Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:29, 18 February 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 18 days ago on 5 December 2024) - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:18, 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 222 days ago on 15 May 2024) Discussion died down quite a long time ago. I do not believe anything is actionable but a formal closure will help. Soni (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 77 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 76 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 68 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Initiated 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 40 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 40 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Initiated 33 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 15 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 38 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead

(Initiated 7 days ago on 16 December 2024) RFC is only 5 days old as of time of this posting, but overwhelming consensus approves of status quo, except for a single COI editor. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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

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

(Initiated 10 days ago on 14 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:06, 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 90 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Initiated 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 66 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 48 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:JTG Daugherty Racing#Requested move 22 November 2024

(Initiated 31 days ago on 22 November 2024) Pretty simple RM that just needs an uninvolved editor to close. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 26 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 56 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 10 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 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.

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)

Moving Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter

From WP:RFPP here:

Would an admin unprotect Kirby Delauter and move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter? See this close of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter by Spartaz (talk · contribs) (thank you, Spartaz, for reviewing and closing the discussion):

This discussion has stalled. As far as I can see there may be disagreement here about whether the article should hae been deleted but there isn't a killer policy based argument that the delete aspect of the DRV as closed was wrong. Where I am seeing a lack of consensus is around whether the salting should have been reinstated. As the salting was part of the original deletion is is certainly in RoySmith's ambit to reinstate this with the endorse finding but, on challenge, we do not have a clear specific consensus. As such, and bearing in mind that DRVs remit is deletion not salting I think the consensus is that reinstating the salting is not an enforcable provision of the DRV close. What does that mean? It means that any admin can unsalt this without needing to see consensus on the point. The only reason I have not done this myself is because there appears to be a risk of BLP issues to consider and I have not got the time right now to research the question to determine if there is a BLP risk from the unsalting. This does not preclude someone who has got that time from doing so.

Cunard (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Not unprotected This should be taken back to DRV; I am not going to override an endorse close there by my own action. Courcelles 19:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I would rather not take this back to WP:DRV for further discussion since this WP:AN close already reviewed the WP:DRV close with the conclusion "the consensus is that reinstating the salting is not an enforcable provision of the DRV close". And "It means that any admin can unsalt this without needing to see consensus on the point" as long as the draft is reviewed by an admin as BLP compliant. Ping User:Courcelles. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after this is resolved. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• The unsalting is actually rather irrelevant here, surely the question is whether the draft article is sufficient to overcome the original "delete" arguments even if it is BLP compliant. I personally don't think it is good enough notability-wise - it looks to me like this person's "notability" is hung on a minor news event and a load of local news reports. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Borderline notability means that it should be put through AfD. It easily passes all WP:CSD criteria. There never was a BLP concern, BLP1E is not really a BLP concern, and if there is a BLP concern, it exists in Draft space equally as mainspace. This person is a politician. The salting was a knee-jerk reaction accompanying the out-of-process deletion, and this salting appears to be wholly ignored or unsupported at DRV and here. Courcelles was wrong to ascribe an endorsement of the salting at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not often I disagree with you SmokeyJoe, but on few things here I must. Fails WP:NPOL and it's just a drama magnet. Misplaced Pages is not a social media reporting site, and the only thing of note here is Kirby's brief Facebook rant. Unless or until Mr. Delauter does something notable, then it's best that the article is deleted. Salting removes the temptation of further problems right now. Just IMO, so ...

• Keep deleted and salted — Ched :  ?  10:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Hey Ched, maybe this disagreement can be resolved. We are talking about different things? Deleting for failing WP:NPOL is a matter for the AfD process, and is not a CSD criterion, and failing NPOL does not give admins the right to unilaterally delete contrary to the leading sentence at WP:CSD. For me, this is about respect for process, and vigilance against kneejerk reactions by a ruling class of Wikipedian. Did DRV approve the deletion with silent reference to NPOL? Possibly. If it is agreed, as you say, that this person fails NPOL, and further that there is drama magnetism at play, then yes, "Keep deleted and salted" is the right thing to do. But please, User:Floquenbeam, send it to AfD next time. If this were AfD, I would argue that reliable independent secondary source coverage exists, and the appropriate place for the content is at Streisand_effect#Selected_examples, justified by this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree with 99.9% of that. The one part I must take exception to is the "knee-jerk". Admins. are supposed to "mop-up" things they see as a mess. In this case it seems more that an admin grabbed the mop and cleaned up a mess before it was reported to the corporate office, and the "please clean" request was filled out in triplicate. Now - I'm wondering if putting Draft:Kirby Delauter up at WP:MFD would help resolve things here? Thoughts? — Ched :  ?  20:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Pre-emptive mopping may be questionable. It could be perceived as "controlling". Anyway, MFDing the Draft might be sensible. MfD might be good at the isolated question of whether the page is a BLP violation. If the question goes to NPOL, I for one will shout "wrong forum", MfD is not the approval court for drafts. Better to unsalt, move to mainspace, and list at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• All very bureaucratic but the varying admins seem to require just that. For the matter to be properly decided by the full editorial community, the draft should be taken to AfD for a proper keep/merge/discharge from draft/delete discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Review of the Closing for a WP:RFC for America: Imagine the World Without Her

I would like a review for this closing. I just don't think it reflects consensus at all, but would like others to review it.Casprings (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a fair close for the question "is Breitbart.com a reliable source for that statement?" However, there doesn't seem to be consensus for actually including Shapiro's statement in the article, which is somewhat at odds with "...yes it's appropriate to include that source in the way that it's currently included in the article." in the RfC closing statement. The close does not address the issue of WP:DUEWEIGHT; It merely assesses the question of reliability. My Facebook page would be a reliable source for my opinion, but unless secondary sources took note, I doubt it would make its way into a Misplaced Pages article. By the way, I do not eat children. - MrX 00:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I read over the RfC, the close, and the previous talk page discussion S Marshall linked to in the close, and... it looks like a perfectly reasonable close to me. 28bytes (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know enough to endorse or not endorse, but the close looks basically within discretion. I'd make two points, though. The question asked was narrower than appears to have been called for. I'll AGF, but note that this can sometimes indicate an RFC question that is not made in perfect good faith. If I had closed this, I would, therefore, have declined to reward the question with an answer about whether the material can or should be included in the article. I would probably have instead invited further discussion. There are pros and cons to this. My approach might end up prolonging the dispute. S Marshall's approach might risk interpreting answers to a very specific question too broadly (i.e. some editors may not have considered the wider issues, because they were not asked to). However, skimming the responses, I'm not sure this is actually the case. Secondly, the close appears to recognise that the source being discussed is controversial and should be attributed. I'm not very familiar with the source, so I make no judgement on this. However, being unfamiliar with the source, I'm not sure whether the words "writing for Breitbart.com" would alert me to whatever it is I need to be taking into account. Perhaps a brief characterisation of Breitbart is also needed, but this is not really mandated by the discussion. So, if I had closed this, the fact that there were issues with the source to which the discussion did not provide answers would have been a further reason for me to invite further discussion. I'm really offering these comments for S Marshall to consider and feel free to ignore - they should not be interpreted as an overturn vote. Like I said, it looks within discretion to me. Formerip (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Just to say that I'm aware of this discussion. The disputed wording is the stable version, or at least was in the article at the time of the October 2014 RfC which considered it. This is also at RSN and DRN, by the way. I'm happy to be overturned if editors feel I've made a mistake here.—S Marshall T/C 01:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"Opinions are always citable as opinions." So if I find a statement on anyone's facebook page that compares the president to a Nazi, I can now include it in Misplaced Pages articles so long as I attribute it to the facebook account? I didn't think WP was set up to just past everyone's opinions where ever you wanted so long as you attributed them.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The key difference here is between verifiability (is there reason to be absolutely certain that this is person x's FB page) on one hand and notability and WEIGHT. Why should anyone care what person x's opinion on the president may be, and if we do find it notable, where should it be (it's more likely to belong on person x's bio than on the president's). Guettarda (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The hypothetical assumes the facebook page belongs to the person who said it. But, you admit there are other WP policies that apply and the statement "Opinions are always citable as opinions." is not true or sufficient. For example, WP:ABOUTSELF says that self published sources, like facebook, can't make contentious claims about others and have a whole myriad of restrictions on their use. So do you agree that those policies apply to attributed opinions from a self-published source just like weight and notability?Scoobydunk (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's true, but not sufficient. And we should always prioritise secondary sources over primary ones. Guettarda (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You say what's true? That "Opinions are always citable as opinions," or that other WP policies apply to attributed opinions as well? Please look at the policies and questions described and give a direct and succinct answer. If opinions are always citable as opinions, then there are no other policies relevant and any opinion can be cited so long as it's attributed. However, if other policies have to be met, like with the facebook "president=nazi" example, then opinions are NOT always citable as opinions and have to meet other WP standards.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Actually WP:BLP is the policy invoked when any notable source calls a living person a "Nazi" - and it is not the fact that it is an "opinion" in that event, and as noted Facebook is exceedingly rarely usable as a source for anything at all. For material salient to an article and allowed under policy, opinions are always citable as opinions, and are not allowed to be cited as "fact" in Misplaced Pages's voice. In any event, the material does not impinge on WP:BLP in the manner some seemed to suggest, and the closure was certainly within normal discretionary limits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reaffirming that there are WP policies that have to be met before citing an opinion.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• The close doesn't reflect consensus and misinterprets a previous RFC as the basis for its rational. The previous RFC mainly asked if Breitbart.com is reliable for its own opinion and was allowable with regards to a review by Christian Toto. The closer agreed with that it was reliable for its own opinion but didn't address the issue of allow-ability. However, the closer admitted that the inclusion Breitbart.com into the article is an entirely separate issue here . So this close completely misinterprets the previous RFC to try to apply it to whether the Shapiro quote should be in the article. The close also ignored the BLP issues of Shapiro's quote and the issues of weight.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• The close was proper and the RFC was presumably constructed the way it was to address the specific policy claims being cited to object to the segment, as the first one was. VictorD7 (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with VictorD7 that the close was proper. Atsme☯ 00:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A Radical Suggestion

There have been too many RFCs and WP:AN threads about this article. Usually when there are too many WP:ANI threads about a topic, they indicate that there is battleground editing, and that it will eventually have to go to ArbCom. However, I don't see battleground editing, just a lot of questions where everyone is acting in good faith but getting nowhere. I would suggest that formal mediation at WP:RFM is the next step for this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's important to bear in mind how unimportant this article is. It made it into the news, it's something that people are worked up about now, but give it a year and things will look very different. I still remember how the Expelled article, at its height, was 20% longer than it currently is and had spawned 2 or 3 daughter articles. Now, few people would care if it was trimmed back to half its length, and no one has written anything new on the topic in more than half a decade. Guettarda (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Mediation can not overturn an RfC close as far as I can tell, and a significant number of "declines" at the RfM are already noted. Sorry. Collect (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would take the view that a mediator can overturn the close of a content RfC such as this one, if that's warranted. Formal mediation is a higher stage in the content dispute resolution process than an informal RfC. However, I don't think a mediator could overturn something like an RfC/U.—S Marshall T/C 16:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Restored from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268 for further discussion and assessment by an uninvolved editor. It would be unfair to S Marshall (talk · contribs) and the discussion's participants if this closure review is allowed to be archived without resolution. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - if an RfC can be overturned that easily, why waste time doing it? Just skip the process all together and take it to formal mediation. Perhaps we need to exert equally as much energy into changing the wording of some core contents policies to avoid the confusion. ARBCOM and AE are beginning to look like a traffic jam. Atsme☯ 00:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Affirm I don't know why this was unachieved. We are so very far from consensus that this closure was improper. The best you could say was the RfC was too narrow for inclusion of the Shaprio quote as there were other issues then if it was a reliable source or not. Still given the contentious nature of Brietbart it makes sense that this was the RfC question (as some people were using it's contentious nature to mean it should not be included). Now that it is resolved that it is a reliable source (if attributed), then we don't have to deal with those claims anymore. --Obsidi (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• Affirm close noting appeals of closes should present policy-based arguments that the close was improper, and no evidence is educed that the close was improper. Collect (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Requesting review of close of RfC at Griffin article

• Short version:

Please review the RfC response and the close, and the implementing edit made by the closer. I tried to discuss with the closer, and that went no where.

The RfC was focused on whether to name Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. The issues are at the intersection of WP:BLP and WP:PSCI (conspiracy theories are generally in the realm of PSCI and fringe, and the intersection is discussed at WP:BLPFRINGE.

In the edit implementing the close, Nyytend rewrote the entire lead, going beyond the scope of the RfC.

The close did not reflect the actual response to the RfC, nor the complexities of how BLP intersects with PSCI.

I am not at all opposed to taking "conspiracy theorist" out of the first sentence (good arguments were made for that). I think the reasoning provided in the close was flawed and the implementing edit was definitely over-reaching, and will create big headaches for the rest of the work we have to do.

The close is going to be important to subsequent DR efforts on the page and I was looking for a more thoughtful close reasoning, that considered the range of views, and considered BLP and PSCI in light of each other. Instead, we basically got one admin's view.

• Long version:

I know this is a bit long; please take a minute to bear with me.

Nyttend kindly responded to a request to close the RfC at Talk:G._Edward_Griffin#RfC:_.22conspiracy_theorist.22_in_first_sentence. The question was whether to name Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. The issues are at the intersection of WP:BLP and WP:PSCI (conspiracy theories are generally in the realm of PSCI and fringe, and the intersection is discussed at WP:BLPFRINGE. In my view there are live, interesting questions here and anybody who treats the issues as cut and dry, on either side of the issue, is really missing the boat.

I am contesting the close itself, as well as Nyttend's edit to implement the close. I discussed it with Nyttend and I don't think he has heard me (he hasn't responded to my actual objections), so here we are.

This is a troubled article - it has been protected twice, in quick succession, for edit warring. There are strong views on whether/how to describe Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" and how to discuss his medical views. We need to move carefully and conservatively in editing it. I am trying to work DR carefully to keep us out of AE, but we may end up there.

I've been trying to work DR in bite-size pieces. We were able to agree, during full protection, on modifying the infobox, and that compromise was implemented by an admin.

The RfC was narrowly tailored to discuss just the first sentence of the article. The RfC was well publicized, and we got a good (not great) range of thoughtful input from editors not already involved in the article. I was very interested to have the community weigh in, and to get a close that thoughtfully weighed the tension between BLP and PSCI, and that took into account what the community had to say about that, with respect to the issue at hand. The close will be important for resolving subsequent content issues that we still need to work through.

The close was to take "conspiracy theorist" out of the lead. The reasoning was based on "conspiracy theorist" being derogatory. In the implementing edit, Nyttend rewrote the entire lead.

I have two main objections:

1) In the edit implementing the close, Nyytend rewrote the entire lead, going beyond the scope of the RfC and ruining the careful effort to work DR slowly and bite-by-bite. I asked Nyttend to change his edit to only deal with the first sentence, and he declined, saying that: "If it's not neutral to call the guy a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence, it's likewise not neutral to call his ideas conspiracy theories." I pointed out that the RfC was limited to the first sentence, but he was not hearing that. He believes his edit to be solid. I don't. I think he is well intentioned but he is not honoring the RfC. The edit short-circuits/forecloses our efforts to work through the content issues and doesn't respect the perspective of several editors, which include involved admins.

2) In the close itself (which you can see in the link above), as well as subsequent comments on the article Talk page]] (at this section, and in discussion on my talk page (in response to my query on his talk page), Nyttend cited the view of a minority of respondents, that the term itself is derogatory; he didn't cite the many (and persuasive) arguments that it was UNDUE to name Griffin that way in the first sentence (in light of the rest of the lead), and Nyttend didn't cite or discuss any of the arguments made to keep "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence, which are not without grounds in policy. The close reasoning did not reflect the actual response to the RfC, nor the complexities of how BLP intersects with PSCI. The issues are not cut and dry here.

In the discussions afterward, it became clear to me that Nyttend came in with clear views on the issue, and that he relied primarily on his own interpretation of PAG in doing the close, and in implementing it. He was unaware that most of the !votes were in favor of keeping "conspiracy theorist" (I know that !vote count is not determinative but it should be considered), and made it clear that he was unfamiliar with the PSCI shortcut to the part of NPOV that deals with fringe/pseudoscience in content in WP. (it is not bad to be unaware of things, but it is bad to close an RfC where PSCI is so central and to be that unfamiliar with it).

Again, this first RfC is going to be important to further DR efforts, and its lack of grounding in what folks actually said at the RfC, and in what PSCI and BLP say, are going to warp those further DR efforts.

I am not at all opposed to taking "conspiracy theorist" out of the first sentence (good arguments were made for that). I think the close was flawed and the implementing edit was definitely over-reaching, and will create big headaches for the rest of the work we have to do.

Please review the close and implementing edit. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC) (edited to make it clear that I don't disagree with the conclusion of the close, but I feel that the reasoning presented in the close didn't reflect the full response to the RfC nor the complexities of the policies involved and will cause problems going forward Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC))

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I would take issue with the close, because it seems to be saying that if material can be shown to be derogatory then the game is up because we will never include derogatory material in the first sentence or lead of an article. But I can think of comparable examples where consensus has been to include such derogatory material (David Icke, David Irving) so, for me, the close doesn't quite add up. On the other hand, I don't think it can easily be argued that the close should have been "yes". It could easily have been "no consensus", but there would have been no practical difference, because in that case the derogatory material should also have been excluded. So, I endorse the close just because there is nothing to be gained from overturning it. I can see the argument that the closer went beyond the scope of the RfC in their implementation of the result. However, the implementation of the close is not part of the close, so I would say that here is, strictly speaking, not the place to examine it. If a consensus on the implementation develops here, then fair enough, but otherwise it might instead be brought up on the article talk page, not for the closer to defend their actions but to test whether consensus supports them. Formerip (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Addendum. In writing the above, I hadn't twigged that there might be additional issues involved to do with use of tools. In that case, yes this is is the right venue for discussing the implementation. Formerip (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comments. I have looked carefully at the RfC and at the subsequent edits and discussions about the close, and I can see arguments on both sides of what is not a black-and-white case. About the most basic part of the RfC close, I think that it is reasonable for Nyttend to have concluded that the outcome was to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead sentence, based on the discussion that occurred. So I do not see a good reason to overturn that. I also think that the subsequent edit warring over the description, near the end of the lead section, of the subject's theory that the scientific establishment is in a conspiracy to suppress his fringe medical advice could have been avoided by simply looking for compromise language. Why not call it, instead, a "discredited theory"? But we are not here to discuss content. I think that there were multiple significant errors in the use of administrative tools in the close. Unlike Formerip, it seems to me that because this is AN, the use of those tools needs to be discussed along with the close itself.
  • The explanations given for the close demonstrate a disturbing lack of understanding of NPOV, BLP, and other important policies.
    • At Jytdog's talk page, Nyttend said: "We need to write this guy's article in a way that will be agreed on by his supporters and his opponents". There is nothing in NPOV or BLP that would give BLP subjects and their supporters that kind of veto power over content. If there were, then we would have to delete Kim Jong-un#Human rights violations and about half the content of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Whereas it is reasonable to take the "conspiracy theorist" label out of the lead sentence, it does not follow that it has to be taken out of the entire page.
    • The longstanding consensus reached at the ArbCom Pseudoscience case says that obvious or generously recognized pseudoscience can and should be identified as such on our pages. And Jytdog is correct to cite WP:BLPFRINGE (to which I might add WP:VALID). (This is a conspiracy theory about pseudoscience, so please no wikilawyering about the RfC not having been about pseudoscience.)
  • As Jytdog correctly says, the RfC was carefully worded to be about only the lead sentence. Furthermore, a reading of the RfC comments makes clear that several editors specifically drew a distinction between the lead sentence and the rest of the lead section. There was no consensus that could be drawn about the rest of the page, after the first sentence. The closing administrator could in theory extend the application of the close to more of the page, if policy so required, but policy did not require that.
  • After Nyttend full-protected the page, appropriately, to stop edit warring, he then made an edit restoring the page to his preferred version: . An administrator editing through full protection is exercising a serious responsibility, because it is something that the rest of us are prevented from doing. Again, doing so could be justified when there are overriding policy concerns (such as BLP violations). But policy did not require this edit, and Nyttend knew by this time that the edit was controversial. Also, there is a longstanding consensus that full-protection is not supposed to be used to protect the "right" version of a page.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• I would myself endorse the decision of closure, because most of the uninvolved members who had participated in this Rfc actually disagreed with the inclusion that was being discussed. VandVictory (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• I don't see grounds for overturning the closure; although I think it violates WP:NPOV not to call him a conspiracy theorist or, at least, a supporter of conspiracy theories, in the first sentence, there are arguments in favor of exclusion, although I probably would have disputed the close if I had been active. However, the edit whitewashing the lead is not even consistent with the close; it is clear that there are no potential arguments to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead entirely.

  I hadn't noticed that he edited <strikie>through protection to restore his preferred version. That would normally be grounds for an immediate block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  I admit to tagging the article through protection; but something needed to be done to indicate that the status is solely Nyttend's opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  Apparently, protection was on for less than a minute. Still, Nyttend's edit-warring to restore his own revision, not consistent with his close, was not "proper". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it was set for 24 hours it looks like as it expired today, but it was implemented yesterday. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comments: IMO the page protection issue is a red herring. It was done to stop edit warring and very short term. This said, there is now a proposed lede re-write on the article talk page which is subject to on-going improvement. I posit that some tweaks will make it acceptable to all, thereby rendering this review moot. – S. Rich (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

In my view the proposal to rewrite the lead is premature. I'd like us to wait to see the results of this review. We need to go slow, bite-size. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If this ANI plays out, what will we have? I see three possibilities: 1, The closing is endorsed. 2. The closing is overturned and a new closing is implemented. 3. The closing is overturned and the RFC is opened up for a new closing. With Number 1 the OP does not accomplish much. (The present version becomes the accepted (for now) consensus version.) Number 2 is unlikely because it entails one admin overturning another admin's decision. (Not a rare event, and the closing was done in a non-admin context. But unlikely.) Number 3 entails a continuation of the drama. In the meantime we are moving forward with a discussion to improve the lede on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think reviewing the closure would be helpful for you folks there. The main problem that I think people were hoping to see as Jytdog mentioned was where WP:PSCI fits into play here. The main result of going outside of the scope of the RfC and the use of admin tools at least has been fixed, but the actual closure seems to be something worth looking into. How we deal with fringe topics seems to not have been addressed in the closure, and Nyytend appears to not be familiar with PSCI policy within NPOV based on some conversations mentioned here, which appears to have lead to only a partial understanding of the discussion. A common problem I see in the article is that people cite BLP for removing "derogatory" content, but have trouble with PSCI where valid criticisms of fringe topics (i.e. psuedoscience, conspiracy theory, etc.) stay regardless of being perceived as negative (NPOV doesn't mean non-negative content). The RfC should have been closed with both policies in mind, but the benefit from revisiting the close would help orient future discussion about the tone to take in handling both policies going forward. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• comment - just to be super (maybe too) clear about what i am after here. I am looking for a restatement of the close, that takes into account what responders actually said and that deals with both PSCI and BLP - we will need this to guide further discussions on the page. I would also like a clear statement on the validity (or lack thereof) of the closer's implementing edit. This too will be important going forward. If the do-over of the closing results in overturning the surface result, that is neither here nor there to me; I think there are reasonable arguments for keeping and for removing "conspiracy theorist" from the first sentence. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend I don't know if you are following or have read the above, but if not would you please do so, and would you be willing to withdraw your close and implementing edit, and allow someone else to do the close anew? That would ease the situation. I have seen closes done by Dank of really complex RfCs and have respected his work. I would likely ask involved editors if that would be OK, and then ask him. Thanks. Nyttend I also want to apologize to you; I was looking for certain qualities (not answers but qualities) in the close and I should have not just thrown the close up for anybody to grab... I should have done it more intentionally and gotten agreement from editors at the page on a closer, and then asked someone. Sorry that you were pulled into something unawares. I do appreciate that you volunteered to do it. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• comment - Jytdog, it appears you want to choose your own closer and impose certain dictates. Your apology to Nyttend is certainly a respectable gesture, but it appears to be superficial because you haven't changed course. You stated, I was looking for certain qualities says it all. How is this not WP:FORUMSHOPPING? You may have attempted to qualify your desires as not answers, but your following statement I should have not just thrown the close up for anybody to grab... is very telling. The concerns you've expressed go beyond what editors are obligated to write in a BLP, perhaps because your own experience as a writer of prose is limited, and your focus as a biotech is of primary concern as evidenced by the emphasis you've given to PSCI in this BLP. I find it rather disruptive considering we are supposed to be writing about a person's life, not your opinions on laetrile or whether or not you agree in principal with this author's writings. I do hope an admin will take notice because this type of behavior goes beyond the pale. Atsme☯ 14:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme - 1) I am writing on a public board where everyone can see. 2) I wrote: "I would likely ask involved editors if that would be OK, and then ask him." 3) I wrote: I "should have done it more intentionally and gotten agreement from editors at the page on a closer, and then asked someone. " 4) I don't believe for an instant that I could "pick my own closer". My point was that the selection of closer should have been intentional and not random. And of course, by agreement of everybody who cares. For folks reading here, the kind of reaction I just got, is why i will not be surprised if this ends up at AE. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• "choose your own closer": exactly, that's one reason I'm not comfortable closing here. (Lack of experience is another.) But thanks, Jytdog, that was kind of you. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks Dank - my intention was (and is, if we get there) that the closer would be acceptable to everybody.Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I didn't mean you were trying to choose your own closer, I meant that I'm not comfortable closing on request because it raises eyebrows. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support close. It is my understanding that the main issue is close review is whether the closer used reasonable judgment and whether another closer can understand why they closed it the way that they did. I concur with the close. Having not reviewed the RFC results in as much detail as I would if I were closing, I don't see anything wrong with the close. However, I am puzzled. What exactly is the original poster, User:Jytdog, saying is wrong with the close? It appears that he was asking for certain qualities for the closer or conditions on the close. The RFC had been open for 30 days, so that any experienced editor could have closed it, with or without a special request by an editor. Maybe I have completely misread the policies, but I don't see a policy that permits one editor to impose conditions on the close. It looks to me like a reasonable close in terms of deciding not to use the 'loaded' phrase "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence in Misplaced Pages's voice. I support the close based on what I have seen, but I don't understand the argument by the OP. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"so that any experienced editor could have closed it . . ." I think that may have been the key point. Nyttend didn't appear to be experienced in policies relating to fringe topics, and didn't appear to consider the comments from those addressing the fringe aspect in the RfC because of that. I'm not sure what others think, but if the opposite happened where a closer was not even aware of BLP policy and only summarized from the fringe perspective instead, I'm pretty sure that would be open to review too due to lack of basic understanding needed for the topic. Seems like a review is exactly what's needed when a closer unknowingly bites off more than they thought they were handling. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon thank you for asking for clarification. My problem is with the reasoning presented in the close, which is going to be cited in the rest of the DR process, and the implementing edit. The RfC question limits itself to the first sentence and specifically calls for consideration of BLP and PSCI. If you read the survey and discussion, there was robust discussion on the "no" and "yes" sides, with policy-based arguments, well-stated on both sides. And the counted !votes actually favor "yes" (keep "conspiracy theorist" in the lead). And if you step back a bit more and look at the talk page discussion, as a wise closer would do, you would see that there is some fierce discussion going on with respect to the tension between BLP and PSCI - we've already been to BLPN, RSN, and the fringe noticeboard. What was needed, was a close, that actually listened to what the community said and dealt with the policy issues that were raised, and was thoughtful. (remember, this is a BLP article of a guy who makes his living writing books and making movies pushing FRINGE ideas... and if you look at the Talk page discussion, we have believers in his ideas participating. and it is a BLP. Lots going on. ) If you read the close first and go look at the RfC, you would think it was SNOW. It was far from that. As I said, I found the arguments presented by responders, based on UNDUE, to take "Conspiracy theorist" out of the first sentence to be persuasive. I am OK with the surface of the close, to take it out. But the reasoning presented in the close is very thin, and doesn't reflect the discussion at all, nor does it mention PSCI. And based on discussions with the closer it has become clear to me that these are the ideas that he came in with. He found an echo in some of the comments (a minority of them) and went with that. He didn't actually close the RfC - he just made a SuperVote. And his implementing edit went way too far and rewrote the whole lead. Those are my objections. I hope that is clear. I am sorry if it was too long. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I want to say two things based upon the subsequent comments here. First, I think it is incorrect to accuse Jytdog of forum-shopping, because it is well within Misplaced Pages norms to ask for a review of contested closes. (After all, that's why we have DRV for deletion decisions.) Second, I think it is necessary, not optional, for Nyttend to comment here, and tell us whatever he might think about the ways that he used administrative tools. I raised some significant issues there, and I see nothing subsequently to make me change my mind about those concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Added comment – The RFC was opened while another thread about the lede was ongoing. That thread was addressing the lede in a broader sense and we seemed to have agreement that describing Griffin as a conspiracy theorist somewhere in the lede was appropriate. What Jytdog's RFC did was to open another thread that produced the same arguments from the same people. And while the RFC was on-going, Atsme opened a thread that was broader in scope, but still concerning the same issues (NPOV & UNDUE). And now we have a fourth (or is it fourteenth?) thread here where the same old stuff gets argued. Nyttend's closing (and edit) had the immense virtue of great virtue of establishing a consensus version for the lede as a whole. With the present version (provided by Nyttend) in place, editors are proposing and discussing a re-write that will use either "conspiracy theory" and/or "conspiracy theorist" in the lede. WP:CCC is in play at the bottom of the article talk page. With this in mind, reviewing admins of this request should simply close the request without action and advise editors to strive on elsewhere. – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How can it be true that Nyttend's edit "established a consensus version" and also true that a consensus contrary to Nyttend's edit had developed elsewhere and also true that editors are now working on an agreement about how to undo the controversial part of the edit? That does make it sound like an edit that was against consensus which has caused editors unnecessary work. Formerip (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support close as no arguments indicate that the close was improper, which is the sole criterion here. Collect (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. To clarify my earlier response, I support the close as a plausible interpretation of the arguments (although it gives inadequate (apparently no) weight to WP:PSCI), but note that the closer's edit was contrary to the close in that there is consensus that it should be noted he is a conspiracy theorist in, at least, the first paragraph, and unanimity that it should be prominently noted in the lead that he supports conspiracy theories, if not that that he is a conspiracy theorist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This Noticeboard is not the place to relitigate the issues raised in the RfC. OP has not demanded that the close be set aside, only that there is sufficient, policy-based concern to be uneasy about its conclusion. Where there is good faith, reasoned concern about a close, a review by a second Admin is warranted. The matter can be put to rest, one way or the other, so that editors can work on improving other parts of the article. There will be no harm done if a thoughtful review affirms the original close. Whatever the outcome, all editors will have increased confidence that the result is robust and stable. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Close. Consensus is clear, there is nothing left to fix. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy I have not requested a review of a close before and i have no sense of where we are. can you spell out your comment for me a bit? (are you actually closing or are suggesting a close? what consensus is clear to you?) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If Guy was closing this discussion s/he would have used {{archive top}} and given a rationale. – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit exceeding the scope of the RfC

The issue that isn't being addressed properly here is the way the edit by Nyttend went beyond the question posed by the RfC re the first sentence. Link to the RfC question: -- and here's the portion of the edit Nyttend made that exceeded the scope of the RfC: . Closing an RfC is a matter of determining the consensus of the community; there can't be a consensus for an answer to a question that wasn't asked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I also want to note here, the editors working on the page agreed during full PP to make an edit request to the infobox, that Griffin is "Known for: Conspiracy theories". That discussion is here and you can see it the infobox here G. Edward Griffin. Nyttends' edit removing "conspiracy theory" from the lead altogether not only went beyond the scope of the RfC but went against the consensus that we had established. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am glad that Nomoskedasticity opened this distinct subthread, because the narrow focus by some editors above, on the close itself, was resulting in not seeing the forest – the ways in which administrative tools were used to go beyond the close itself, in ways that went against policy – for the trees. As I said above, those administrative actions reflected significant misunderstanding of policies, including NPOV and BLP, as well as misunderstanding the scope of the RfC discussion, and made improper use of editing through full protection. I am disappointed that Nyttend has not commented here, nor acknowledged that some of us have raised these concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity: So what? Look at it this way – the RFC was closed with a determination that CT should not be used in the first sentence. So it was properly removed. (You can't argue with that change.) And then Nyttend makes 2 more changes in the next sentences. But those two additional changes are based on the same determination that using CT in the lede was improper because the "derogatory characterization" is a "fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view." What do you want this AN to do? Give Nyttend a scolding? (The task of a closer, let alone an admin, is tough enough. And very few appreciate those roles.) Or do you want the AN to say CT should be used in the subsequent sentences? If that is your solution, then it contradicts the RFC determination. (This solution is not going to happen.) In any event editors are now working on a new version of the lede on the talk page. Join in. You will see that CT is (now) used in the first paragraph via a quote from Sean Easter. – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

S. Rich, I get it that you agreed with the close, and I've already said that I do not have a problem with the close itself, but I could not possibly disagree with you more about the supposed power of administrators to go beyond what was in the close itself. There were serious mistakes here, and there needs to be some reassurance that they are not going to happen again. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No need to say "supposed power of admins". Any non-involved experienced editor could have closed the RFC. (And "supposed" has a rather derogatory tone about it.) As Misplaced Pages is a project where anyone can edit, nothing prohibits a closer from editing an article. Before anyone is going to formally admonish Nyttend for those other two edits, you got to convince the admin community that Nyttend's determination regarding NPOV was incorrect. I don't think that is going to happen. – S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Not so. I stand by what I said. Unless anyone thinks that we need to delete Kim Jong-un#Human rights violations and about half the content of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich, there is no uncertainty about what is being asked here. OP is asking for a second Admin to review the closing. It's not helpful to suggest that anybody here wishes to "give Nyttend as scolding." That's a straw man, it's not constructive and it's arguably a personal attack which insinuates other editor(s) come here with an inappropriate motive. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Two objections were made above when this AN was opened. One was about the close and the other was the edit. This subthread is about the edit. As to both objections, nothing is going to change. WP:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures may be of some help: basically the close will stand. The edit itself is simply part of the process we follow when improving articles. Contributors would better spend their time thinking about how to improve the article (and contribute on the talk page) because this AN is a dead horse. – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich, that reply was neither helpful nor responsive. I suggest you drop the stick. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually found his reply helpful and informative, and agree that we should be spending more time writing prose and less time poking sticks. But wait, there's only two editors who are actually writing prose. Hmmm...this may require further review. Atsme☯ 15:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue about the edit goes to Question 4 asked by Arthur Rubin which inexperienced editors here have not understood. If the additional edits to the lead were an "administrative action" then for another admin to revert them would be WP:WHEELWARRING which admins stay away from since they can be sanctioned for that - it takes a discussion like this one to overturn them. If the edits were just part of a close, another admin can overturn them. The other piece of it, is whether the edits outside the first sentence were based on the RfC or not and were essentially an admin making a SuperVote on the RfC, which admins are not supposed to do. These are serious and subtle questions and are what AN is for. There is no doubt that Nyttend's restoration of his edits through protection was an admin action, as that is something only admins have the ability to do. Separate questions have been raised about that, but the full resolution depends on the status of the initial implementing edits beyond the first sentence. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple questions

There are multiple questions that should be resolved somewhere. Only the first one is really being discussed here. (If someone wants to respond to individual questions, please do so. I've signed each of my comments individually.)

1. Was the close, stating that "conspiracy theorist" should not be in the first sentence, correct.

   In my opinion, it was the wrong choice, both as a matter of guidelines and as a matter of consenus, but plausible, so it should probably stand. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   Closes which are within reason should not be overturned. Collect (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   I think the close was necessarily subjective, but specifically with respect to the first sentence, it was a reasonable conclusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   i think it was a reasonable conclusion, given for the wrong reasons. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, his actions are supported by policy. Atsme☯ 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Absolutely correct. No other way to see this. Wasting too much time on this.--Pekay2 (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

2. Was there consensus as to whether "conspiracy theorist" should be included in the first paragraph.

   I think there was consensus, in favor, that the fact that he is known for conspiracy theories should be in the first paragraph. There certainly wasn't consensus against. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   No clear consensus - but I tend to think positive consensus is required for inclusion of what was clearly viewed as a contentious term. Collect (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   In the discussion, several editors said explicitly that they were drawing a distinction between the first sentence and the lead as a whole, and there was no clear consensus either way about the rest of the page, outside of the first sentence. Several participating editors said that there were issues of due weight with respect to the first sentence specifically, which sets the first sentence off, relative to the rest of the page. Therefore, for a closer (whether an administrator or not) to determine that the phrase should be deleted elsewhere on the page, either there had to be a policy basis for doing so, or it would be a super-vote. Administrators making such closes are expected, even required, to understand applicable policies correctly. As I have explained above, this close reflected a serious lack of understanding of policies, and of previous ArbCom decisions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   no. There were 9 "no" !votes, and 13 "yes" ! votes and 1 "neutral" !vote (which was neutral on the first sentence and "hell yes" for somewhere in the lead). Of all those, only two (arthur rubin, alexbrn) specifically discussed the lead. and I'll add that three of the "no" !votes (DocumentError and Carrite and JonRichfield seemed to me, to be saying "no" to the narrow question of "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence only but were fine using things like "promotes conspiracy theories" outside the first sentence. That makes it 17 to 6 !votes in favor of saying something like "he promotes conspiracy theories" which is overwhelming. the implementing edit not only removed "conspiracy theorist" from the first sentence but all reference to "conspiracy theories" from the lead. That did not reflect the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Consensus is not required for the removal of fundamentally noncompliant material, with particular emphasis on BLPs. Atsme☯ 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   NPOV is the issue. Concensus is not relevant since it can't change policy in this RfC--Pekay2 (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

   NPOV is the issue. It fails NPOV to imply that it is part of a mainstream view that he does not support multiple conspiracy thories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

3. Was the decision to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead part of the close?

   Clearly not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   Uncertain- where the closer appears to have felt that a positive consensus is needed for inclusion, then this might well be part of what he viewed as the proper close. Collect (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   It certainly was not part of the RfC question, as it was written, and the RfC discussion appears to have been conducted based on the understanding that it was about the first sentence only. That does not rule out a close that goes further, based on policy, but the basis on policy here was incorrect. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   No. Here is the actual close, so it is fresh. Doesn't mention the first sentence nor even the lead; seems to aim to cover the whole article: "Closing as "no". The opposers demonstrate quite well that this is a derogatory characterisation of the guy, a fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view. Of course, something cited to Griffin's own works, wherein Griffin specifically calls himself a conspiracy theorist, is a valid source for saying "self-described conspiracy theorist"."Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Yes. The admin acted properly by removing improperly sourced contentious material that is fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV. The closer followed both WP:Consensus#Administrative or community intervention Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as WP:BLP) and WP:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome ...closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure the decision complies with the spirit of Misplaced Pages policy and with the project goal. A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Atsme☯ 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Absolutely yes. The closer was very clear.--Pekay2 (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

4. Was the decision to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead an administrative action, so that reverting it is a violation of something (probably an ArbCom decision, Arbitration Enforcement)?

   That needs to be established. I would say, not, but it would be problematic to reverse it until a consensus at an administrative noticeboard is reached. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   That would likely have to be discussed in a new section entirely - if it were intended to be an admin action, then it would absolutely need to be reviewed in a full discussion with positive consensus needed to overturn such an action, and not in this rambling discussion. Collect (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   I am not aware of any ArbCom sanctions or other editing restrictions that would interfere with an uninvolved administrator reviewing what happened and either supporting or reversing any of it. But I see that as becoming moot, in light of subsequent work by editors at the page and the talk page. What I am interested here is some clarification of what was appropriate and what was not appropriate, and an indication from Nyttend that he is interested in learning from this situation and doing better going forward. I'm not interested in seeing anybody get punished, but I am interested in seeing some learning. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   That question is way over my head. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, reverting an admin's action to remove noncompliant contentious material from a BLP was tendentious and disrespectful of the sanctions and RfC closer. Atsme☯ 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme that doesn't respond to the question that was asked. The question is whether, specifically, Nyttend's implementing edit should be considered an "administrative action" or something else. Your response doesn't deal with the question of how to classify that edit, nor why it should be classified one way or another. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog you asked Was the decision to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead an administrative action and I answered Yes. Nyttend's response on his TP was pretty clear: as was the following excerpt from his explanation on your TP: Let me be clear: the core policy is neutrality, and your words make me think that you're attempting to wikilawyer in order to undermine that core policy and make him look bad. . Considering the WP:Forumshopping it appears you are engaged in now, and the fact that you refuse to WP:DROPTHESTICK, it appears Nyttend has far more insight than you give him credit. Atsme☯ 01:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Is there any other way to see it?--Pekay2 (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I expressed no !vote at the RfC. Collect (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll note that neither did I. I only became aware of it after the close, because I watch Jytdog's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to add some things. First, I request that Nyttend comment here. Second, I have one additional question:

1. What are the limits to administrators editing a page through full protection, and was Nyttend's edit within those limits?

   I think that editing a page when the rest of us cannot do it is a very serious action to take, and is easily abused. The only time that an administrator should do so is when policy requires it (for example, to remove a BLP violation). Otherwise, stay off a high horse, and make an edit request on the talk page like the rest of us. Full protection is intended to prevent edit warring and disruptive edits, and not to preserve anyone's preferred version of a page. Here, it is complicated because Nyttend appeared to believe that policy required his edit, but he was wrong about that. I think there is a serious need for a consensus that editing through full protection is not something to be done carelessly. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   Where an admin has made a determination that a claim of fact made in Misplaced Pages's voice is something where policy dictates that it ought be made only as an opinion of others, then it is proper for him or her to remove such a claim made in Misplaced Pages's voice, which should be reserved only for statements of fact, as an administrative action per the ArbCom BLP decisions. If such is the case, that admin should state it here before this gets too far afield from that issue as BLP requirements are not overridden by local consensus. Collect (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   I looked back at the ArbCom BLP case, and I didn't see anything in the final decision about Misplaced Pages's voice versus attribution to a source. Where does it say that? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   WP:NPOV Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

   WP:NPOV/FAQ When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion

   And in many many discussions. Collect (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Agreed and understood. It just wasn't in the ArbCom BLP decision, and the ArbCom Pseudoscience decision indicates that obvious or generally recognized pseudoscience can be identified as such in Misplaced Pages's voice, rather than presenting it as a matter of a source's opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

   Perhaps JzG can also respond to this question. I respect Nyttend's decision as an admin which I've already stated above with inline text attribution validating his adherence to policy. Atsme☯ 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm continuing to see editors saying that administrators should do the kinds of things that Nyttend did because that's what policy requires, mainly the BLP policy. I feel bad about repeating myself, but I feel a need to repeat what I said earlier:

• At Jytdog's talk page, Nyttend said: "We need to write this guy's article in a way that will be agreed on by his supporters and his opponents". There is nothing in NPOV or BLP that would give BLP subjects and their supporters that kind of veto power over content. If there were, then we would have to delete Kim Jong-un#Human rights violations and about half the content of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Whereas it is reasonable to take the "conspiracy theorist" label out of the lead sentence, it does not follow that it has to be taken out of the entire page.
• The longstanding consensus reached at the ArbCom Pseudoscience case says that obvious or generously recognized pseudoscience can and should be identified as such on our pages. And Jytdog is correct to cite WP:BLPFRINGE (to which I might add WP:VALID). (This is a conspiracy theory about pseudoscience, so please no wikilawyering about the RfC not having been about pseudoscience.)

Look, I get it, about the importance of BLP. But it is a misreading of BLP to say that anything negative about a person must be deleted. What Nyttend edited through full protection to remove was not something that BLP requires to be removed, and I'm basing that on a decision by ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – It seems some editors want the RFC to go both ways. One, they say the RFC was strictly confined to the first sentence; but, two, they argue that consensus was for inclusion of conspiracy theory/ist somewhere in the lede. They are willing to accept the determination as to One (first sentence), in which case this AN is unneeded. But the Information page WP:CLOSECHALLENGE says "Most closure reviews need to be based on context or information left out of the discussion, or new information that would have altered the discussion outcome were it held now." And "Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review: if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if it was made on the basis of policy. Policies and guidelines are usually followed in the absence of a compelling reason otherwise, or an overwhelming consensus otherwise, and can only be changed by amending the policy itself." With this in mind, where is there context or information left out of the discussion or new information? Where is there a compelling reason? Where is the overwhelming consensus? The answer to these questions is negative because much of the discussion in this AN is a re-litigation of the CT question and not worthwhile. Moreover, didn't Nyttend make the determination on NPOV? (One more thing, why are editors giving Nyttend grief by asking Nyttend to comment here and implying that Admin misbehavior is at issue?) – S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

S. Rich, you are framing what others of us have said, as things that we did not say. I don't think that anyone said that there was consensus for removing the phrase from the first sentence and for keeping it elsewhere. What I, for one, have been saying is that there was consensus for removing it from the lead and no consensus either way about removing it or keeping it elsewhere, and that administrative tools were used heavy-handedly to go beyond what the RfC (in which I did not participate) had determined, in ways that are actually contrary to policy and an ArbCom decision. It is perfectly reasonable to discuss those problems at AN. I am not asking that Nyttend be punished or sanctioned, and it is unhelpful to imply that anyone is asking for that. It is perfectly appropriate to ask that administrators respond to concerns about their actions, and cause for concern when they do not respond. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Enough with the questions already. Nyttend closed this, and other Admins are ignoring this 'go nowhere' conversation. Wrap it up and move on.--Pekay2 (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate to close this discussion, unless it is to ignore Nyttend's closing edit. If Nyttend refuses to comment on his reasoning, it must be assumed that anything he did not explain with reference to policy, including his closing edit, is not part of his close. Discussion on the article talk page cannot go anywhere unless it is determined exactly what is required by the close. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

status update

As this thread lingers, editors on both sides of the issues in the article have gotten antsy and have started to aggressively edit the article and edit war. Probably close to page protection again (that would be the third time). I have decided to step away from the article as the editors there are dragging themselves to AE. It would be very helpful to the folks still working on the article if this thread could get attention and resolution. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope you included yourself in that accusation of "aggressive" editors. Passive aggressive behavior is equally as disruptive, Jytdog, and your pretense as peacekeeper is disingenuous, especially when you are at the core of the problem. It should not have taken us 2 months to convince you that contentious material in a BLP could not be stated in Wiki voice. You also don't seem to understand the difference in executing bold edits for policy compliance vs what you're falsely trying to portray as antsy and aggressive editing. My attempts to correct the policy violations and expand the article may have been bold, but I have proposed those same changes on the TP for nearly 2 months, but you kept SQS to prevent them. The removal of PP, and the RfC calling out the policy issues gave editors a green light to fix the fundamentally noncompliant policy issues that were pointed out by the RfC, but your "side" reverted the changes. It appears you will do just about anything to prevent Griffin from becoming a GA candidate - like filing that completely false 3RR claim against me. It's shameful behavior. You say you want to avoid ARBCOM but you never change course. I consult you to drop the stick and move away from the carcass as you have already been advised to do by several other editors. Atsme☯ 20:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note to admins. I have decided to watch the Griffin article again. I am waiting for a close of this review of the RfC close. Once that is done, I plan to launch a second RfC to ask whether the lead, outside the first sentence, should say something about Griffin being a conspiracy theorist or promoting conspiracy theories. This was what I intended all along but the process has been stalled by the controversial close and the dragging out of the review of the close. Editors at the article have clearly stated views and are not going to convince each other and the discussion there continues to be deadlocked; we need to work DR and keep bringing in the voices of the community to help us resolve issues in a careful, stepwise fashion. Would an admin please review this thread and close it? If that means referral to another venue, please be clear about that; I've not requested a review of an RfC by an admin before. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Nyttend's edits went well beyond the RFC consensus. Atsme is on a crusade to whitewash the article. Griffin is, as evidence comprehensively on the Talk page, a conspiracy theory advocate. He does not originate them, but he advocates them. To describe them as conspiracy theories does not violate WP:NPOV or WP:BLP. Misplaced Pages is not a hagiography, and Griffin is a well known crank. One who advocates antisemitic conspiracy theories and outright quackery.

This article would be immeasurably improved by the withdrawal of Atsme, who seems unable to accept that conspiracy theories about the Fed and laetrile are, well, conspiracy theories. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Vcorani is seeking the Misplaced Pages:Standard offer

I am here in response to an unblock request from User:Vcorani. This user was blocked in November of 2013. The blocking admin is no longer around but I think it was related to the state of his user page at the time:

There may be other issues I am not aware of. Below is the request. Chillum 01:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like some help in trying to turn over a new leaf. An I have waited several months, so I am not making a knee-jerk reaction here. My past reaction, I admit now, was me taking things too far, though I didn't mean to offend anyone who viewed my userpage. I can affirm I wont put controversial stuff like that on my userpage. In my favor, I have authored a few pages here since joining several years ago, so its not like I haven't contributed in a positive way. Plus I've added some helpful amendments to other articles. An I haven't tried to re-register under a new name etc, as I prefer not to be sneaky.

I do promise to avoid such over-the-top behavior - an I am not a troll, which is why I didn't mess with other peoples articles. I just want a 2nd chance, as I've learnt my lesson to not flip-out, AND ESPECIALLY, FOLLOW THE LEGIT PROCESS WHEN ADDING NEW INFO - which I suppose I only half did, an thus started me into a downward spiral. In the end, I didn't really comprehend my over-reaction - though I do now, an hence, it wont happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcorani (talk • contribs) 01:41, 11 February 2015‎

If I see no response to this by 01:59, 13 February 2015 I will assume there is no objection to unblocking this user. Chillum 16:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

They had issues with writing material in an encyclopedic tone. I'd like to see an example of some text they'd like to add to article and an accompanying source. --NeilN 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined towards unblock under the standard offer, but with the understanding that any return to the behaviors of the past will be met with a swift reblock. their talk page history shows a history of insults, an extremely combative attitude, and either a refusal or inability to get the point when other users pointed out their errors. We don't need that and if it comes back, so will the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, but open to being convinced otherwise. My concern is that this editor has not demonstrated a level of proficiency in editing that I believe is expected by the project. They frequently use 'an' instead of 'and'. Edits like this and this show they they do not understand WP:EL or WP:MOS. Unexplained edits like this are non constructive. Problems with original research. This and this shows a lack of understanding about our standards for new article creation, although they were provided links to the guidelines four years earlier. Here there is a lack of understanding about sources, capitalization, MOS and external link guidelines. Almost every edit that I reviewed has problems. I'm sorry to sound harsh, but I'm inclined to think that Vcorani's contributions will likely be a net negative to the project.- MrX 21:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Support Since other editors would like to see some example of good editing, then as mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Standard offer, there is always the {{2nd chance}} procedure, which may be the best way forward. Ronhjones  00:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. (re)blocks are cheap. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Review of non-admin closure at Manual of Style/Icons

Would an uninvolved admin please be so kind as to peruse the discussion at WT:Manual_of_Style/Icons#The previous Formula One "consensus" and an editor's odd interpretation of it and review the Non-admin closure that has precipitated the confusion? The contested change has been made three times and reverted twice and there appears to be confusion as to the breadth of the result of the original consensus and the ambiguity left in the closing statement by the non-admin closer. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Paging @Technical 13:. I don't see any issues with the close, personally. Those who are edit warring against the consensus found in the most recent discussion should, as usual, take it to the talk page. HiDrNick! 17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• HiDrNick, please see User talk:Technical 13/2014/4#Non-neutral non-admin close for my thoughts on it. I'll happily review the new discussions when I have some time, about to head to class for 4 hours. — {{U|Technical 13}} 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing Technical 13 - in fact I haven't participated in this RFC/discussion at all. It's just that some editors are construing the results of the proposal and !vote more/less broadly than others... The original "Formal poll" asked for editors to be "stating an opinion based on policy or guidelines in favour of or opposed to the use of flags to represent a driver's or team's nation in Formula 1 articles". Some editors (and the contested edit to the MOS) are taking the close to apply to areas other than Formula 1. Clarification and rationale would be helpful. If people are happy with Technical 13 making the clarification, that's fine with me – I don't have a dog in this hunt (my peeve is flag icons w/o the name/abbreviation of the nation, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish). I just felt the opinion of an uninvolved admin might shut everyone up so we can all get back to editing. Mojoworker (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging User:SMcCandlish who contested the close in December at User talk:Technical 13/2014/4#Non-neutral non-admin close. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Indef-block appeal for Ratel

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

• Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Old account
• Jabba the Hot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Recent account

• UTRS appeal #13154

A similar situation was discussed very recently on this very board (see here), and the user makes a reasonable case, so I am happy to submit it for community review. Ratel was blocked in 2010 for using socks to influence a !vote/discussion. They have had some socking issues for some time following that. Late in 2012, they started editing with Jabba the Hot, and edited using that account until a few days ago, when it was "discovered" they were Ratel's "clean-start". The new account's editing does not appear to have been problematic in and of itself. While a "sneaky clean start" is generally not acceptable procedure, we have what appears to be a former problem user who managed to come back and edit constructively for years, before being found out and blocked for old offenses. I think it would be reasonable to unblock Ratel (or their new account, Jabba the Hot) with a condition that they only ever stick to a single account (like they've been doing since 2012), and see how things go. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock with one-account condition - I hesitate to say "as proposer" since the UTRS appeal comes from the user themselves, but I do support unblocking this user for reasons laid out in my opening text. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support. If he's been editing constructively for a couple of years now, it's probably time to give him another shot. We've given second (and third, and fourth, and nth) chances to people who have done far worse. Hell, we have people who have been caught in far more abusive forms of sockpuppetry and were never even indefinitely blocked. Personally I like the username "Jabba the Hot" better than "Ratel", but as long as he uses one account I guess it doesn't matter. MastCell  18:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

So you think it is constructive to evade several times blocks due sockpuppetry and breach your own word promising you won't ever use sockpuppets to evade blocks or whatever? --ClaudioSantos¿? 17:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• He mentions other accounts. Normally when considering this type of request a full, vountary listing of all sock accounts is a prerequisite. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've asked if they would please provide said information, but from the SPIs, this list seems comprehensive enough. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Beeblebrox: Their reply seems consistent with the list of tagged accounts: "Hi Salvidrim That I can remember ... Unit 5 AllYrBaseRbelongUs Medic58 TickleMeister OzOke Hill-Mitchelson RxWatch Jabbsworth Jabba the Hot I did not keep track of the accounts, so that list is the best I can come up with. Thanks! Gerry (Ratel)". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Agreed. Looks to be editing constructively. Why not? The problematic behavior is very stale. Let's let bygones be bygones. HiDrNick! 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ratel was blocked due sockpuppetry, then appealed and promised not to ever use sockpuppets again, then he came and used sockpuppets so he was blocked again. Now he use again a new sockjpuppet to evade his block due sockpuppetry and is caught and blocked again, so now comes to appeal again, and you think the behavior is stale? am I missing something?--ClaudioSantos¿? 17:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, quite. The last instance of objectionable sockpuppetry that has been documented was in February 2011. That was four years ago. But since you've commented several times on the SPI page, you must already know that. 18 months later, the user creates a new account, and uses it to do some constructive editing without incident. Don't you think it's best to just let this one go? HiDrNick! 19:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me summarize here what the last admin discovered and stated on 2012: Ratel but using the sockpuppet Jabbsworth plead to ARBCOM to be unblocked promising he will never use sockpuppets and openly mentioned to ARBCOM three sockpuppets (RxWatch, OzOke, and Hill-Mitchelson) he was using. On 2012 admin User:Elen of the Roads noticed that Jabssworth never mentioned but hid to ARBCOM that he was also Ratel, and he never mentioned but also hid that he was Ticklemeister. User:Elen of the Roads also discovered and noticed that he was also using another sockpuppet (Medic58), that he also kept hid during his last and all the previous SPI and also hid it to ARBCOM. So he was clearly breaching his promises to ARBCOM, deceiving them and the users, plus dishonoring his own words. That was the kind of disruptive behaviour that was sanctioned by User:Elen of the Roads by re-establishing the block that ARBCOM had forgiven to Jabssworth. Now since 2013 up to now, Ratel using JabbaTheHot evaded that last block, breaks his promises, he is caught and blocked again some days ago and you say that is a clean start, that he is not being distruptive and therefore he deserves to be unblocked again? I don't find constructive to deceive users, solely the constant evation of blocks and hidding sockpuppets is reprehensible butplease note the very first reason I suspected Jabba the Hot being a sockpuppet of Ratel was: exactly as Ratel and his sockpuppets did: he was making nasty comments on my alleged grammar and suggesting to admins that I should be not allowed to edit on english wikipedia; a disruptive conduct for which he was in the past sanctioned, a kind of personal attacks he also used against other users. So I just see a repetition of promises to game the system. --ClaudioSantos¿? 19:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Relentless and persistent violator of WP:BLP using multiple socks for the purpose. User:Collect/BLP shows some of his positions about BLPs and I hesitate to think about what would happen should he be loosed on them. He has used on the order of a dozen socks including but not limited to:

Unit 5, TickleMeister, AllYrBaseRbelongUs, Rxwatch, OzOke, Hill-Mitchelson, Medic58, Jabbsworth, Jabba the Hot, and likely a few more, and not counting IP addresses. .

Each was disruptive, with the latest one being less than a month ago.

Such quotes as So he's allowed to have a family and we are not allowed to add that fact to the encyclopedia because he would prefer people not to know about it? Is that your position?, UNDUE applies mainly to viewpoints, not facts. If a verifiable and sourced statement is given undue weight, it can be shortened, not excluded. And since most of the negative details about X have already been excluded (on specious grounds, like questioning the reliability of TMZ) or pared back to a sentence or two, I don't see how you could go further without actually censoring wikipedia., My motivations are immaterial, but if you have to know, I delight in adding frank and full details of misbehaviours to pages on so-called "celebs", many of whom are absolute scoundrels or hypocrites, or worse, under the glossy veneer. But I welcome people like Y, who are on the subject's payroll or close friends with the subject, as long as they add properly sourced puffery to the page. What puzzles me is that there seems to be some unspoken sentiment among a lot of wikipedia editors that no matter what the celeb does in real life, we need to hide it unless the facts were reported by Moses on the tablets brought down from Mount Sinai. Wake up, my fellow editors! We are not paid to shield these people from the consequences of their own misdeeds. Free your heads from the American celeb-worship cargo cult religion. and on and on are sufficient to keep this perennial WP:BLP violator off still. Collect (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• For the sake of clarity, please provide diffs, and note whether they are years old or recent. I have (admittedly briefly) reviewed Jabba the Hot's recent contributions and found no immediatly apparent issues, but I may very well have missed something. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• If there are BLP concerns, please present the relevant diffs, since such concerns (if substantiated) would change my opinion. (As an aside, User:Collect/BLP is a very odd page, and clearly violates WP:UP#POLEMIC). MastCell  19:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• He has had and abused a significant number of accounts as recently as January, and I see no reason for a person series of statement contrary to WP:BLP to be let into the project. Meanwhile I had several admins examine the BLP page and state that it was absolutely proper. That MastCell finds otherwise seems interesting. Diffs? Try for one of his typical edits on a BLP. another. Several hundred, but I rather thought his comments on how he views BLP are fairly clear. Collect (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• All of these diffs date from 2010 and the "recent socking" is the undeclared clean-start since 2012, which Ratel has all admitted openly. Do you have evidence of recent BLP violations or of other socking after Sept. 2012? Or is the entirety of your point that the editor should remain blocked for his 2010 behaviour (which would be a perfectly valid reasoning, mind you)? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• See also: Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive139 Gwen Gale? She was blocked many, many times before herself, and was even restricted by ArbCom. To use Jimbo's term, Gwen has verified that she has a poisonous personality. You'll note that she quickly unblocked me too, and I have never contravened BLP again. And this Herman Cain edit hardly violates BLP, from my reading, especially if shortened. Jabbsworth 12:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Jabbsworth wrote an article for the Wiki "sourcewatch" -- then used his own article as a source I wonder, does this comment fall under "off-wiki harrassment" or OUTING? I merely noted that Matt Drudge page at SourceWatch is a repository for the data for future editors to use. Your obsessive need to attack me over this shows that your personal animus towards me far exceeds your interest in this material for the encyclopedia. Jabbsworth 01:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC) .

The page which he wrote at sourcewatch (which he quoted exactly, making it easy to find for sure) is where you see the sort of writing done there: (deleted example) which, I suggest is not BLP compliant by a mile. That article is now noted as having been written by "Scribe". If you are really set on reinstating this person who disagrees with WP:BLP I suggest you topic ban him from all BLP articles. Else I am farily sure that he will use his old style :( Collect (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the additional information. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• The two actual diffs provided by Collect (, ) do not show WP:BLP violations. They describe a well-documented allegation against a public figure. WP:WELLKNOWN states: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. These edits by Ratel meet those criteria and are compliant with BLP. I'm open to reviewing additional diffs, but if these are exemplary of Collect's concerns then I don't think they're substantive.

  Collect also links to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive139, by which I think he has in mind this thread. I don't see anything in that thread to suggest that Ratel was violating WP:BLP in any way, so I'm a bit mystified by its inclusion as evidence here.

  As for SourceWatch, I cannot verify that the material in question was written by Ratel (and with Collect, I've come to believe it's important to trust-but-verify). Assuming that Ratel did in fact contribute to the SourceWatch article, I'm not sure of the relevance to Misplaced Pages—because Collect has, again, provided no relevant diffs. At the risk of sounding annoyed, could you please provide diffs when you quote someone? That's a very basic expectation here, and when Collect presents SourceWatch diffs as evidence of violating a Misplaced Pages policy then I start to worry that we're victims of a bait-and-switch. Collect, which specific edits to Drudge's Misplaced Pages biography are of concern? MastCell  22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• I had originally failed to include a very important paragraph of their UTRS appeal, in which the user agrees to "keep away from the following articles: Aspartame (and associated articles), all climate change articles (too much drama), the Matt Drudge article (bunfight with user Collect), and the David Copperfield article (his lawyers monitor every word)." (emphasis mine). This should be sufficient to assuage almost the entirety of Collect's concerns. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock - A good contributor who went astray nearly five years ago, but who has since improved the encyclopedia, deserves a second chance.- MrX 20:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support on the condition that the user starts fresh. All of the old accounts should be VANISHed and the new username should not reflect any of the previously used names and should not obviously follow any of the same editing patterns. If questioned (such as if an SPI is opened), the user should email a trusted admin to deal with proper closing of the case. — {{U|Technical 13}} 21:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Why? I think the current public disclosure of far preferable, for the sake of transparency. I was using the term "clean start" for its usual meaning, not in direct reference to the strict wiki-procedure known as WP:CLEANSTART. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Salvidrim!. I don't think we would want to lose the history here.- MrX 22:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I've found that people begrudge people way too long on here and a completely fresh start would be best for this user. Otherwise I fear that the user will just end up being driven off by repeated bad faith accusations and all of this will have been for not. — {{U|Technical 13}} 22:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Meh, it doesn't seem necessary (nor desired by the user) in this case. I personally tend to favor transparency in all things and this user has seen their fair share of adversity already, and they're still around, so I wouldn't worry too much. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock For all of the reasons stated above in support, none of which have been overruled throughout the discussion.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 22:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock Within the sake of bureaucracy, I bet you this happens a lot and we just never find out about it. A person gets indefinitely blocked for something they rather shouldn't have done, or something they feel is an injustice. They may wait for a bit, try to take advantage of the standard WP:OFFER and when that gets declined, just lose all hope. Then they create a new account and they are never connected. The English Misplaced Pages is certainly the largest project in the entire world where people just edit these nifty little things called 'articles' and it gets viewed by all of those near billion people. Plus, whether unblocked or indefinitely banned, you're still using Misplaced Pages afterwards. Their earliest conduct is very much troubling to the point where if that was happening just today, I would be supporting an all out long term block. 4/5 years is enough time to have genuine sympathy and be contrite about what they've done. Tutelary (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock for the Jabba the Hot account, for reasons stated above. Editor must use only one account, and no alarms or surprises if they are blocked for old repeated behavior. Keegan (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock as above; being naughty four years ago doesn't warrant still sitting in the Naughty Chair ~ far better to bring a potentially/actually good editor back into the fold. Cheers, Lindsay 10:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock To my opinion the SPI and block were already handed out based on flimsy evidence provided by a user with a content-conflict with Ratel/Jabba the Hot. His edits were, to my opinion, neutral. So I support an unblock. The Banner talk 14:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually Ratel made no secret about it really - and the "flimsy evidence" which was provided by User:ClaudioSantos is clear, especially since Jabba sock made precisely similar edits as his Master Ratel. The prior case had evidence from User:The Four Deuces. I provided the material about Jabbsworth, who made BLP-violating edits on the Matt Drudge article. Did Ratel behave well when allowed to reappear? The SPI archive shows him saying "I'd venture that it's Collect, the right wing party apparatchik (or so it seems to me), who spends all his time reverting RS-sourced material from the bios of his like-minded brethren, who is, in fact, the truly unhealthy presence on WP - that he he showed absolutely no remorse for his personal attacks on me and other editors, and no remorse for trying to violate WP:BLP even if he did think a "clean start" allowed one to violate policies.

Firstly, my original block was for socks and voting twice on a AfD on a snow-keep page. why would I bother to vote 2x on a snow keep? Reason: I was high on Oxy after a back op, using different browsers and accounts to dodge the f**king hounders and stalkers (bane of WP), and made an honest mistake. I told the blocking admin at the time but he wouldn't listen. Since unblocking, I've been involved in contentious articles like euthanasia, but if you study my edits, you'll find that they are all cited and none are disruptive. In fact, I recently made a large series of edits to Euthanasia to remove non-standard citations and some undue weight. The other editors watching that page, and there are a lot, let those edits stand. That alone says I am improving the project. As for BLP, I really urge, URGE, you to study the material that I was asking to include. When a topic is covered in at least four published (not self-published) books, numerous news and magazine articles, it deserves at least some mention in a bio. To exclude it completely is to damage wikipedia, and that's exactly what the excluding editor has done and continues to do. Think!  Jabbsworth  22:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC). Still not showing any understanding of BLP policy.

has him pointing out the Sourcewatch article he wrote as a reliable source to be used. People have been project banned in the past, IIRC, just for deliberately using their own article to back what they want a Misplaced Pages BLP t state as facts. The diff for the BLP is . So unless he is really really going to actually reform, I suggest he not be allowed near any BLPs whatsoever. Collect (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Once again, all of your diffs date from 2011, and don't present any argument (that I can see) that would indicate continued recent disruption. The strength of the SPI evidence is also irrelevant since the user freely admitted to everything he was accused of all these years ago. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@The Banner: Let me recall you were the first who thought JabbaTheHot was a sockpuppet and that was the last year, some weeks ago you also took part on the SPI opened and explicty mentioned you also had that bad feeling about JabbaTheHot, now note the "flimsy evidence" was not also endoresed by the admins who finally blocked JabbaTheHot, but note it is a superfluous argument since JabbaTheHot is explicty now admitting he is indeed Ratel. Also let me recall the reason for his block was not mainly based on doing non-neutral editions or personal attacks (ythat nevertheless he did and still does, like suggesting editors should be not allowed to edit due their alleged grammar (attacks also addressed to you in the past)); but the major reason to block Ratel was due deceiving the community by using sockpuppets and hiding them, and then breaching two times his own promises and dishonoring his word that he was not going to use sockpuppets. And now he is for more than third time coming with the same promise of not engage in sockpuppetry for which he was blocked but he is coming preciselly after evading again that block using a sockpuppet. --ClaudioSantos¿? 20:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock for the reasons given above - no evidence of ongoing disruption, just an editor who genuinely seems to want to help. Squinge (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Evading a block for various years is evidence of disruption and acting in bad faith, doesn't it? -- --ClaudioSantos¿? 16:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In theory only. In practice, he seems to have been able to shed his "dark past" of problematic editing and come back as a productive editor despite the block. Everybody (including Ratel) agrees that this "sneaky clean start" was not ideal, and that it meets the definition of "block evasion" (if not its spirit, since it wasn't for continued disruption); but it still demonstrated Ratel's ability to edit constructively and willingness to be reformed. That he came clean once confronted and explained himself transparently is, in my eyes, a sign a good faith. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In practice he was the last time blocked since he promised a clean start and never use sockpuppets again, and he was blocked the last time on 2012 because that was false: he was caught evading a block due sockpuppetry. now he uses a new sockjpuppet to evade that block and you say he is not being problematic? He is preciselly using sockpuppetry to evade a block due sockpuppetry, and this happened before two times more. That is repetition of the same behavioir or am I missing something? --ClaudioSantos¿? 17:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock: I don´t understand why it is considered Ratel is deserving to be unblocked and not clearly still gaming the system and trying to evade his block. What he thinks about wikipedia is clesrly published here on SourceWatch. He has been caught again and again evading always his blocks by using multiple sockpuppets, the last recently detected and blocked, a sockpuppet he was using for various years ago evading his last block. So what is exactly the evidence he is not willing to act in bad faith? -- --ClaudioSantos¿? 16:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That he has been editing productively for over two years despite meeting the technical definition of "block evasion" (but without the "continued disruption" aspect) and that he came clean once confronted and explained himself transparently: this constitutes a significant display of "good faith", IMO. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The last time in 2012 he was blocked preciselly because of evading a block, and that was the second or third time. One main part of the disruption component is rpeciselly the use of sockpuppets to evade blocks, feign being another and deceive users, that is disruptive. He aleady used the ARBCOM to appeal a blocking for sockpuppetry and he promised to never use sockpuppets again and the last time was preciselly blocked since he broke his promises. He is now again evading the block and not honoring his own words but using again a new sockpuppet, so is not that disruptive for you? what kind of cleaning start to honor the noit use of sockpuppets is using a sockpuppet to evade a block? --ClaudioSantos¿? 17:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Another way to look at it is that since 2012 Ratel has been editing without problem. Our purpose here is to develop an encyclopedia, not to blindly enforce rules, and Ratel has been helping do that constructively for more than 2 years now. Squinge (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :I'm saying that since he "came back" as Jabba the Hot, he has been editing constructively and has admitted openly his past misdeeds, which is a significant display of good faith, and justifies giving him another chance, instead of keeping him blocked for offenses committed years ago (2012, as you said). We should not forget, nor necessarily forgive, but neither should we allow past misbehaviour to get in the way of currently constructive editing. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

He did not come in a constructive way: he came on 2013 by using the very same distruptive means he was blocked for: sockpuppetry, thus faigning to be a different person, deceiving the editors and breaching his repeated promises of not use sockpuppetry. And please note the very first reason I suspected Jabba the Hot being a sockpuppet of Ratel was: exactly as Ratel did he was making nasty comments on my alleged grammar and suggesting I should be not allowed to edit on english wikipedia, a disruptive conduct for which he was in the past sanctioned, a kind of comments he also used against other users. So plus the major reason for which he was blocked (bad faith sockpuppetry)was repeated and sanctioned few days ago, he also is falling on the kind of disruptive personal attacks that were also sanctioned in the past, so do the bill.--ClaudioSantos¿? 19:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for your accusation that Ratel (as Jabba the Hot) violated WP:NPA and insulted you for the lacking quality of your English. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

They were all provided in the recent SPI some weeks ago as well as the similar PA's made using his previous sockpuppets. Take some here and don't hesitate to take the time to review the SPI: and . --ClaudioSantos¿? 20:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The last time when he was called Jabbsworth he liked to just answer me saying my comment and editions are "barely comprehensible" and tackling the thing in such a way. and he was explicty discouraged of such comments since not only me but other users found that insulting. But shall I insist: he broke his word more than two times, he hid sockpuppets and was blocked due that, he plead to ARBCOM and was unblocked, then he was blocked again not only due sockpuppetry again but due he deceived the good faith of ARBCOM and used again sockpuppets plus he was caught liying to ARBCOM since he hid some sockpuppets on his plead and also on the SPI. Now he did exactly the same again and came with a new sockpuppet (breaking again his promises and evading the block) and he is appealing again after he is caught in a SPI. That is not clean start, that is recidivism --ClaudioSantos¿? 20:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think the way you are operating here is showing good faith and supportive to the encyclopaedia? The Banner talk 21:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. If you don't think so then provide your arguments. But if it was just a rethoric question then you can ask it to yourself. --ClaudioSantos¿? 21:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock with a lot of eyes. If a user engaged in block evasion in order to improve or maintain the encyclopedia then that is okay with me. I say we unblock and all add their talk page to our watchlists. One account only. Chillum 01:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Reply from Ratel - "Collect insists that I am a serial BLP violator and that I not be allowed to edit BLPs, but if you look very closely at his accusation, it does not hold water. He objected vehemently to a section I added to Matt Drudge. You can see that section currently at SourceWatch.org, where it has now resided for several years. When this was taken to BLPN, nobody said it is a BLP vio except Collect. The two non-involved editors who commented said that the edit was too extensive but that: "perhaps a brief (one-sentence?) treatment would be appropriate" and "I would suggest that a careful, well-sourced sentence might be appropriate." So that's all Collect has against me, that I attempted to insert an overly-detailed edit: no BLP vio at all. Here's the BLPN discussion to confirm.

About ClaudioSantos: it amazes me that this editor continues to be allowed to edit the project! He is extremely combative and POV, edits very poorly (grammar and spelling errors in every sentence), can be hard to understand, and has one agenda: to label everything connected to euthanasia as "murder". He has tried to insert the word "murder" on pages dealing with euthanasia numerous times, example as well as frank vandalism, example. He is now desperate to stop me returning to the project because he knows I will not allow him to deface articles on euthanasia." User:Ratel/User:Jabba the Hot 04:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I will personally note that I, at the very least, agree that Claudio Santos sometimes demonstrates an inequal grasp of English, and that it does not help clear communications, although I do not feel that it rises to a level where it is a problem in and of itself. Ratel also said: "But I am happy to undertake not to edit Matt Drudge, David Copperfield, and any other BLP the sysops at WP deem unsuitable.", which is a voluntary TBAN from two BLPs, coupled with a probation that he can be TBANed from additional BLPs, should future issues arise. This seems like a strong commitment and only serves to further convince me Ratel wants to come back to do good work, and not to perpetuate the issues that happened years ago. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to remain serious in spite of I was able to laugh when I found that the two provided "evidences" of my alleged vandalism were: calling murder the NAZI so called euthanasia program (Aktion T4), and that I was playing for two seconds reinserting the "monkey" that an anonymous vandal had put in the so called "voluntary euthanasia" article and immediately reverting myself, so I euthanazied the poor "monkey" out. Perhaps you can also find that hilarious while not the NAZI mass murder of patients. Me neither. But let me focus: what should call our attention is Ratel once said that he even supports some of the grounds of the NAZI so called euthanasia program. I think he evidently has an agenda on supporting euthanasia and specifically the pro euthanasia Australian organization "Exit Now" and his founder Philip Nitzchke. Proof: in SourceWatch he claimed wikipedia was coopted by "pro-life nuts" (sic!). Proof: BLP issues raised due Ratel campaign against an scholar historian on euthanasia. Other proof: JabbaTheHot and Phillip Nitzchke vs. Nigel Bradley. Now, provided he has evaded his blocks preciselly to edit those euthanasia articles and that was always the case in the past, then should not at least be him banned out of those euthanasia related topics?, I suggested during the SPI on 2012 that "final solution". I mean a minimal action to tackle the thing and provide a minimal protection to those users affected by Ratel: bann him of those topics he used to edit and led to disruption, so also out of articles related to euthanasia. So,a minimal mean to avoid him finding people like me around, people with an alleged poor grammar, people "barely comprehensible" that he wants to "involuntary" euthanize, such I did with the mentioned monkey, up to take me away from the english wikipedia. Meanwhile, don't worry Salvidrim, I am able to grasp your equal english, and in spite of your claim about my english, I can certify you were completely able to grasp my comments, you got my point and you transmited it to Ratel up to the point you came back here with his "gentle" response. Nevertheless, I also has to certify that you are still not giving me a response nor convincing me either on how could be a "strong commitment to do not perpetuate the issues that happened years ago" if Ratel recently used sockpuppetry again to evade a block that was put on 2012 preciselly due sockpuppetry and due he breached a previous compromise by which he was unblocked? I mean, is it clear that Ratel was already unblocked once by ARBCOM since he promised not to use sockpuppets and he already once broke that compromise, hid some sockpuppets to ARBCOM and decieved the community by using a sockpuppet and that was the main reason of his last block? And is it clear that he recently evaded that last block again using a sockpuppet? Why is not recidivism in the disruptive behavior for which he was blocked? Said that, let me finalize mentioning that I don't see any good will from Ratle to come and do not repeat attacks against me and other people. That was also part of his disruptive behaviour against those he considered "paid guys" or "pro life nuts", thus the people that since being allowed to edit wikipedia is a cause of astonishment, which means it "amazes" him due these "nuts" are still able to edit wikipedia ... while he is not. Salvidrim, I hope I am spelling it in a worthy english that your computer are able to understand. By the way I remember one of my students being sanctioned on the grounds of xenophobia, due she was calling other professor a "french guy who does not know how to speak english and should return to France to teach the children". Well at least I do like learning to learn with children: they enjoy and really handle to learn math, software programming and philosophy as they do with any other language. --ClaudioSantos¿? 05:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock on condition of never returning to old subjects and old behaviors. A clean start is good, so keep it that way. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I still would suggest he be barred from all BLPs as he "worked" on a substantial number of such including wrestlers, and celebrities in general, adding violations of WP:BLP thereto. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Ratel has agreed to a TBAN from previously problematic BLPs, and a probation that allows uninvolved admins to TBAN him from any future BLP around which issues arise. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Does it include Philip Nitschke, Ian Dowbiggin? Does it include topics like Aspartame and euthanasia? --ClaudioSantos¿? 15:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, he has also agreed to a voluntary TBAN from Aspartame, and explained previously. I'll ask about the specific other topics you mention. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Thank you. --ClaudioSantos¿? 16:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock on condition of never returning to old subjects and old behaviors. I hope people keep an eye on contributions to be sure there is no return to calling editors he/she disagrees with shills and such. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing by ClaudioSantos

I'm writing a note in a separate subsection because it is not directly relevant to the block appeal, but it IS relevant to the discussion: ClaudioSantos first notified Elen of the Roads with a non-neutral summary (repeating the AN post that mentioned her), but that isn't too bad, taken by itself. It was perfectly appropriate to notify Elen, since they had been mentioned on AN.

However, ClaudioSantos then attempted to WP:VOTESTACK his losing cause by canvassing editors who he probably perceived are likely to side with him: Dbrodeck, BullRangifer, The Four Deuces, Yobol. I can see no other reason for these notifications, since none of them have been mentioned in the discussion.

I don't think this requires any action or reply, I'm mostly writing this as a purely informational note for the closer's benefit. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

They all were editors involved on the las SPI on 2011 and mentioned in that time for Ratel as alleged users with alleged interests on exclude him from wikipedia since his editions on Aspartame. They received such and other personal attacks, so they deserved to be informed of the situation. In that occasion one complaint against the ARBCOM decision to unblock Jabbsworth was that no body, not even users affected by the disruptive behavior of Ratel were properly informed nor considered. I think it is fair to inform them. I invite you to review the very long archives of SPI, remind there were 9 sockpuppets detected up to now and there are about 9 SPI cases archived, where users had to spent time providing information, discussing the situation and receiving not exactly gentle comments from Ratel. Lacking a careful review on the files and missing some main points there are reasons I see for this non-neutral accussation on canvassing and on this wining impunity cause. By the way, if that was not the purpose at any rate allowing a "clean start" serves to clean also the extense record of blocks of Ratel, as privilege that no other user has, and it has also happened before: since admins were unaware that he is Ratel then disruptive actions by his sockpuppets were sanctioned as it was the first time with short-term blockings. --ClaudioSantos¿? 15:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No, Claudio, it is not off topic to discuss your own sockpuppet-history here. The Banner talk 16:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

IMHO it is. This is meant to be a discussion about Ratel's unblock request. ClaudioSantos has voiced their concerns. Let's let others chime in, and then let's allow the closer to assess consensus. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Reporting Illegitimate Reversions

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

Dear Admins,

I added recently a comment in the section "Albania" of the article Allies of World War II mentioning that:

Over the course of the war, the casualties of the Italian and German armed forces were 26,595 killed, 21,245 wounded and 20,800 prisoners.

1. Pearson, Owen (2006). Albania in Occupation and War: From Fascism to Communism 1940-1945. I.B.Tauris. p. 418. ISBN 1-84511-104-4

I was reverted by a user nicknamed The Banner as POV? To the best of my knowledge, insertions which contain pure factual information and do not contain interpretative additions are not subject to being labeled POV.

I would not have given this revert a maximal attention if that would have been an isolated incident. However, since several days, the user The Banner is constantly preventing me (through reverting) from entering information on Allies of World War II, you can see also personal attacks on the talk page.

I believe this is not the editorial behavior that aligns with the Misplaced Pages quality we aim for, therefore I would like to ask your assistance on improving it. LupinoJacky (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

User LupinoJacky is one disruptive new editor with sole purpose here to whitewash the Albanian role during World War II. Ever since he came, he incessantly tried to add Albania to the Allies of World War II diff of last exemple. The discussion has been going on for long time, see Talk:Allies_of_World_War_II#Albania. LupinoJacky has no sources for hi claims, not a single one saying Albania was allied country. All he does is disruptively ignoring all source provided saying otherwise and insistently trying to convince everyone that Albanian participation in the Paris Conference in 1946 is a sign that Albania was Allied. Nedless to mention that by 1946 the government in Albania had changed (it was not the Axis-allied one anymore, the war was long over, and even so, Albania only got to be considered an associated power at the conference, not even a allied country participant. When confronted with sources provided by me or others, he then changes the words in a manner clearly favoring his POV exemple1 or exemple2. Of course, scholars are wrong because he knows the truth. -_-

Before that, he removed sourced material just because he didn't like it (exemple. Of course, I am vandalizing the article by adding referenced material. I must be really a bad boy...). Of course, he did the same exact thing at Axis powerswhere he keeps on removing Alvania despite the fact that there are plenty of sources backing that fact and despite ignoring numerous editors which expressed their opposition towards his edits at Talk:Axis_powers#Albania_was_an_Allied_State_and_the_entry_here_should_be_removed. Earlier he had canvassed all Albanian editors in serach of support... For instance, I bring a source where an historian says how Albanian troops paraded in Athens along the Germans and Italians one after Axis invaded Greece and he argues those were not official Albanian troops... They were the troops of the state of Albania during WWII, but he ignores that. He ignores that Albania was in war with Allied Greece and Yugoslavia and even declared war to United States! And even after communists took power, they didn't declared war to any Axis country. So he doesn't have a case but keeps on edit-warring and discussing exhaustively, and now reporting, really time for WP:BOOMERANG. Please, no patience for such POV pushers in important WWII articles. At start I even tried to be reasonable and even helped him by bringing sources that matched as close as possible what he pretends, but that is not enough for him, he want total whitewashing of Albania, but hasn't sources for it, and it became a long time now really disruptive on his behalve. Not to mention that is like talking to a wall, he asks for sources, we bring him sources, he ignores. We ask for sources he provided none. Enough. FkpCascais (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Such a personal aggression is not worth of any further response from my side, since I do not belong to this level of discourse. I only kindly ask the Administrators to consider the case objectively and take precautionary measures against the behavior of The Banner and other editors exhibiting similar symptoms. All the independent historic sources regarding my claims are provided in the articles involved and in their talk pages. Therefore, I believe that it is not difficult to assess the reality going on here.

In particular, I also would kindly request to objectively verify the validity of my request in the talk page mentioned by FkpCascais Talk:Axis_powers#Albania_was_an_Allied_State_and_the_entry_here_should_be_removed. LupinoJacky (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, this same topic was already discussed here few days ago (see: /Archive268#Albania in the Second World War). Vanjagenije (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Vanjagenije thanks for your remark. In my opinion, while the actors involved are primarily the same, the evidence of a specific recent revert mentioned above and the happenings since the date of the first topic are worth of a new evaluation. LupinoJacky (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This joke has already costed me too much time. In general there is a pattern of denying the existence of an Albanian state (although it was a separate kingdom in personal union), denying the existence of an Albanian government (although the parliament had chosen a prime minister), denying of the existence of Albanian military forces & denying of Albanian participation along side Axis forces against Allies (although Skanderbeg (military unit) fought alongside the Italians in the Uprising in Montenegro), pushing the status as Allied force (although evidence stated that it was only an associated power) and the complete and utter dismissal of every source that did not support his stance. The Banner talk 20:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC) I agree when this case is moved to AN/I

See for example Talk:Allies of World War II and Talk:Axis powers (Note: discussion on top) The Banner talk 20:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I also want to pinpoint to the Banner's disruptive behavior , removing sourced material per wp:idontlikeit , and wp:pov . As proven by this revert , he is claiming as pov a referenced text which states a FACT . He also seems to not take into account the wp:3RR , having reverted in a period of just 4 days more than 10 times for the same matter . As Per talk page , the vast majority -although having some reserves- are in favor of Albania being listed as an Ally . However this user seems to be seeing this as a some kind of personal conflict vs a new editor . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It is definately not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from my side. It is more a case of WP:IMAKEALOTOFFUSSBUTINFACTIHAVENORELIABLESOURCES from your and Lupinos side. You guys have been told numerous times that for that treaty with Italy Albania was regarded as an associated power. Nowhere is there any evidence that Albania was an Allied Power, still you guys claim that it was. And every time you guys come with the dodgy excuse: The treaty with Italy was signed by Allied Powers and Associated Powers and Albania signed that treaty = Albania is an Allied Power. Even while there is clear evidence that Albania for that treat was regarded only as an Associated Power. Unfortunately for you, threats like this have far less effect on my than reliable sources. But you guys never came up with reliable sources. There not even an Albanian Declaration of War towards the Axis... The Banner talk 00:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Here then , here is a second one which states Albania clearly as an Ally . For your convenience :

Axelrod, John. Encylopedia of World War II. Volume 1. H W Fowler. ISBN 978-1-84511-308-7, page 823-824 states explicitly: "The first peace treaty concluded between the Allies and a former Axis nation was with Italy. It was signed in Paris on February 10 , by representatives from Albania, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France, Great Britain, Greece, India, Iraq, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zeeland, Pakistan, Poland, Slovak Republic, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United States, Yugoslavia and Italy." Gjirokastra15 (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your source only supports the fact that Albania signed the treaty. I does not support the fact that they were an Allied power. The Banner talk 10:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not a right place for this discussion. All we have here is a content dispute, and WP:AN is not a place to resolve such a dispute. LupinoJacky claims that The Banner reverted one of his edits. That is certainly not a case for administrators. LupinoJacky does not show how he tried to discuss and resolve this issue with The Banner. Reporting an editor here just for making one revert, and without trying to resolve the issue on the talk page first, is inappropriate. LupinoJacky also claims that The Banner is "constantly preventing him (through reverting) from entering information on Allies of World War II", although he does not cite any wp:diffs to prove this. If this is really the case here, than this should be reported to the WP:AN3, and not here. LupinoJacky also claims that The Banner issued "personal attacks" on him, but I don't see any evidence for such an accusation. What we have here is basically a content dispute between two group of editors. This discussion should be closed and editors should be directed to the WP:DRR. We should not bother administrators with this, as we do not have any evidence that either party have broke any rule. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry this is not a content dispute, therefore in my opinion attempts to create a relativism of this case are wrong. I talked to him for several days (and several hours per day), however TheBanner denied taking into consideration my sources and reverted ALMOST EVERY edit of mine persistently in the last week, you can easily see it from the edit history, an example of which Gjirokastra15 gave above. In that revert, for which I raised the reporting, I simply entered a referenced fact and it was reverted as "POV". There exist statements of personal attacks too:

"Your reading of that Treaty is a very special one, LupinoJacky. And your interpretation is nothing short of falsifying. With the creative interpretation of the facts, I would really start believing that you are ready to argue that both Italy and Germany are in fact allied powers because they had a resistance movement. Please, stop with this." In the talk page of Allies: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Allies_of_World_War_II

Even though I am more concerned with his persistent attempts to block me from entering the reference-supported inputs. LupinoJacky (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually there may be material for admins as LupinoJacky keeps on inserting unsourced and contested material to the articles, and then disruptively crying and reporting when reverted. He is disruptive. The editors failed to bring sources and keep on disrupting the articles despite clear consensus against them. I already pointed out diffs here where he removes sourced content and replace it with his original research. This has been going on for weeks, they are not able to provide new evidence or convince no one and they refuse to drop the stick. FkpCascais (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me pinpoint that the 2 last editors are Serbians , and their wp:npov is questionable and nationalistically motivated . The user FkpCascais which up until now had never edited or reverted in that particular article is the one reverting or opposing the outcome the most .They are ignoring the sources , and when unquestionable sources are presented then they label them as non authority . Personally i do not see a content dispute between two camps ... the vast majority is in favor of Albania being listed as an Ally , and the sources do support so . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I edited all of those articles from the time we dealt with Yugoslav resistance 6 years ago my friend. And in fact, you questioning me based on my nationality only shows your own motivations.

Can you please be kind and name here who did agreed with you? FkpCascais (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No i am questioning you based on your refusal to acknowledge the sources , your lack of a genuine interest to produce a consensus , and the fact that you showed yourself to be the one most opposing it . I do not believe in coincidences , yet i hate assumptions . My motivation is a simple one , helping a new editor who asked help from me on my talk page and making sure that everything is done as per wiki rules by both sides . And without wanting to infest this part of wiki with our Balkan tribal nonsense , let me remind you this:

Axelrod, John. Encylopedia of World War II. Volume 1. H W Fowler. ISBN 978-1-84511-308-7, page 823-824 states explicitly: "The first peace treaty concluded between the Allies and a former Axis nation was with Italy. It was signed in Paris on February 10 , by representatives from Albania, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France, Great Britain, Greece, India, Iraq, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zeeland, Pakistan, Poland, Slovak Republic, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United States, Yugoslavia and Italy." Which explicitly states Albania as an Ally . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The source is crystal clear that they were not an Allied power:

but when you read a little but further you can read this:

This quote makes loud and clear that an "Associated Power" was not the same as an "Allied Power" but that there was a difference between then. As Albania was an "Associated Power" it was not officially an ally. The Banner talk 01:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

An Associated Power is no Axis Power either( as per your initial stance).The term Associated Power was first introduced during the WWI where USA was self-styled Associated Power. It was used for countries which fought independently, without external help ( ibid). In your logic USA should be claimed an AXIS too. Shortly as Gjirokastra15 has stated and sources support the term Ally and Associated Power entrench the same position. QTeuta (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

• I believe that LupinoJacky is only here to right what they believe to be some kind of wrong, and that this has gone on long enough. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just blocked LupinoJacky for an indefinite period for this disruptive editing. This has dragged on for long enough, with LupinoJacky not being able to provide sources which clearly support their position - which seems to rest on interpretations of primary sources on somewhat different topics and an entry in an encyclopaedia which doesn't really support what's being attributed to it. Instead of finding better sources, LupinoJacky has been dragging the dispute out and escalating it, which is not at all healthy. I also have my doubts over whether the other brand new editors and IP accounts who have been presenting similar views at Talk:Allies of World War II are actually different people, but will assume good faith for now (and their conduct has been less disruptive). Nick-D (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nick-D ah Ok, did you by any chance, saw the initial paragraph written on Albania? It was a poorly written article with 0( zero) sources (you can see the history as per 15 days ago). It was not until LupinoJack intervened that the paragraph became somehow sane and at least had some sources. In my understanding this served well to the accuracy of the article.QTeuta (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

@Nick-D: New user QTeuta was proven not to be a sockpuppet of LupinoJacky (see: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/LupinoJacky). IP is probably him forgetting to log in. I have to say that, although I do not agree with LupinoJacky and his methods, I think indefinite block is a little too harsh? Maybe topic ban would be enough? Vanjagenije (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Effectively the same thing. None of their edits have been on any other subject. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

What does this mean?QTeuta (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

@Vanjagenije: thanks for letting me know about QTeuta. Re: the topic ban, individual admins cannot impose bans. I chose to set the block duration to indefinite as LupinoJacky's dominant purpose for editing Misplaced Pages has been to continue this debate, so a time-limited intervention accompanied by a suggestion that they move onto other topics doesn't seem likely to be successful on the available evidence. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Nick-D, I have dealt with only that topic because I had no time in hand to deal with other articles and since I am a newbie at Wiki, I preferred not to widen my focus. It was by accident that I stumble upon the Allies article for a paper, and discovered that an illegitimate section without any sources was provided on Albania. Than I saw the Talk section, when LupinoJack ( whom I don't even know) has already provided the necessary sources to increase the accuracy on the Albanian case of this article. Despite his methods, I see no reason, why he was banned on the topic, since all he did was providing sources and not offending anyone, which was not the case with the other members. As I have followed the debates, LupinoJack has continued the debate because his evidences where dismissed ( I repeat dismissed )without no sources and the debate was personalized from @TheBanner and other members. In my humble opinion, that is not fair and the topic should be reviewed from impartial admins. Let me express my firm intention to contribute in increasing the accuracy of the articles related to this country, as I see there is an "aggressive"( I must say) campaign toward accurate sources on this country. In my understanding, Wiki should be a place of fairness and sources, not a place where minorities are suppressed in the name of majorities.QTeuta (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

QTeuta, LJ provided two sources from the beginning and has just been insistently repeating over and over again the same arguments. Worste, besides you and Gjirokastra15, around 8 other editors participated in the discussions and all disagreed with you. So, the sources were not dismissed, but what was dismissed in consensus is your (miss)interpretation of them. And you have been presented with plenty of sources saying Albania was Axis. Your insistence on this and your intentional misinformation here on what happened in the discussions bring me to a conclusion that you as well want be moving on and will continue with this disruption in those articles. FkpCascais (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You words are foam. Please don't reply to me, unless you present this so-called evidences. Albania was not an Axis Power ( meaning the Albanian official govt fought against Allies, had to pay War Reparation to Allies, a recognized govt signed under the Axis section etc). Albania was an Associate Power as stated above. Associate Power was a term used from WWI for USA to define a country, which fought without external help. You are not intimidating anybody, by making claims, as " plenty" or "misinformation" , facts are not changeable. It is not normal to say the least, that due to under-representation of the Albanians in Wiki and an over-representation of Serbs (as yourself) Greeks and friends, we should modify historical facts as a form of suppression from the majority. QTeuta (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

Enough? FkpCascais (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• The ridiculous initial paragraph on Albania, which was rightfully modified from LupinoJack. copy-pasted

In Europe

Albania was an Italian protectorate and dependency from 1939 to 1943. In spite of Albania's long-standing protection and alliance with Italy, on 7 April 1939 Italian troops invaded Albania, five months before the start of the Second World War. Following the invasion, Albania became a protectorate under Italy, with King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy being awarded the crown of Albania. An Italian governor controlled Albania. Albanian troops under Italian control were sent to participate in the Italian invasion of Greece and the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia. Following Yugoslavia's defeat, Kosovo was annexed to Albania by the Italians. Politically and economically dominated by Italy from its creation in 1913, Albania was occupied by Italian military forces in 1939 as the Albanian king fled the country with his family. The Albanian parliament voted to offer the Albanian throne to the King of Italy, resulting in a personal union between the two countries. The Albanian army, having been trained by Italian advisors, was reinforced by 100,000 Italian troops. A Fascist militia was organized, drawing its strength principally from Albanians of Italian descent. Albania served as the staging area for the Italian invasions of Greece and Yugoslavia. Albania annexed Kosovo in 1941 when Yugoslavia was dissolved, creating a Greater Albania. Albanian troops were dispatched to the Eastern Front to fight the Soviets as part of the Italian Eighth Army. Albania declared war on the United States in 1941. When the Fascist regime of Italy fell, in September 1943 Albania fell under German occupation. The Dodecanese Islands were an Italian dependency from 1912 to 1943. Montenegro was an Italian dependency from 1941 to 1943 known as the Governorate of Montenegro that was under the control of an Italian military governor. When Yugoslavia came under Axis occupation, Montenegrin nationalists attempted to create a Montenegrin state. Sekula Drljević and the core of the Montenegrin Federalist Party formed the Provisional Administrative Committee of Montenegro on 12 July 1941, and proclaimed on the Saint Peter's Congress the "Kingdom of Montenegro" under the protection of Italy. Montenegro was caught up in the rebellion of the Chetniks. Drljevic was expelled from Montenegro in October 1941. Montenegro then came under full direct Italian control. With the Italian capitulation of 1943, Montenegro came directly under the control of Germany.

This was the paragraph which was modified by LupinoJack and Gjirokastra15, and which The Banner, without any clear source states that Albania was an Axis Power(!). Do you see any sources in this section? Let me recapitulate; according to this section "legit" 15 days ago in Wiki a small country of Albania under Italian occupation, after fighting with Greece and Yugoslavia, then annexing Kosovo, fought against the Soviets and declared war on USA!!! One wonders is this even physically possible? A nation of alien warriors. This was the starting point of the debate. I request that the ban of LupinoJack be removed and this injustice continues any time longer. QTeuta (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

I provided you a list of sources saying Albania was an Axis country, and User:The Banner edit on this exact text is taken almost verbatim from the sources. You really don't know when enough is enough. It is not our fault sources indicate that Albania invaded Yugoslavia and Greece, helped Axis efforts in the Eastern Front against the Soviets and declared war to the United States. Stop making this drama. FkpCascais (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, no words, please source this Axis position. As it was provided here Albania was an Associated Power. A term used during WW1 in the case of USA for a country which fought without any help.QTeuta (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

You can read here about Albania's declaration of war against the USA something that placed her firmly on the Axis side. The Banner talk 22:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are giving me a blog as reliable source. Nevertheless, I give you the chance to say that puppet govt( similar to the Vichy Regime or the Hellenic State) under Italian Occupation ( which was not recognized) declared War on USA, did it ever fight? I can declare War to anybody if I want, but that is not legit until I don't fight, and I am not a juridical person(i.e represent an official state,etc)

Definition of Axis: also known as the Axis, were the nations that fought in the Second World War against the Allied forces. This is continuing way to far, since you don't understand that any Albanian official govt never fought against any Ally. That why it was declared an Associated Power. Furthermore, as per USA state department, no Albanian state declared War. Please don't drag me in to this nonsense. QTeuta (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

QTeuta, I provided you 5 sources up there saying Albania was Axis (I had provided more during the discussions), but here comes one more:

Albania in the Twentieth Century, A History: Volume II by Owen Pearson, pag. 458, it says: "Albania was one of the Axis satellites;"

So why do you lie saying no sources were presented to you? Werent you told to bring new sources? Did you brought them? Are we still discussing with you the same sources that have been discussed for weeks and which have consensus that do not say Albania was Allied?

I am really asking the administrators to provide the same exact sanction to QTeuta since they seem unable to provide new sources or evidence, are unable to drop the stick in this case, and are now becoming extremely disruptive by attacking other editors on nationalistic basis and providing false information at reports thinking they will get some amin who will not check the events and just beleave them. WP:BATTLEGROUND all over, they are basically the manual on how not to behave in WP discussions. FkpCascais (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, please kindly pay attention not to make personal attacks. Claiming somebody a lair, is a big thing in my culture.

Your source, cites the MEMORANDUM of the GREEK Monarchy to London( July 18th) as you can see a bit further [https://books.google.pt/books?id=P3knunC7z_oC&pg=PA458&lpg=PA458&dq=axis+allied+albania&source=bl&ots=kwkfKCZudL&sig=ybhxIt8eKoKBXWJ76VR9Ox1KwDY&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ei=YhnhVMaVDIOqUf34g_AC&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=axis%20allied%20albania&f=false ( pp.457) in that paragraph, which was pretending to annex South Albania with the claims that it was an Axis. The full sentence is "Albania was one of the Axis satellites, consequently the Allies have no reason to refuse the temporary occupation of Northern Epirus, which could be carried out by an Allied force under an Allied commander, but with Greek troops taking part in it."

Basically if Albania was part of the Axis it would had ceased to exit since half of its territory would had been annexed. But this didn't happened since it was declared an Associated Power and the claims were never accepted.

• So you basically Cherry Picked a word out of context, from a Greek Memorandum with irredentist intentions to validate you claims? In other words, you are cutting words cited from Greek Monarchist as an historic sources. I don't know what is that called?? Don't know who should be banned. Contrary to you, I read the book and know that was not the synthesis.

I am spending more time debunking your nonfactual strategies than doing real things. This discussion should not continue any further in the noticeboard, and non-partial admins should take the matter in their hands. QTeuta (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

To recapitulate for impartial admins: User @TheBanner claimed that Albania declared war on USA which the State Department doesn't know about it. While user @FkpCascais claimed Albania was an Axis by taking a sentence out of the context from a Greek Memorandum which claimed to annex South of Albania ( North Epirus, as it is known from Greek irredentist) pp.457. Both debunked. QTeuta (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

Ow, my goodness. Are now going have another round of complete denial of sources? There is proof that Albania declared war on the USA. There is proof that Albania fought Greece. Montenegro and the partisans. Don't tell me that you are going to deny that all? The Banner talk 23:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

And please, mr. QTeuta, could you use sensible sources to proof your point? Your source states is diplomatic relations. The fact that it does not mention the war declaration does not say there was no declaration of war. And beside that: why would the Allies supply a resistance movement of a country they were not at war with? That sounds a bit silly. But the Allies did help the resistance: Albanian resistance during World War II#Allied links and assistance. The Banner talk 00:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Block Review of ArmyLine

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

I would like to request the review of the block on ArmyLine. The editor requested a review of conduct for an admin regarding their actions and language towards me, as well as the unusual terms of my block. In which the admin required me to self impose a topic ban on "Gamergate" and related items to be unblocked. For this mention it appears that the blocking admin has taken this indirect relation as a violation of the editor's topic ban.

There seems to be an ongoing issue with some admins being biased and block happy. There seems to be plenty of Admins with the mindset that anyone remotely related to gamergate is automatically detrimental to Misplaced Pages. And being deemed related to gamergate seems to be as simple as requesting the review of an admin's conduct. Is this an acceptable practice? TyTyMang (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Common sense and the administrator who reviewed the unblock request agree that there was a clear breach of the topic ban. Misplaced Pages is not a social networking site where justice is pursued for its own sake—the encyclopedia does not benefit when large numbers of returned users and SPAs seek to push articles on a topic (gamergate) to their favored view. Strong measures are needed, particularly in view of the off-wiki coordination that surrounds every aspect of the case. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. Logged in and edited en.wiki just for more drama that had to do nothing with building an encyclopedia. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. Arbitration fails if the same disruption that led to the case is permitted to continue after it. --TS 13:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse If you have a topic ban, the only time you should be bringing up anything related to the topic ban should be in an arbcom case, or in a discussion concerning your topic ban at an acceptable venue. You shouldn't be bringing up other editors topic bans, or proposed topic bans, for the same thing when they don't relate to you. It doesn't even matter whether this was coordinated off wiki or not. P.S. I have no idea whether your proposed? topic ban was fair and acceptable but silly stuff like someone who themselves has a topic ban on the subject bringing it to ANI isn't encouraging me to look, nor for that matter is you bringing for review this fair block. In other words, it seems to me that many Gamergate supporters are their own worst enemy. Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess I was a little more vague than I had originally thought. Given the circumstances, was the editor violating their topic ban? They were requesting a review of an admin for his use of colorful language in regards to a person. He also quoted the admin's mention of the topic he was banned from, because it was not appropriate in the situation. So the implicit question is, can an editor with a topic ban scrutinize an admin who's action is not in relation to the topic, but is mentioned in passing?

I wasn't topic banned, and my ban wasn't related to anything gamergate at all. But the admin who blocked me said he would endorse my unblock if I undertake to avoid such material. I find it very strange that some editors get a block for quoting someone, and others actually edit their topic banned articles and are commended instead. TyTyMang (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Have a look over ArmyLine (talk · contribs)—I haven't checked everything, but it looks like all contributions since June 2014 are gamergate related (that's every single comment and edit in the last eight months). The talk page shows that an explanation for the block has been given. Arbcom voted 12���nil to indefinitely topic-ban ArmyLine (see ARBGG). A topic ban includes the fact that the editor must not launch ANI reports about gamergate drama (diff, archived here). I will mention again that the reason Misplaced Pages is "hemorrhaging users" is that there are too many POV pushers attempting to use the encyclopedia for their own purposes—dealing with them over and over and over makes all normal people leave. Some would see ArmyLine's report at ANI as a request for a "review of an admin for his use of colorful language", but experienced editors know that it was an attempt to continue the gamergate WP:CPUSH and wear down opponents. Misplaced Pages is a pretty simple place—doing stuff that improves the encyclopedia is good; anything else is not. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Little to do with being vague. I researched this myself before replying. In one of the links you used when starting this thread above, Amyline said "Admin .... attempted to blackmail him into accepting a topic ban involving "all articles related to gamergate (broadly construed)". Clearly Amyline was bringing to ANI stuff related to gamergate (a proposed topic ban from gamergate is clearly related). It was obvious from what they were quoting, which implied they knew it was related. But really they should have taken enough care that they should have known anyway, so it wouldn't work out much better for them if they didn't quote. But this stuff relating to Gamersgate they were bringing to ANI was nothing to do with them, which was really the only thing that might be acceptable. I wasn't totally sure when I initially replied when you'd been actually topic banned, or it was just a proposed topic ban, but this was beside the point. Whether it was a topic ban, or a proposed topic ban, AmyLine had no business getting involved in it given their own topic ban. It doesn't matter whether the proposed topic ban of you was fair or justified. That's something either your, or people the community still trust to be involve in the Gamergate topic area should be dealing with, not someone who was topic banned from the area (meaning the community don't trust them, in this case, as a result of an arbcom case). In fact, Amyline's involvement damaged any chance of you getting a favourable outcome since people get distracted by someone violating their topic ban. And fairly or not people think that perhaps there is a problem with your editing if someone like Amyline (who has problems in that area) decided to get involved. I might have sympathy for you (although since nothing really happened in the end, not much), but your involvement here kills any sympathy. To put it simply, since Amyline has no business getting involved in the Gamersgate topic area (including in appealing proposed topic bans for other people in that area, amongst other things), your inability to see this suggests may be the the proposed topic ban wasn't totally without merit, with me having to look more further in to the case. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the points you guys make are reasonable. I may have just been looking at this situation from a more personal perspective since I was part of the subject that brought this on. TyTyMang (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Because Armyline is topic banned from the GG area he has a right to question admin action against him in relation to the GG area, but not against anyone else. He broke his ban, he pays the forfeit, end of story--Cailil 13:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse block -- Plus the op should go back to being blocked. The block here has been reviewed by several different administrators, endorsed and declined to unblock. Bringing this here is disruptive. The editor that started this thread is a SPA and only here to disrupt the project. That much should be obvious. Dave Dial (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse block - I was going to make a bit of long rationale, but having read through the thread and the talk page, there isn't anything I can add that hasn't already been said. Blackmane (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Verrai ‎

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

This admin has not been active on Wikipdia lately. His contributions page shows no edits for 2010, one day of editing in 2011, one day with one edit in 2012, three days with three edits in 2013, one day with 2 edits in 2014, and a few edits this February 2015.

One of Verai's recent actions was a speedy delete of a category, which I had contested on the talkpage. I have my doubt about whether that was the right call. Please see his talkpage that he has been asked about a few more recent speedy deletions.

I doubt an admin with so few edits in the last 5 years should retain his admin privileges, and in any case his recent deletions give reason to doubt his familiarity with the (speedy) deletion guidelines. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Have taken a quick look and offere the following observations:

• I can't find an RFA for this admin so it looks like another of the "old school" who got adminship in the "no big deal" era
• They appear to have messed around a bit with their talk page history, I just restored revisions between 2009-2013 which they deleted, no idea where the history from before that has gone
• If the standards we now have in place for admin activity were in existence a year or so earlier this user would have been desysopped for inactivity a long time ago
• All that being said, they have actually been doing a lot of speedy deletions lately and the percentage that have been objected to seems pretty low
• And only arbcom can remove an admin anyway, so if you seriously want to pursue this you will have to take it there

Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

My username was changed after I became an admin. You can find my original RFA at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Cuivienen. You can find earlier talk page discussions in my archives (e.g., User talk:Verrai/Archives, to which I have periodically moved my talk page as it became large. Also, the Category which I deleted, Category:4th century in Israel, an empty category, had no valid argument from Debresser--he or she had stated on the talk page that it was "part of a set", which is clearly not the case considering Category:5th century in Israel and Category:3rd century in Israel, among others, do not exist, and therefore there was no discussion to be had. You are correct that I have not been very active in a long time until recently. —Verrai 00:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The category tree I was referring to is Category:Centuries in Israel. In any case, I'll probably not pursue this, especially since Beeblebrox says the number of contested deletions is relatively low. Debresser (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request for a protected talk page

{{edit protected}} The blue "submit an edit request" button does not work on protected talk pages, hence my request here.

In Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting § Proposed new draft: plenary discussion at WT:MOS please change

• I have opened a new section at WT:MOS for continued development of new dash guidelines, as 16 July approaches and we need plenary discussion with fuller participation. See also a summary of the action up till now, in the section that precedes that one ("Dash guidelines: toward a conclusion").

to

• I have opened a new section at WT:MOS for continued development of new dash guidelines, as 16 July approaches and we need plenary discussion with fuller participation. See also a summary of the action up till now, in the section that precedes that one ("Dash guidelines: toward a conclusion").

Reason: links to two archive pages, to facilitate following the trail of archived discussions. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, WP:RFPP has a section for this (shortcut WP:RFED), "Current requests for edits to a protected page". Nyttend (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured that there was such a place, but Misplaced Pages:Edit requests, the obvious page to look for it, was a dead end for me. I just updated Misplaced Pages:Edit requests § General considerations to more broadly discuss the purpose of WP:RFED. It would also be helpful if the magic behind the blue "submit an edit request" button were made intelligent enough to detect pages which are protected beyond the editors' privilege level and automatically redirect them to WP:RFED rather than open up an edit window that the editor can't edit. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Why has this page been protected since 2011? I don't think that is a normal practice. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

List of educational institutions........

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dear Admins. I recently came across article List of educational institutes in Rohtak. I noticed other similar articles such as this, this, this and few other articles. I checked WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a directory and am still not clear if these pages should exist. May I please request your feedback on this? If you recommend that such pages do not qualify then I will nominate them for WP:AfD. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This isn't an admin issue as it is purely about content. I've been working on list articles and disambig pages, so I'll be happy to take a look. In short, list articles are supposed to contain entries only for notable members of the list - Misplaced Pages is not a web portal (or a directory). I'll start by removing the non-notables and will see what's left. Squinge (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I started removing unlinked and unsourced establishments from the given articles, but that has been contested at Talk:List of educational institutions in Tiruchirappalli and so I have paused. I know this is still not an admin issue, but I hope someone here will be able to point us at the best place to have a discussion on what is suitable for inclusion in these list articles. Squinge (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

VPP. These are not lists of educational institutions, but list of articles. Chances are these lists should contain a lot of red links, but never external links in place of red links. I'd be surprised if someone could quickly asses the notability of so many entries so quickly. Lack of an article is an incredibly poor indicator of notability. -- zzuuzz 17:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Squinge, it's nice that you ask about it. But you do misunderstand about what is okay/good in list-articles. Please do read wp:LISTN and wp:SALAT. Briefly, the lists of educational institutions CAN and probably should list schools that are not individually notable. List-items do not have to meet the standard for notablity that a separate article requires. And, while source-links for every item might be nice, it is fine for any article, including list-articles, to include information that is not footnoted, if it is believed to be correct and has not been challenged. We don't have to excessively footnote every sentence or item. I would tend to AGF that the Rohtak list-article editor(s) are familiar with the area and are correct in their listing of schools. It is NOT appropriate to delete any, probably, especially not as here, deleting a whole section of medical higher ed institutions. Many items, including any higher educational institutes, are probably individually notable and worthy of having articles. So it is good for there to be redlinks for them. wp:Redlinks are helpful for identifying needed articles; "redlinks help the wikipedia grow". True, we should avoid being a directory, but that means not providing phone numbers and street addresses and opening hours and so on. Partial or comprehensive lists of schools are good, and I think many/most of your edits should actually be reverted. Hope this helps. --doncram 17:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It is doncram's attitude to lists that has caused so many problems at AfD etc in the past and is why some India-related lists remain mothballed in userspace following consensus to delete. It is no great secret that India stuff is subject to a phenomenal amount of dreadful contributions, so why not just stick with NLIST and V? We've got enough crap to sort out without having thousands of additional redlinks to keep an eye on in this area. Alas, AGF is one of those things that really doesn't work wonderfully well in this subject area: one has to be extremely cautious. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Folks, thanks for your thoughts and for the links. The problem I have is that the vast majority of entries in these lists don't even have sources, so they could even be just made up. Even without that, we surely can't want these lists to be used to promote all kinds of businesses that have no encyclopedic relevance? (And I mean no offence to anyone in India, but the great majority of commercial pushing I've seen in the past few months has been from that country). Anyway, my real question is to ask is there a more appropriate forum for discussing such things? Squinge (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  PS: Sorry, I meant to add that if anyone thinks my excisions should be reverted then please go ahead and do it - otherwise I'll be happy to revert myself once I find the right place to discuss this and if a consensus says so. Squinge (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• And finally, I'm not going to have time to look into this properly now, so I've reverted my changes and won't be able to help, sorry. Squinge (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, though there have been some problems about doncram's overly minimal articles, his statement of what lists like this should contain is in my view quite correct. These sorts of lists can not only contain things where the artless have not yet been written, but even things that are not quite notable. They're an accepted way of handling mentions of non-notable content. And he is also correct that any degree-granting higher educational institution whose real existence can be proven is considered notable here, though that is not a formal guideline. I agree with you, though, we need to be cautious about the exact nature of Indian institutions. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest that each entry should at least require a source demonstrating the existence of the institution. Squinge (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Arun Kumar SINGH's correct,

• I'm closing this as it is obviously not an administrative issue. There are plenty of forums for discussing content issues, this isn't one of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Hum1969

I might likely to have the sockpuppet investigation in for the eighth time. please have User:Hum1969 banned completely. He uses the IP ranges of the 76.6x.xx.xx 135.23.145.164 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no way on earth you can ban Hum1969 completely. He will keep on returning BTW. 76.69.39.94 (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st and User:Blue Eyes Cryin

Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blue Eyes Cryin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like some advice on what to do in this situation, preferably from an admin.

1. For some time there has been an ongoing discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Darkstar1st_on_a_site-wide_purge_of_any_mention_of_.22libertarian_socialism.22 about the behavior of Darkstar1st. Basically he's been POV pushing on a number of articles, removing references to libertarian socialism. He's also very active on the talk libertarianism. He has a long history of disruptive editing, including anti-NPOV editing, edit warring, incivility. These are detailed on the thread. A site ban discussion was iniated at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Site_ban_proposal_for_User:Darkstar1st.

2.One of his supporters at ANI, User:Blue Eyes Cryin, looked suspiciously like a sockpuppet on closer examination. Basically he has only been editing at talk libertarianism, tag teaming and offering the same arguments as Darkstar1st. The only edits made were two userspace edits, and edits in support of Darkstar1st at ANi . When confronted he seemed to confirm this . In the exchange that followed he didn't deny it but was insulting.

What I want to know is what the best way forward is. Should I go to WP:SPI? Or should I wait for the site ban proposal to be closed? Btw the site ban proposal has been open for nine days, so it is probably about time that consensus is assessed, and any action taken. --Mrjulesd (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not a sock nor do I have any socks. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously Blue Eyes Cryin was already an experienced editor when he created his account, but whether he is a sock of a current or blocked editor or was an IP who registered or just decided on a clean start is not clear. While he may have the same POV as Darkstar1st, there are lots of editors with that POV. His level of writing skills appears far superior to Darkstar1st's. Without better evidence an SPI would fail, so it is not worth going that route. TFD (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

far superior is perhaps an understatement. Tfd, Blue eyes even makes your contributions pale in comparison. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

HIs prose is superior to mine. TFD (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

i would venture to say superior in every way. You are a comminted editor that has contributed much to wp over the years. I hope we will remain wiki friends for a long time to come. Live long and prosper. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible sock?

So I received this out of the blue, and afaik, I don't recall any interaction with the editor.

But the tone of the comment is enough to set off possible alarm bells. Needless to say I would be happy to be incorrect in this.

Would someone clueful in socking or whatever please check into this? Thank you. - jc37 15:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Surprise surprise, it's a sock drawer. Think I got them all. Yunshui _水 15:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice catch! Thanks for checking into this : ) - jc37 15:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Bot-like edits from an IP address

User:62.25.109.197 was blocked for a month last year for well-meaning botlike edits which were damaging articles - the IP was efficiently responding to reqphoto templates in alphabetical order, but with mistakes and a tin ear (ignoring any specifics of the photo requests, using full Commons captions however inappropriate, and occasionally duplicating images), and generally making "high-speed or large-scale edits that involve errors an attentive human would not make". The IP resumed botlike editing a couple of months later and is working on infoboxes now, attracting some talk page feedback about how they've broken some infoboxes in the process. Although the user seems to have taken some corrective action, they have said nothing on its talk page and don't seem to have ever talked to another Misplaced Pages editor about the edits. It looks like there's a useful, unpolished bot in here somewhere, but it shouldn't be running on an IP address with no edit summaries.

(Oddly the IP received some press coverage last month for being a UK parliament IP address which was swamping a government-edits-to-Misplaced Pages Twitter bot.) --McGeddon (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. for six months. Hopefully they will speak up and we can resolve this before then. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

AFD close/review requested

Hi, hoping an uninvolved admin can take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Possible Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015 and make a close if possible? The discussion was relisted after 23 separate comments were made, and there is a fair bit of surprise from participants about the fact that it wasn't closed. Normally I'd be happy to wait for another few days for it to come around to closing time again, but this is a rather hot issue in Australian politics, and the AFD is holding up what might very likely be an uncontroversial move. Lankiveil 07:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC).

I almost did, but after reading it through, and seeing the relist, I think I'd like to wait to find out the reasoning behind the relist. - jc37 08:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

On the face of it, it seems like a very poor relist from a non-admin, and it is very disappointing that the editor as failed to respond to multiple requests to provide a rationale. StAnselm (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Closed. T. Canens (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Airbus A320neo family

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

Special:Contributions/71.51.220.0 and a user created today: User:Trymeonce - which possibly both are the same - editing the intro of A320neo with lengthy discussions, with the clearly wrong statement, that the A320neo is not newly produced, but built with used aircrafts.

Please: A semi-block is not preferred, it would ban me and other IPs to edit this article. 95.119.52.79 (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Help is needed. 95.119.52.79 (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor appears to be well past WP:3RR and looks to have been warned so a report to WP:AN/EW would be your best bet. But it looks like one was already made anyway Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Trymeonce reported by User:Denniss (Result: ). As for the IP, no point worrying about them unless they actually reappear. If they do, you could probably also report to EW or just to WP:ANI for block evasion presuming the account is blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Fascist? Help! 95.119.52.79 (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/71.51.220.0 seems to be static regarding style and reverts. 95.119.52.79 (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

See my comment below. A semi-block will not prevent anyone from editing the article. It only prevents unregistered editors from editing the article without creating an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Xenoglossy Page needs attention

I have been discussing the removal of majority of information and references from 'Xenoglossy' page with the administrator of this page for months. He does not resolve the issue and keeps giving me one sentence replies that I am not right and he sides with other people who eliminated a large body of references and data from this page. The page Xenoglossy can be visited at <http://en.wikipedia.org/Xenoglossy> and the administrator is JzG <http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:JzG>. The history shows that the Xenoglossy page prior to Oct 24 2014 contained several case reports and references to publications on this material but the majority of the get erased by some users and the administrator did nothing to revert the harmful changes. He has not paid attention to my reasoning and explanations in the talk section of the Xenoglossy page. Now he has semi-protected the page again so that nobody can add anything to it. We are trying to add material from the same references listed currently in the article. This is the voice of a group of us. Please help us with this issue. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.244.87 (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Translation: please let me indefinitely continue pushing my preferred version of the page with all the WP:FRINGE nonosense I love so much, and thus override the opinion of every single long-term Wikipedian who has thus far expressed an opinion.

No. Just like last time you asked exactly the same question in almost exactly the same words.

Guy (Help!) 18:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This unregistered editor states incorrectly that because the page has been semi-protected "nobody can add anything to it". That is not true. Unregistered editors make the choice not to create accounts, and continue to have the ability to create accounts. I don't have any sympathy with unregistered editors who complain about the unfairness of semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is true, but on the other hand if he did register an account, and tried to add the same material in the same way, he'd be swiftly blocked for reasons obvious to everybody but him. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

But we do have a WP:protection policy. This may not be relevant here, but in the above case there was no reason to semi protect the page. The editor causing problems was editing from an account. It wasn't autoconfirmed yet so semi protection would have worked for the moment, but it wouldn't work for that long. And if they had come back as an IP, in the past their IP was sticky so that could have been blocked to. Now if they had come back with continually changing IPs, it might have been necessary to use semi protection, but there's no reason to suggest it, in cases where it's clearly not yet supported by our protection policy like the above. Nil Einne (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there was. This IP has been inserting identical text, reverted multiple times by multiple editors, for a long time. It's canonical disruptive editing. I don't mind blocking the IP instead, but I'd always prefer to let someone edit other things and actually do something productive (admittedly a forlorn hope here). That said, if you want to unprotect and block the IP instead, feel free, I have absolutely no objections. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Are we referring to the same thing? As I said, I'm exclusively referring to the Airbus A320neo family article mentioned above which remains unprotected and only seems to have suffered problems from one IP and account. Robert McClenon seems to be randomly going around making comments on IPs, and ignoring other important policies, so it seemed wise to give a reminder we do have a policy about semi protection, which means it isn't always justified, regardless of whether it was here (which I don't know since I haven't looked at the case). Also I'm not sure how I can unprotect the page and block the IP. Can you explain how a non admin can do so? I could visit WP:RFPP and WP:AIV and request these, but that didn't seem to be what you were referring to. P.S. It's worth remembering that beyond allowing other IPs to edit, there's a reason why semiprotection shouldn't be used when blocking the IP or account would work better. Semiprotecting a page only protects that page. In the case above, the account had actually started targetting other pages with pure vandalism (calling editors facists in articles) before they were blocked (and even their edits to the main article had started to include such vandalism). Semi protection would not only have prevented other IPs or non autoconfirmed editors from improving the page, but would have failed to actually stop the damage this editor was causing, when a simple action which I think would probably be equally the same amount of work (even ignoring the vandalism, the editor had hit 11R or something before they were blocked and had only engaged in minimal discussion where they failed to actually address the fact their source didn't say what they were claiming it did) would have done so. Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, in terms of the wider point about allowing an editor who hasn't shown signs that thet probably can't be trusted to edit generally, to hopefully edit elsewhere constructively, it's worth remembering that there's no reason why one choice is automatically superior to the other. You need to consider the circumstances. Denying all IPs and non autoconfirmed editors the right to edit an article directly and requiring them to use edit requests simply because of the wrong doings of one editor can be harmful as well. The fact that they can edit by registering, making a few edits in places they can and waiting a few days doesn't change this. So the possible harm to these many other putative editors who did no wrong, needs to be balanced against the harm to one editor who has shown signs of problems but can hopefully be redeemed if they are forced to edit elsewhere, and they are still allowed to do so. In a case where an editor is IP hopping, then the time wasted trying to stop them may likely outweigh any benefit to allowing other editors to continue to edit the page. In other cases, it may be less clear. Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Cannot create page

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

I tried to create the page User talk:Epicgenius/Archive for User:Epic Failure to archive the messages left for my alt account User:Epic Failure, but it is on the local blacklist. Can an admin create this page? I'd appreciate it. Epic Genius (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Done, but you might hit future issues for any page you want to create that include the username of Epic Failure, because it seems that .*Epic fail.* is on the title blacklist. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Closure review: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script

Timeline:

1. 13:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC) – Kudpung (talk · contribs) creates Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script.
2. 05:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC) – Kudpung requests early closure at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.
3. 00:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC) – I ask an admin to review the discussion and closure request at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
4. 14:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC) – Nil Einne (talk · contribs) reviews the closure request and writes, " should probably be allowed to continue to run the 30 days if there is no clear consensus".
5. 08:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC) – I copy Nil Einne's review to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.
6. 02:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC) – Kudpung closes the RfC, writing, "I’m making the rare but not forbidden exception of closing this RfC myself. Its been going for over 15 days, a consensus was reached early, a request to close has been listed at WP:AN with no reaction".
7. 05:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC) – 50.0.205.75 (talk · contribs) contests the close at User talk:Kudpung.
8. 05:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC) – Kudpung declines to reopen the RfC.
9. 06:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC) – K7L (talk · contribs) contests the early close at WP:ANRFC.
10. 20:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC) – EoRdE6 expresses weak support for reopening the RfC.
11. 23:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC) – Ceradon (talk · contribs) contests the early close at User talk:Kudpung and says Kudpung was uncivil and bitey towards 50.0.205.75.
12. 00:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC) – Kudpung bans Ceradon from his talk page.
13. 00:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC) – Kudpung collapses the discussion on his talk page, writing "The discussion is thataway".

Because several community members believe the RfC was closed too early, I am taking the close to WP:AN for a close review. Cunard (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. Cunard (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion from WP:AN:

Comment from WP:ANRFC:

I see that an involved party (namely, the user making the original proposal) has taken it upon himself to close the RfC even though he is *not* uninvolved, the RfC has only run for 15 of the normal 30 days and the proposal is controversial. I believe this should be reverted at once, but would prefer not to become involved in an edit war by reverting it myself. Comments? K7L (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn. IMO, restricting access here is probably the right thing to do, but as an outcome of the RfC it is not overwhelmingly obvious that an early close is warranted. I think it is certainly inappropriate for the proposer to take it upon themselves to make an early close, given that the result is to permanently change the permissions to a page. Just the fact that it has ended up here demonstrates that point five of "Ending RfCs" does not apply. Let it run its course and get an independent close. Formerip (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn - as I have noted before, Kudpung, is deeply involved in the matter. He should not have taken it upon himself to close this discussion. The beauty of Misplaced Pages. A nice, constructive discussion about AfC must now go to the drama boards. Sigh. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn per my earlier posts cited by Cunard. There is no emergency (protecting a page having problems is a routine measure, not an emergency response). Note that I'm also apparently now banned (along with Ceradon) from Kudpung's usertalk. I actually don't mind the current situation (WPAFC/P protected maybe permanently with the script treating it as a whitelist) but some of the proponents seem to see that as a partial step towards some more obnoxious type of access management (like adding new permissions to the wiki software) that I'd consider to be a bad idea without compelling observable reasons that are not currently in evidence. If I get around to writing an RFC comment it will say something like that. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Added: Also, the right venue for discussing protecting or unprotecting a page is WP:RFPP, if BOLD or the page's associated talkpage doesn't suffice. That's another reason to think that the RFC reaches bigger issues. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn If you participate in a discussion, especially a high-profile one, you have no business closing it, let alone closing it two weeks ahead of schedule. Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn, obviously. Wow. Just wow. I can't believe that an experienced admin who has been here for over eight years blatantly failed to adhere to one of the core administrative policies: WP:INVOLVED. For such as major RfC as this, it should not be closed two weeks early, and I hardly feel that 70% support is a "clear consensus". If this were an RfA, it probably would not have passed. No one is entitled to close their own RfCs merely because all their previous ones have always succeeded. As much as I hate to mention this, ArbCom is right this way for admins who are getting into persistent involvement issues. (And no, this is not a threat; I'm just saying what can happen if problems persist...) --Biblioworm 04:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn for the reason someone WP:INVOLVED in an RfC shouldn't be closing it, particularly in any way that could be controversial. As for the early closure, although my comment was highlighted above, I'm more mixed on this. The RfC clearly stated early closure as a possibility. However this doesn't override reasons we generally expect 30 days, the fact people aren't always that active and the expectation some may notice the RfC but not bother to participate (including reading that early closure is suggested) initially for whatever reason but plan to later. However I wouldn't mind early closure so much, if there was clear consensus assessed by an uninvolved admin. (Note, I'm not commenting whether there was clear consensus.) My main point with the comment highlighted above was to suggest that an admin should appreciate if there was no clear consensus (e.g. no consensus or borderline consensus), then it was fine for them to assess and note that, but they shouldn't close the discussion since even the caveat in the RfC didn't support such a closure. Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Pinging closing admin. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 06:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn The reasons stated by the above users are pretty much valid. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn No compelling reason shown for early closure. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn Too little time, and Kudpung was very involved. Origamite 14:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Yup, that's an overturn. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn This doesn't need an "emergency closure". The current system has worked for 5+ years, and Kudpung is trying to game the system. EoRdE6 15:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn - Should have been open for 30 days, along with a closure from an uninvolved user. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 16:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I was pinged on my talkpage for this. Best I can come up with is this: Bad close. Close it when it was originally supposed to be closed. Don't have someone who commented in it closing it. If that happened already, then revert the close and do it properly. Begoon  15:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to reverse protection on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants

WP:INVOLVED states that those with a strong opinion on a topic should not take administrative action concerning the issue. The RfC to implement full protection on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants was closed two weeks early with only 70%, which is not an absolutely "clear consensus". However, the original proposer (Kudpung) closed the RfC on his own and fully protected the page in question, despite being quite obviously involved. I propose that the protection on said page be reversed, and let a completely uninvolved admin judge the consensus when the RfC is fully complete and take action accordingly. --Biblioworm 04:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• This is the kind of bureaucratic proposal that has no place here. If anyone has an actual reason to believe the RfC should not be enacted (that is, protecting WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants is harming the encyclopedia), let them state the reason. If the best argument is "he broke the rules!", please find something else to do. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• How so? If you look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants the page header templates are a long mess of WP:BITEy text which looks to be intended to dissuade new reviewers from joining Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for Creation, all now fully protected so no one can tone this down. It was presumably dumped there when this was an editable page, in an attempt to discourage new users from randomly adding themselves, and was questionable then... but on a fully-protected page? It's completely inappropriate in tone and only serves to chase prospective reviewers away. That's very bad news given that we already have a severe shortage of reviewers and a one-month AfC backlog, which gives first-time users who submit article proposals and get ignored for weeks on end a very negative introduction to writing for Misplaced Pages. I don't appreciate being canvassed to break an already-broken AfC process further if that means losing new users. This "Of course AfC is broken, and there is a lot of support for that notion in the backrooms of Misplaced Pages. The best thing to do would be to scrap it altogether and there is a lot of support for that too. But before we can do that we have to convince the community that it's broken" seems almost to be making a WP:POINT of creating new problems. I realise there are issues with bad reviews, and I respect that, but please don't create a bigger problem by placing arbitrary barriers to entry of new, competent, good faith reviewers. K7L (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Meh If protecting that page was the only issue in that RFC there'd be less going on here. I'm not going to endorse leaving it protected but if the users of that page think it's need urgent protection, then whatever, it seems pointy to stand in the way of it unless the rfc closes otherwise. I think there's more confusion about the bigger picture. I don't think the problem with AFC is too few reviewers, but rather it's too much bureaucracy and too many crap submissions due to perverse incentives. I have to wonder what the secret plan is that I linked to above. The existence of an off-wiki cabal concocting an AFC replacement instead of with open discussion is troubling in its own right. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't see any urgent need for any back-and-forth on the protection. Just let the closure review complete and then adjust the protection to whatever the final RfC outcome is. In the meantime, leaving it protected seems to best represent the consensus at initial closure time. Squinge (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Nay I prefer the protection stays until the RfC gets over, atleast the reopeners wouldn't be blamed for any more illegitimate users of the script while it is going on. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support I don't think it's a good idea to let someone "win" a discussion by closing it improperly, even for a short while. Especially when tools are involved. Just a really bad plan. If there was a massively pressing reason, sure. But no one has spelled out such a reason. Hobit (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that keeping inexperienced users off the list is a good idea, and it saves, say, SuperMarioMan's time. Origamite 14:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Requesting administrator attention

I think we have established consensus. I would prefer if an uninvolved admin reviewed these comments and made a decision accordingly or atleast give input. Not pinging any admins, since it might be considered as spam. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Although I !voted in the discussion in question (the same direction as it was closed in favor of), I think it is pretty clear there is consensus the close was improper and have undone both the close and the page protection. If an uninvolved party thinks the early page protection is warranted, I have no objection to them putting it back in place, but it was done as part of the RfC close so I think it makes the most sense to undo it as well (acknowledging the opinions above are mixed on the point.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hi,

Can someone pop over and deal with the queue at WP:AIV its not huge but theres a rather committed vandal spamming e-harmony links and my rollback button is almost worn out. Amortias (T)(C) 01:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This user has been a long term vandal - see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#Persistent_harassment.2C_sockpuppetry.2C_and_vandalism_by_long-term_disruptive_editor and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#Persistent_harassment.2C_sockpuppetry.2C_and_vandalism_by_long-term_disruptive_editor_-_Again. --I am k6ka _{See what I have done} 01:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh goody. I like sockfarms they tend to gravitate to my talk page and get increasingly more frustrated as I just keep hitting rollback. Amortias (T)(C) 01:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Close review requested

I closed a discussion in which I'm heavily involved, and I would really welcome review of the close. Whether that's an endorsement or an overturn, either is good, but just my eyes on this is insufficient. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• I couldn't see anything obviously wrong with the close, but please don't close discussions you're involved in. Some Wikipedians are prepared to overlook procedural irregularities if the result was right, but an involved closer is one large procedural irregularity.—S Marshall T/C 13:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow, I completely botched that close. It had an elaborate close rationale for merge, including a note of my own involvement, and a link here. Frankly, I don't know what happened. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I've reverted the close, and will not re-close, as that will make things even murkier. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog