrators? Risker (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  Sure, if that helps. Jehochman 04:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• This seems too aggressive; I'd like to hear from HJ to see if I'm missing something. The down side of short AE blocks is that it's almost impossible to get a consensus to overturn them before they expire; one reason to be extra careful making them. If a consensus here determines that the block was incorrect after it expires, we should make a 1 second block to note in the block log that this was the consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC) addendum: to be clearer, I think the block and the topic ban were too aggressive, not just the block. (again, barring an explanation from HJ on something I'm missing.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Risker, I got lost in the headers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Noting that the sanction applied here is not just a 24 hour block but also a 3-month topic ban. The discretionary sanctions for this case are very expansive and include not only any edits related to GamerGate but also any edits related to "any gender-related dispute or controversy" and are not limited to GG articles. Also noting that HJ Mitchell posted his interpretation of the applicable issues on the talk page of the relevant article. Risker (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• As a retired admin who saw this mentioned on Twitter, I came by to see what the story was. If this sanction is justified, the admin involved has done a very poor job of making that clear. Despite attempts to keep up with the saga, and despite reading everything from ArbCom on this, and despite a decade of inside knowledge the heavy-handedness of Protonk's ban is incomprehensible to me. Misplaced Pages is already getting a black eye with the public on this, so any ban like this should be, at minimum, explained so clearly that the general public can easily understand. -- William Pietri (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Decision of appeal: There is pretty uniform consensus that, while Protonk's edit likely did cross the line into BLP territory, the sanction is excessive for the nature of the offense. Therefore, the block is converted to time served and the topic ban is lifted.

  Protonk made an unnecessarily inaccurate paraphrase of information that has repeatedly been discussed; that Wikipedians (most in good faith, a few not so much) seem to feel the need to keep repeating this information is unhelpful in maintaining the integrity of the project, at a time when every activity related to this topic area is being carefully watched by those who may interpret any editorial action in a manner that would be out of step with the interpretation of experienced users. We can all afford to be a bit more careful here. At the same time, within the last 24 hours the sanction regime has changed for this topic area and everyone (including patrolling administrators) could benefit from starting at the lowest reasonable level of behavioural remediation. In this case, a redaction and warning/explanation of the problem with the edit by a longtime contributor (as opposed to a reanimated but previously dormant account) would likely have resulted in the editor taking a step back; if not, then the bigger sticks of blocks and topic bans would remain available. It is difficult to go wrong in starting off with lighter interventions.

  TLDR: Protonk, you can do better, please don't paraphrase, and especially don't paraphrase incorrectly. HJ Mitchell, your identification of the edit as being problematic is supported by your colleagues, but the consensus is that the administrative action taken is more than is appropriate to the sanctionable activity. Risker (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to request further explanation of the sanction from the imposing admin and if extant, history of Protonk's behavior in this area which may have been problematic. I did not find Protonk amongst the evidence section of the recent case in a quick search now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup in aisle 1

Can an admin please delete all the Talk:Miranda Cosgrove/Archives/ pages created by the bot starting at 1:05? The archiving parameters weren't quite correct. --NeilN 03:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if I missed any. 28bytes (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. --NeilN 03:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

ROFL! Poor bot, he's just doing what you tell it to do... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

While muttering "stupid humans!" all the while. --NeilN 03:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Review Block of DarknessSavior

I'd like to request a review of the block on DarknessSavior. DarknessSavior made these three edits: , , , and was subsequently blocked indefinitely. There was no attempt to communicate with the editor, no warning, no prior misconduct not even a temporary ban/block. The reason given for the indefinite block was WP:NOTHERE. The user then made an unblock appeal which was denied for the reason: "Looking over your edit history, you appeared after 2 years to edit a gamergate ANI thread and then you proceeded to mess with Ruylong. Ya, no." and was then blocked from editing his own talk page without notice.

I fail to see any evidence supporting WP:NOTHERE. He seemed polite, his edits were minor translation issues that had minimal prior discussion and he has a history of translational edits. WP:NOTHERE itself seems very subjective in general. To use this as cause for an indefinite ban after only 4 edits would imply at least a lack of WP:FAITH. This block does not seem reasonable. TyTyMang (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• All the gamergaters are remarkably polite—they have learned their lessons well. Arbcom have left an ugly mess by banning the editors who were defending the encyclopedia, and gamergaters are now picking over the spoils and enjoying attacking Ryulong. Welcome to Misplaced Pages, good block. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What constitutes an attack on Ryulong? What criteria is required to label an editor a "gamergater"? Are editors labeled as such, topic-banned from editing anything Ryulong has touched? TyTyMang (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• The block is absolutely unreasonable as I see it, bordering on malicious. User:DarknessSavior did many good faith edits in the past. Sure they stopped contributing at some point, but have you considered that it could've been because of editors like User:Ryulong who WP:OWN articles and prevent reasonable edits from coming through? User:DarknessSavior's change of "Condol" to "Condor" is reasonable to anyone with a minute knowledge of Japanese and was, in fact, implemented after a short Talk discussion. The admins who banned DarknessSavior (User:Courcelles and User:Guerillero) have committed a grave and glaring WP:FAITH violation in this case.  Grue  06:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Regardless of this editor's motives that you shouldn't even be speculating on per WP:AGF, being indeffed for these particular edits is ridiculous. Even a short block would have been overly harsh. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• I thoroughly agree. If fixing language translation isn't attempting to build the encyclopedia, what is? Where is any evidence of disruption in January? And even if the previous edits were problematic (I've not checked them), the January edits demonstrate that a WP:NOTHERE block is completely out of place. Then, he requests unblock by saying "I was just doing this helpful thing", which gets him immediately shut down. I thoroughly endorse the "bordering on malicious" bit: Courcelles and Guerillero have completely failed to assume good faith, so blatantly that they have done a good job of demonstrating bad faith here. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is against procedure, but while you are at it could you also look into User:Fidsah and User:FlossumPossum which were also blocked indefinitely for related incidents, but even less action on their parts. User:Fidsah was blocked for this shortly before the editor that reverted him agreed that this is a sensible change and did it himself . From what I can tell User:FlossumPossum didn't even make any edits to any articles, but was solely banned for his interaction on related Talk pages. 79.247.112.157 (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:FlossumPossum was blocked Indefinitely by the same admin citing the same reason as above. It appears Flossum did post on the talk page of the same article that DarknessSavior had been blocked for editing. Again, I can't find any WP:NOTHERE evidence. In fact, I have no idea what edit(s) might have given any cause for action.

User:Fidsah was a blocked a long time ago as a vandalism-only account and hasn't been active since 2011. Though it may be of note that the only edit made since then by this user was on the same article as the above 2. And, as noted in this dif ended up being in line with the consensus. However, this user was blocked without any notice or reason. This appears to be a big deal in WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. Is this article under some sort of Secret Sanction?TyTyMang (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of the admins are providing short leashes on articles Ryulong has edited in the past. They are basically running on the rule "If you have edited GamerGate, haven't been really active lately, and then edit and article Ryulong has edited, you're gone.". I am not sure I agree with that as while Ryulong was a prolific contributor the articles he edited should not be treated differently than any other editor. I don't see articles edited by other editors that have been banned treated with the same respect as his. I think it isn't calming the situation at all post-gamergate. Hipocrite also seems to be fanning the flames as well patrolling the GG area. My two cents. Not worth much. 129.9.75.252 (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• endorse block. The off-wiki coordination on 8chan, reddit and elsewhere makes clear that there is an intentional effort to focus attentions on Ryulong's former articles in an effort to irk him; the increased sensitivity around them, as a result, if entirely sensible. I really don't care if gamergaters are being "polite", and anyone who does needs to look up the term "sealioning". Ironholds (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So everyone who uses those websites are equally guilty, are they? It is far more likely that this user is from a particular 4chan board that has nothing to do with GamerGate whatsoever. Your argument is as ridiculous as assuming all Misplaced Pages editors are the exact same. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a firehose of SPAs who are being pointed at the obscure articles that Ryulong used to edit in an attempt to bait him into socking. Admins should be able to use reasonable means to deal with off-wiki disruption; AGF isn't a suicide pack --Guerillero | My Talk 14:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

RevDel

I had reverted this few days back. Perhaps it may require RevDel. --User:Vigyani 08:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog