Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:59, 25 February 2018

• 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 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 12 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

Wikipedia_talk:Find_your_source#RfC:_Bypass_Paywalls_Clean

(Initiated 100 days ago on 17 September 2024) everybody has forgotten about that discussion, but it needs closure. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 79 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 70 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

(Initiated 46 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 42 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 42 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 40 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 39 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 35 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 33 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 17 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Deletion discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 58 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 50 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:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

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

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

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

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

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Armageddon

Nothing major and I didn't know where to post this exactly, but there's a bit of issue with the cast section of Armageddon. It seems apparent that TheOldJacobite has been removing added cast members in that article's cast section done by other editors, which is too short and he has been continuously doing that. 1 2, 3. I was not involved in this, but I have to tell you. Armageddon needs somewhat of a bigger cast section since they are notable actors on it and that TheOldJacobite has been removing the added notable actors & characters on it whom he deemed minor & it's getting too far. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I will say that this isn't the first time TheOldJacobite has been popping up on radars, and they need to be careful that this is starting to look more like a behavioral problem rather than a series of content disputes. If they can't manage to find where a talk page is and how to use it, they're probably going to have a bad time. GMG 12:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: TheOldJacobite has remove the most of the cast listed in the infobox as seen on this diff, which those names were on the billing board of that theatrical poster. He's becoming a problem editor and his behavior is getting way out of hand. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the previous version, since, among other things, the reverts reintroduced obvious typographical errors, and have left them a warning, since apparently they can't be bothered to respond here or on the talk page. If the edit warring continues, the appropriate course of action would probably be to file a report at WP:ANEW. GMG 16:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Articles Created by blocked user Makhamakhi

I would like to initiate a discussion actions on the articles created by the user Makhamakhi. The user was recently blocked from Misplaced Pages for disruptive editing as he was creating articles of no encyclopedic value and not properly referenced. The log of the block can be viewed here. The user has created around 500 (482 to be exact) trivial articles and a lot of them had been deleted whenever it was in AfD. I had quickly reviewed the articles which still exist and in my view all of them are candidates for deletion as they are mostly original research, unsourced or primary sources. But flagging them en mass may not be a good or particularly efficient option. So I wanted to bring this up here so that the administrators can take appropriate action or either deleting them all under speedy or some other action. I recommend a speedy on all of these articles. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 07:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The closest criterion that comes to mind is WP:G5, which allows for deletion of pages created by a banned user if they created the pages while they were banned (i.e. socking). That doesn't apply here. The community has very rarely made special-case exceptions, but for cases on a much larger scale than this (i.e. the number of pages thought to have been affected by WP:X1 was nearly 100,000). It seems to me that regular deletion process is the way to go here. I picked one of the pages from the list at random, Azim family, which could easily be a surname anthroponymy page if the targets listed are notable. This needs discussion. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 07:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

For some time many of his article creations were unattributed copies and splits from existing articles (despite a number of warnings). Some of these were dealt with, but there may be others of that type still remaining. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It is worrying that it took so long for him to be blocked. The problem was reported about 6 weeks ago at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive973#Bangladeshi editor. The delay has obviously allowed time for a lot more mess to be created. I understand the principle of AGF, but it was very soon obvious that this editor was a liability rather than an asset. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I took a gander, and don't see any reason not to just mass delete them. I'd happily take care of it myself, I wouldn't mind dusting off the nuke button. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights:--Some are notable enough.I will try to save a few pending which nuking would be a good-option.~ Winged Blades 16:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, seems reasonable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment- While there are articles created by him that should be deleted there are many that are notable. Why dont we go decide the articles on a case by case basis and not resort to mass deletion.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• The few can always be recreated by anyone at any time, if Winged Blades of Godric hasn't resolved outstanding issues as volunteered above. - Sitush (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrong way around. Policy dictates that we should not delete when alternatives exist and nuking a number of pages just because some are bad violates both the editing and the deletion policy and I will personally WP:TROUT any admin who uses Nuke to deal with those articles without a very clear consensus (which does and should not exist here). A random quick look of the articles created finds Ke Apon Ke Por (TV series) and The Rain (film), both clearly notable subjects that should not be deleted. AFD and PROD can easily handle the rest, especially since similar kinds of articles can be grouped in a single AFD. Regards SoWhy 12:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• This user had created a sock Ratsama (talk · contribs) just prior to the first instance of a ban. It also had an unusually high number of articles, all except one have been deleted by now. MT Train 11:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:DUCK vandalism

207.148.2.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be a sock of Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk · contribs), given repeated false addition of the name "Richard Madenfort" to articles. I also suspect some WP:TEND is in effect, given their edit summaries of "Because the music union doesn't know who to pay?". The "Richard Madenfort" vandalism has gone back for several years; see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Richard_Madenfort,_Rick_Marty_adding_himself_to_many_music_articles_by_way_of_socks_and_IPs. There is no concrete proof that Richard Madenfort played on any of these songs. Lee Brice (album) is one of the targeted articles, and according to Allmusic, no one named Richard Madenfort played on the album. Given the evidence here, is there a way that we can add "Richard Madenfort" to the edit filter? Because this has been an ongoing vandalism for so long, and the person's constant use of IP ranges makes blocking ineffectual. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

One of the sources you claim isn't reliable is the music union responsible for paying who played on the album.

https://www.afmsagaftrafund.org/covered-rec-artist_SR_Master.php?a=MTA2OTg0&b=VEhBVCBET04nVCBTT1VORCBMSUtFIFlPVQ%3D%3D&c=QlJJQ0UgTEVF&s=Rg%3D%3D

Which is also why guys like Kevin swine Grantt are listed as Mark Grantt. You can't pay fake names, just legal names. 207.246.125.88 (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@207.246.125.88: then why does literally no other source on the entire Internet use the name "Richard Madenfort" or any variant thereof? Ten Pound Hammer • 03:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Allmusic sucks. Beyond that, I couldn't tell you. But you seem to be deflecting the issue - you are removing sourced content because you don't want to admit you are wrong. Why is he being paid royalties for songs he didn't play on?

Who is more reliabe - a free site that everyone knows is full of errors, or a site that lists actual payroll but doesn't get indexed by google? 207.246.125.88 (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, https://lyrics007.com/artist/lee-brice/TlRRd05qRXo= does not look like a wiki. Yet, there it is on page one of my search results.207.246.125.88 (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

A music union website is most definitely not a reliable source. You would do well to actually read WP:RS to see how we define it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I am not going to bother to read a page that says allmusic is a better source than afm-sag-aftra for determining who worked on an album.

So you're telling me that he can delete information found on the album booklet on one album, and the actual work logs of a second... while using one word edit summaries ( https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=That_Don%27t_Sound_Like_You&diff=next&oldid=800787550 ), and that is acceptable.

But a payroll site isn't acceptable? 207.246.125.88 (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no personal comment on whether or not any of these sources as an RS, and this isn't the place for such a discussion anyway. However if you're not willing to try and understand what an RS is and why we require them I don't know that wikipedia the place for you. I.E. It seems either WP:Competence or WP:NOTHERE would apply. BTW, for article titles the WP:Common name is generally preferred regardless of whether it's a stage name (or 'fake' name). It can get a little more complicated when referring to the person in other articles but in simple cases where the reference directly relates to what the their common name is known for, generally we will use it as well. Nil Einne (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Some guy removes an entire personnel section with one a one word edit summary, "no". Then removes another entire personnel section with a one word edit summary, "no". He removes 3 personnel sections with "no". And then, when someone looks, you see its all sourced. But they aren't just sourced, they are sourced from a non-wiki site - the SAG-AFTRA site.

It's not until you look at his editing history do you see that a longer edit summary exists. How are users of one article to know what his intentions are with those one word entries? Does everyone need to hunt his edit history to understand, or does the burden fall on him to provide those edit summaries? And why would anyone not accept sag-aftra as a reliable source?

Basically, entire personnel lists get removed because allmusic(which is full of errors) doesn't list him. And I am the one being given a "only warning" for reverting someone's section blanking of sourced content. All because of some 11 year old report... because it is impossible for someone to get a job in 11 years.

Maybe you're right. Maybe this isn't the place for me. Aren't encyclopedias to be fact-based? Yet, the very people responsible for paying workers is not considered acceptable, but one word section blanking is.

And nobody is answering the question - why is he being paid for an album if he didn't work on it? 207.148.4.114 (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I just punched his name into google (I usually do not use google). The knowledge graph seems to think he was the bass player for Alice cooper. Does this mean Google is also in on the "hoax"? Not that it matters, because I have already been given my 'warning' and am going to lose editing privileges. 207.148.4.114 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

So, instead of waiting around all day for a response; Pretend for a minute that TenPoundHammer wasn't your buddy. And you saw him "section blanking" sourced content using a one-word edit summary, "no". What would you have done? Then he does it again and again. What would you have done to someone who was not your buddy? 

And then you also see him section blanking sourced content but used a longer edit summary, "clearly unreliable sources, presence of "richard madenfort" indicates that at least some of this was faked", but how does one fake that content from that source? And, as previously asked, why would that source get it wrong? Clearly someone has a personal bias against this person, but the entire personnel list on these articles are being removed. I mean, how many personnel sections cite no source at all, but here you have them being removed for being sourced? 

And then, when this inappropriate removal of content was reverted: I have been called a sock for adding content (I view adding content and reverting content as separate issues). How would you react if I called him underwear for removing the content in the first place? And I was given a "final warning" with the threat of losing the ability to edit. How does any of this make sense? I am in trouble for reverting someone's inappropriate section blanking. And, again, as previously mentioned, a copy of the liner notes and a site responsible for paying workers is considered unreliable? 207.148.4.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no comment on the sources, but as for the IP's behavior...rangeblock, anyone? Erpert 19:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

To 207.148.4.114: If someone reverts you you open a discussion on the article talk page. It's that simple. See WP:BRD and WP:Consensus. While edit summaries are useful, you should not be using them as a substitute for discussion. And we don't rule on WP:Content disputes here at ANI, so there is zero point explaining why you were right in the content dispute and the other editor was wrong.

Also per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS it rarely helps support your case complaining about what other articles do. As I said above, WP:Verifiability and WP:RS are very basic parts of wikipedia. If you aren't willing to follow them, if you aren't even willing to get a basic understanding of what they mean by a quick read, you probably don't belong here. Yes encyclopaedias including wikipedia are facts based, but we have found the best way to ensure we have facts is to rely on reliable sources to support these facts, not trust what some random person says is a fact. (Also we don't have to include all facts. As I said earlier, the fact someone's legal name may be ABC doesn't mean ABC is what we will say in the article if they normally go by XYZ.)

Frankly I have no idea why you think TPH is anyone's buddy. AFAIK they have never been particularly popular at the ANs definitely I have never had the greatest impression of them. But that's neither here nor there, most of us at least try to put aside our personal feelings about an editor and look at the locus of the dispute.

When one editor appears to be suggesting that they don't have to worry about sourcing, that editor is never going to come across well. (And the Google thing is particularly stupid. Google just takes their info from various places including wikipedia itself. They don't have to be 'in' on any hoax. The 'hoax' just has to have been wide enough that Google accidentally learnt it. And all this is besides the point since many of us have no idea whether there is a hoax because as I said, we don't rule on content disputes. All we know is that you need proper sourcing.)

Again, use the article talk page. Please don't complain that someone else didn't initiate discussion. You do it. And make sure you understand the basics like what a reliable source is, why we often avoid primary sources, and the need for anything which may be disputed to be supported by a reliable source. Because if you don't and think we should just trust you because you say something is a fact, you are liable to find complete opposition to your proposal when you initiate discussion.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

But he didn't revert my edits. I reverted his! Which, of course, is why he then reverted my edits gave me a warning and brought me here.

He has no business removing information sourced from the album cover. If you guys think SAG-AFTRA isn't a reliable source for information, fine. But an album cover?

So at least get it right - I reverted him. 144.202.66.241 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Pre- and post-nominals discussion needs reopening

John from Idegon closed a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Pre-nominals and post-nominals just when a better mix of editors began appearing. At User talk:John from Idegon#Pre-nominals and post-nominals I have responded to his given reasons for closing the discussion, received his response, and notified him of this request for administrator assistance to reopen the discussion. Jzsj (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

For background, please read Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Pre-nominal and post-nominal BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this Swarm. I'm unable to respond in detail earlier than midday Tuesday (holiday weekend), but suffice it to say, I stand by my closing rationale. If an administrator wants to revert it, of course I have no objection on procedural grounds as I am WP:INVOLVED. In retrospect, it would have been better to have requested Kudpung or Tedder to shut it down for the procedural issues (misplaced and CANVAS) I cited. Please be aware that when I return Tuesday, I will be seeking WP:BOOMERANG. This foolishness has gone on quite long enough. John from Idegon (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to relist the discussion at WT:MOS or WP:VPP. The discussion was taking place at WT:WPSCH/AG, but involved changes to MOS:POSTNOM. No matter what consensus emerged from the discussion, per WP:CONLIMITED, the editors at WP:WPSCHOOLS cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no justification at MOS for confusing these with honorifics. It's the broad interpretation of the "etc." at Schools Project that introduces confusion and may seem to justify the removal of these religious pre- and post- nominals. Jzsj (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no quibble with what is said at WT:MOS. I repeat here what I placed at User talk:John from Idegon#Challenge to your closure of discussion on religious pre- and post-nominals:

I disagree with both of your reasons given for closure. As to 1), as stated in my comments in that discussion, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Infobox contents has gone beyond anything mentioned at MOS. As to 2), I'll let an administrator decide whether placing a neutral alert at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Catholicism to widen the input is canvassing. Please reopen this discussion or I will challenge the closure. @John from Idegon: Jzsj (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

My contention is that the ambiguity of the Schools Project guideline on pre- and post-nominals ("CEO, Dr, BA, BSc, MA, PhD, etc.") allows editors to remove religious ones like "Fr.", "Sr.", Br.", "SJ", "SNDdeN", "OSB", though these are used in hundreds of school article infoboxes. An example of editors' removing these is at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Pre-nominal and post-nominal... a discussion which someone hid there, suggesting that it be brought up in a larger forum. Then when I brought it up at Schools Project Talk it was closed, for two reasons neither of which is valid. Please reopen the discussion there. This is about removing the ambiguity in the Schools Project Guideline which I am saying needs to be removed (the "etc."). Jzsj (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

And this is what all the editors working on NDCRHS have been dealing with for the last 6 weeks. I'm pretty tired of the Father's WP:ASPERSIONS being directed a Wikiproject that I happen to be a coordinator of (pretty much, as I'm sure you all know, a meaningless title). There are 5 editor's completely opposing him at that article and one mostly opposing him. Only 3 of those editors are members of WP:WPSCH. He's clearly made the Wikiproject the demon in this, and using that to justify his tendentious editing and discussion. I'm at a loss for how to process here. 3O is obviously not an option. I cannot see how mediation could be helpful. The only options left are a bit nuclear. I'll be back in a couple hours with diffs, and I'm asking minimally for a topic ban on the particular school article. I just am at a loss here. The last thing I want to be doing is dragging a priest into "Wikicourt", but more reasonable options are not presenting themselves.

This is the link to the canvassing post I referenced in the disputed close (also note the one immediately above it). The Father has already linked the discussion at the article talk which generated his discussion at WT:WPSCH. Please note that no one even suggested they were opposing his position based on school article guidelines and indeed it was suggested, just as I suggested in my contested closing at WPSCH, that he take it up at MOS. A read of the talk page (if you can do so and keep your sanity) will clearly illustrate my, and all the other, editors there, cause of frustration with Jzsj. If y'all wanna take a crack at reading that mishmash good luck. I'll be bringing diffs showing clearly the OP's COI here. It's really questionable whether he can edit any article regarding Catholicism neutrally, and I'll have diffs for that too. Y'all gotta do something. Block him block me but I'm tired of spending an hour a day beating my head against the wall over an article about a tiny little school that is low importance to every project watching it and that averages less than 10 page views a month. John from Idegon (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note that there are seven simple proposals at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#History on which a few have been constantly obstructing my efforts. Others have supported my efforts but have been shouted down. Please check my seven proposals recounted near the end of this History section, and my compromise proposal for some of these issues near the end. Also, please read my explanation at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Pre-nominals and post-nominals in contrast to what John presents here. Jzsj (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I was in charge of English at one time for a group of 47 Catholic high schools in an archdiocese and also lectured linguistics in a Major Seminary. Without any relevance to my own religeous leanings (if indeed I have any), I have the highest respect for the Society of Jesus and it puts me on the fence when having to discuss our guidelines with one of their members. I would appeal to Jzsj to understand the difference between being 'shouted down' and a community consensus in which he is misiterpreting - in good faith - the way we work on Misplaced Pages. And as John so often says, the project coordinators at WP:WPSCH are only janitors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't refer to myself as a priest and I don't see it as relevant to this discussion. Note that the whole discussion at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#History became alarming to me when early in the first section religious pre- and post-nominals were referred to as "alphabet soup" and likened to "crap", though they are used in hundreds of school infoboxes. My use of "shout down" here is an accurate description of the difference between my keeping my cool through all this while some others have made all sorts of threats.

If you are going to keep the "etc." at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#infobox contents, which goes beyond the Misplaced Pages official guidelines, then I suggest that you mention there that religious pre- and post-nominals are not honorifics. @Kudpung: Jzsj (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

We really need to get some guidelines clearly established in this area! When in an infobox I linked the "Fr." and "SJ" in Fr. Joseph Parkes, SJ, my links were removed, though I thought I was introducing an improvement − at here. The editor has no talk page so I could not ask about it. Can anyone explain? (The refs were the usual WP:CREDENTIAL & WP:POSTNOM which leave questions like ours unanswered.) Jzsj (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Does anyone object to opening a new RFC at WP:PROPS and continuing this discussion? I doubt there is a community consensus to change WP:POSTNOM, but, as jzsj points out, the current wording does not directly address religious orders. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

WT:MOS or Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies would seem more appropriate. 32.218.46.19 (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Since Jzsj’s proposal concerns non-biography articles, I feel WT:MOS is more appropriate than WT:MOSBIO. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

MOS:BIO states "While this guideline focuses on biographies, its advice pertains, where applicable, to all articles that mention people." (emphasis mine) In any case, this is really a style issue; WT:MOS would be fine. 32.218.34.240 (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to forgo any request of BOOMERANG here in favor of posting a full report and request for sanctions in a few days. I repeat, I have no objection to an administrator reopening the discussion on my procedural error of involved close. However, it appears to me that there is a fair consensus that at least part of my rationale, wrong place, was correct. I await my serving of trout. John from Idegon (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Jzsj: I think we have a consensus to reopen your RFC at WT:MOS. If you do reopen it, could you

• Read the 2008 discussion about a similar issue?
• Notify WT:WPSCHOOLS and Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School, as well as any other venues you previously notified. It would be best if you could list every notice you placed in a comment to the RFC.

If the RFC is relisted, I agree with the above editors and support closing this thread. If John or Jzsj feel further administrator intervention is needed due to broader editor conduct issues, they can go to WP:AIN. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I remain convinced that we need to reopen that discussion, and if someone claims that the question I've raised is settled elsewhere, please let them quote the words that settle it and not just the name of a page. I've read the 2008 page and I suggest that the honorifics talk may be "similar" but came to no conclusion about the issue at hand. Note that being a "father" or member of a religious congregation (OSB, OFM, SND) places you in a position of obedience to a bishop or religious superior for life: mere honorifics don't do this. We can argue over whether "Rev." is an honorific like "His Excellency", but if we could just clear the "Fr.", "Sr.", "Bro." ones and the post-nominals for religious congregations it would handle the infobox question raised here. Jzsj (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SNOW, I doubt any admin will reopen the original RFC since it was in the incorrect venue for such a change. This thread is reserved for meta discussion of the RFC close, not for rehashing the argument from the RFC.

Many editors may disagree with your proposed style changes, but you are making reasonable arguments in good faith. Let’s open a new RFC at WT:MOS and have a full discussion about your proposal. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The placement at Schools Project was to get rid of the "etc." added there. If policy/guidelines were clarified elsewhere, would the Schools Project still have an "etc." that seems to override that policy/guideline? The importance of the guideline to schools is that the pre- and post-nominals in infoboxes succinctly indicate the extent of control that a diocese or religious congregation has over the school. Jzsj (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The importance of the guideline to schools is that the pre- and post-nominals in infoboxes succinctly indicate the extent of control that a diocese or religious congregation has over the school. No, that would be the job of reliable sources which explicitly discuss the extent of control that a specified diocese or religious congregation has over a specified school, not of tea-leaf-reading of arcane Roman Catholic jargon. --Calton | Talk 13:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

By "extent" I don't mean here a full assessment of the extent, but the common sense understanding that when a bishop or religious superior places an administrator at a school it is to fulfill the vision of the diocese or the religious congregation. I would also borrow here from one of the few "new eyes" that found our NDCRHS discussion, at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Postnominals: "My reading of MOS:POSTNUM is that in this case it clearly supports post-nominals in the infobox. It says "should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization. (a) This order of nuns is over 200 years old and has a presence in 20 countries on 5 continents. I think an argument can be made that this order is "widely recognizable." (b) Furthermore, this is a Roman Catholic order, and the Roman Catholic Church is widely recognized. According to MOS:LEADELEMENTS the infobox is an element of the lead. In conclusion, since either the order or the Catholic Church are widely recognizable, and since the infobox is part of the lead, the Sisters postnominals should be restored to the infobox." – Lionelt 22:21, 21 February 2018 @Lionelt: Jzsj (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean here a full assessment of the extent, but the common sense understanding that when a bishop or religious superior places an administrator at a school it is to fulfill the vision of the diocese or the religious congregation.

In other (long, convoluted) words, exactly what I said: tea-leaf-reading of arcane Roman Catholic jargon. This aint' L'Osservatore Romano, this is a general-purpose encyclopedia with a specific, very hard rule about sourcing. In this case (again), reliable sources which explicitly discuss the extent of control that a specified diocese or religious congregation has over a specified school. --Calton | Talk 02:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Most unrealistic! This is hardly ever explicitly stated, much less in the media. It also flies in the face of the usage on hundreds of article websites. It's this attempt to turn around common usage in Misplaced Pages, that shows the common understanding of guidelines, that has alarmed me from the start. Jzsj (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This is hardly ever explicitly stated, much less in the media.

1) "The media" -- whatever that is supposed to mean here -- is not the only reliable source acceptable on Misplaced Pages; far from it.

2) If it's not explicitly stated, then how important could it be?

3) Common use? Common understanding?

a)

b) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.

--Calton | Talk 00:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and you may wish to look up "common sense", since you're not using the term correctly here. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

So, someone served me up with trout, it sure doesn't look like anyone is going to do anything about re-opening the discussion in question so how about some admin type closing this down? Since someone doesn't understand that this isn't the place to discuss the subject of the discussion in question, nothing good is going to come from continuing this. John from Idegon (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

User:ZEdzEd3168

I'm also concern with the block of ZEdzEd3168 (talk · contribs). This user is come from Chinese Misplaced Pages. He is definitely not User:Dragoon17cc. He thinks that pretending a LTA can make the community "hate" them more. He is still a new user, and he realises his mistake. He also promises not to abuse multiple accounts. He has already been unblocked in Chinese Misplaced Pages. I know that different sites have different rules. Usually the indef blocked user have to follow Misplaced Pages:SO, waiting 6 months without socking. After unblocking in Chinese Misplaced Pages, he has made a lot of good edits. He should be given another chance.

• @Callanecc, Alexander Misel, and Outlookxp: pinging the blocking admin, and the realted admin in Chinese Misplaced Pages. Others may also comment on this block. --B dash (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Having read through the SPI archive at both English and Chinese Misplaced Pages, some of the details concerning this user are very confusing. I have also been reading the now removed talk page record (), it appears that many of the context were off-wiki and is not really relevant here anyway. I have left a note for this user in regards on how to move forward with their appeal. As B dash has launched a new SPI, we will probably have to wait for the CU result there. In the meanwhile, ZEdzEd3168 would probably want to write a proper standard offer request so that it can be considered by the community. Alex Shih (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I think staying with these accounts as socks of each other and this accounts (including Dragoon17cc) as separate would be fine. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Request from New Page Patrol

• While we have managed to significantly reduce the New Page Patrol backlog during our recent backlog drive we are still a ways away from reducing it below the 90 day google index point. New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with with the influx of new articles and the end of the initial phase of ACTRIAL is just around the corner. It is likely to hit us hard with even more articles to review each day and we need to be in a good position to deal with it if possible.
• We could use a few extra experienced hands on deck if anyone has time available.
• If you aren't admin and would like to help, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere 08:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC: update to banning policy for repeat sockmasters

There is currently an RfC being held at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC: update to banning policy for repeat sockmasters about an update to the banning policy for repeat sockmasters. All are invited to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

A question on topic bans

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

So I know that I've been topic banned from XFD. However, I recently made a WP:HEY improvement at Happens Like That, which is currently at AFD. Is leaving a note on the AFD discussion saying "Hey, I improved this article, you might wanna take another look at it" something that would be considered a violation of the topic ban? Ten Pound Hammer • 07:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If the article Happens Like That falls under XFD? then it's likely a t-ban breach. GoodDay (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think editing the article is in breach of the topic ban just because it happens to be up at AfD. But going to the AfD discussion to talk about it would be. Reyk _YO! 07:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Even a good faith comment that isn't a vote? In that case, could someone kindly add a note indicating that I greatly expanded the article immediately after it was nominated? Ten Pound Hammer • 07:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I'm giving you a hard time here. But. You got banned from XfD related activities-- asking someone to make the edits you're banned from doing yourself might look to some like you're trying to dodge the ban. That is almost always a bad idea. I think you're better off just making the improvements and trusting the AfD participants to notice them and take them into account, without you actually saying anything about it. Reyk _YO! 08:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think improving articles to try and save them from deletion is really what TPH's topic ban was intended to prevent. The issue was his nominating articles for deletion as a lever to get them improved. TPH himself improving articles was decidedly not the issue - in fact, the whole idea of the topic ban was to encourage TPH to improve articles himself rather than using AFD to force others to do it. I also think that drawing attention to such improvements is wholly reasonable, albeit he can't do so at AFD (because allowing that would require a nuanced view of the intent of the topic ban by all admins, which we know is never going to happen). Perhaps if in these instances TPH were to be allowed to leave a single, neutrally worded and polite message on the talk page of the AFD nominator, or one of the other participants in the discussion, informing them that the article has been expanded/enhanced/improved/whatever since the AFD nomination was made? It seems overly harsh and self-limiting to suggest TPH, editing in good faith and within the remit of his topic ban, has to make these edits and then cross his fingers and hope someone notices them. Fish+Karate 09:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Related to this specific AfD, the nominator stated they were willing to withdraw the nomination, so I have closed the discussion, as the article definitely meets WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

+1 to F+K. It should be about the spirit of the tban, not the letter of the tban. If TPH wants to notify participants of improvements or even e.g. add delsort notices or the like, I don't see that as a problem for the tban. The exception could even come with a standard neutral wording those who are more skeptical put together. — Rhododendrites \\ 15:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• TPH, was this article already on your watchlist? Because if you found it through watching AFD, I ave to say that is probably a really bad idea right now. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  Why? He's banned from editing XfD pages, not from looking at them. No part of the topic ban said he could not use AFD nominations to inform his editing choices, to improve articles. I say good luck to him - it's infinitely better than what he was doing prior to the topic ban. Fish+Karate 14:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

For the rather obvious reason that if he's watching AfD with a view to representing expansion from sub-stub, to minimal just-about-article as a WP:HEY standard improvement, then we're going to either get a lot of requests like this or end up with wholesale proxying to evade his topic ban. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

He can make those requests to me on my talk page if he likes. I don’t mind. It’s a net positive for the encyclopaedia. Fish+Karate 18:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with JzG, and find your offer to provide him an indirect avenue to flout his ban rather odd. Nihlus 18:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

And there it is. TPH was banned from nominating/posting at XFD because he was misusing it and because he was being inexcusably aggressive, hectoring, and rude to people while doing so. The intent of the topic ban was to get him back to improving articles. He wasn’t banned from improving articles. If he wants to improve articles nominated for deletion to try and save them, great. This is what I meant about nuance being tough for some people. Fish+Karate 19:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The community's consensus was clear: TenPoundHammer is indefinitely topic-banned from all deletion activities, broadly construed. Additionally, since you've said it twice now, no one is saying he cannot improve articles that happen to be nominated for deletion; we are saying that him commenting on an XfD would be a clear violation of his topic ban, and you providing an avenue for him to make indirect comments would be a violation as well. Nihlus 20:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue that most ppl that comment at AFDs look at the article only once and unless notified that something has changed, won't have any reason to re-look at the article. Any other non-banned editor who works to improve an article during its AFD would have the ability to post at that AFD to ping appropriate editors to say "Hey, I've addressed X, please look again". Even without anyone relooking, that editor could at least address an argument to whomever closes that they attempted to improve it. TPH effectively has zero ability to tell anyone about the improves unless he leaves a general message on the article's talk page (I can see people saying that TPH pinged those that !voted to delete to review via the article talk page, that would be considered a violation of the ban too). We're basically giving TPH no incentive to improve articles that are at AFD. That's not helpful for WP's long-term mission, particularly if there's general agreement that TPH's improvements have been beneficial. I know part of this is out of TPH's hands, the SOP that XFDs operate under, but we should try to find a workable solution here. --Masem (t) 03:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Right, but there is a point to the topic ban and a reason it was put into place after a long discussion. Completely ignoring the community's decision because someone "needs" to improve AfDs is ridiculous. The point of the topic ban is to get him away from an area that he has caused problems for; him hovering around the ban and tip-toeing up to the line in the sand tells me that we'll have more problems in the future and that he isn't really getting the message the community sent him to essentially go do something else. Nihlus 04:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's a ban in place. It was to prevent TPH from abusing the XFD system (as I read through the ban's thread). Is this trying to abuse the XFD system? No. Is this improving the encyclopedia? Absolutely, yes. And as I lay out, it discourages TPH from participating in behavior that is meant to show they recognize their past infractions at XFD were not helpful, making any attempt to improve articles (a full 180-degree from the banned behavior). We have freedome to carve out a very narrow exemption for reporting to an XFD when they improved an article. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything more still trips the topic ban. --Masem (t) 05:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Given the reasons TPH was banned from XFD, I don't see an issue for them to be trying to improve articles that happen to be at AFD, even if they followed XFD listings to get to it (this is clearly outside the intent of the ban). Pursuant to that purpose, I do think it's smart to try to notify the XFD that something was improved, but that's definitely against the mechanism of the topic ban which says to stay away. I do agree with Fish and karate's stance above, that a neutrally worded, non-!vote at XFD to say "I improved it, please review, and discuss on article talk page" is nowhere close to the spirit of the topic ban, and should be allowed. (If we need a slight clarification that TPH is allowed to post at XFD with such neutral message, but not a !vote or any other discussion/response, then we should add that). --Masem (t) 15:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Being topic banned from deletion activities includes commenting on XfDs or asking others to comment on XfDs for you. Either activity would breach the topic ban. ~ Rob₁₃ 20:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Feel free to notify me on my talk page of any significant improvements made to articles at AFD. Paul August ☎ 03:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Paul August: How is that appropriate given the discussion immediately above? Nihlus 03:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems perfectly appropriate to me. Paul August ☎ 03:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so you're unable to answer. Nihlus 04:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Paul August ☎ 04:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nihlus: By the way, I think your response to me just above is rude and uncalled for. Paul August ☎ 12:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't care whether a proxy editor notifies people at an AfD when an article has received substantial improvement. Anything that gets in the way of improving the encyclopaedia is a problem, and that includes deleting articles that meet the encyclopaedia's requirements. I have no opinion on whether this particular article does that, though TPH, if you can expand that article another 200-300 characters of prose, it will meet the 5x threshold required for a DYK nomination. That is if you're interested in it at all. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Given the circumstances that led to TPH being banned from XFDs, I don't think his minimalistic-commenting at an AFD to barely notify participants of improvements and/or some editor proxying for him to do the same would do any harm to Misplaced Pages.Spirit of restriction matters, not the wording.~ Winged Blades 08:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I don't think TPH informing someone (like me for instance) that they've improved an article at AFD, would even breech the letter of the restriction. Paul August ☎ 12:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Non problem. In my experience any article that undergoes changes is pointed out at the AFD by numerous people quickly enough. I have no issue with TPH if he wants to notify the filer of the XFD that changes have been made. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Unless we're talking an article with a lot of editors that have a vested interest in keeping it, I disagree completely that this is what happens at AFD. Improvements in articles that aren't high on watch lists will go unnoticed unless pointed out at AFD. --Masem (t) 14:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed ban modification

If TenPoundHammer has made significant improvements to an article at AfD they may place one 'Comment' notification at the AfD simply stating 'I have improved the article to address deletion concern. Please consider re-examining the article. or words materially to that effect. The notice is intended only to draw attention to the changed circumstances of the article and TPH may not otherwise engage in 'AfD' activity per their existing ban.

• Support- good idea. Reyk _YO! 15:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support- I don't see why not. I think that TPH's topic ban was due to stuff on the deletionist end of the spectrum? If so, allowing for this exception--limited in scope and for comments that are basically the opposite of what caused the topic ban--doesn't sound like it'd be a problem, yeah? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support proposal. Let's try this out. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Good idea. We don't want a fixed article to disappear when it shouldn't. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - seems like a no-brainer. Jauerback/_dude. 16:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Sure GMG 16:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Don't think such fine tuning ought to be necessary, as this would seem to be a common sense exception that need not be stated explicitly, but apparently not. Let's keep our eyes on the prize here, we are trying to build an encyclopedia, not some inflexible administrative bureaucracy, that only cares about the hypothetical letter of the law. Paul August ☎ 16:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Just like Paul, I also think it should be unnecessary, but with all the lawyers around here, best to spell this out. --Jayron32 16:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Like Paul and Jayron, I wish this was a project where it wasn't necessary to spell this exception out. Unlike Paul and Jayron, I guess I can kind of understand how it came to be necessary. So yeah. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I have no idea why I didn't just snow close it instead of comment; odds of this not being unanimous are less than 15%, odds of it actually failing are less than 1%. This is not the kind of thing where it's vitally important for everyone to get a chance to opine. Oh well, too late now, I'm "involved". Next admin who reads this, though... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

George Soros Discretionary Sanctions?

Hello Admins. Seems to me we could use DS templates for BLP and American Politics at the George Soros article. SPECIFICO talk 15:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:  Done. GAB 04:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Azman

Hi, I can't create the Azman article because that name was protected 10 years ago due to vandalism. Would anyone please be able to unprotect it so I can create the article? Thank you! Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Ooofh, the protecting admin, Cobaltbluetony, was the editor who welcomed me to Misplaced Pages and has sadly been inactive for over two years I'll remove the protection - TNT 18:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you email him, if only to say hi. Who knows, he may come back. Thanks for removing the protection! Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

We got a troll editor on the loose

Look at what this person is doing to VeggieTales in the City and VeggieTales in the House https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/826070753 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/824015681 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/823393379 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/823394835 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/821493284 I think we should block this person from editing Makkat1 (talk) 10:56, 22 February, 2018 (UTC)

Why? Those edits do not appear to be vandalism. Fish+Karate 09:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

My reading is that those series premiered on Netflix in 2014 and 2017. I don't think either existed in 2008 so they could not have been shown on some other channel then. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

And here's another one. It appears to be a UK series from 2013. Zero reason to think it aired on a US network in 2005. Note look carefully at the dates above, it seems the above articles at least has a history of this silliness. See also . I'm normally the first to yell WP:Content dispute but this does look a lot to me like something which isn't in good faith even if a few of the edits of that IP look okay. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe posting a notification on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television should be the first step. @Makkat1: can you prove how each of those edits constitutes trolling? D4iNa4 (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if it isn't trolling, it's definitely wrong information. --Jayron32 16:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Non-mobile diffs:

Users:

• 2606:A000:42C3:7900:F11D:7D1A:FC11:6666 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2606:A000:42C3:7900:303A:F8ED:E4D2:1D39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2606:A000:42E4:6400:303A:F8ED:E4D2:1D39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

IIRC there's a serial vandal who goes around doing stuff like this - see for example this diff, where an IP from the same range added a date of 2005. Either way, these IPs haven't edited for 2+ days, so unless someone wants to see if a rangeblock of 2606:a000:42c0::/42 would be viable in case they come back, there's nothing we can do here. ansh666 02:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

User:nagualdesign

I'd like to report myself. For the past few weeks there have been rising tensions at Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster where I and other editors have been at odds with Dennis Bratland, who believes that we are exhibiting ownership of content, violating NPOV and stonewalling. I have encouraged him to either stop making accusations or take it to WP:AN, which he considers to be another way of me saying "You're not welcome here". He has also now left a warning on my talk page. Frankly, I'm bored of it, and so I'd like to hold myself up to scrutiny. I'll also notify Dennis about this discussion on his talk page. nagualdesign 23:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Haven't really looked into the details, but this should probably be moved to AN/I, as AN is not usually a forum for content dispute resolution, nor is it usually a forum to examine regular user conduct on isolated cases I think. Alex Shih (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course there is nothing wrong with NagualDesign at that page, but it reflects some editor's exasperation with Dennis' chronic disturbance for a few weeks now. I first reported his warring and personal attacks on 10 Feb. (), and the discussion was joined several by other editors who offered no support for Dennis' POV nor his combative behavior through walls of texts. In a nutshell, Dennis wants the title, and main subject of this car article to be changed to reflect the marketing value of this Tesla car recently launched into space. When he realized the consensus was against him, he demanded to make a "long Marketing section" and place it at the top. Elon Musk does not invest in marketing ads, and Musk relies on the reactions by experts talking to the media.

Dennis argues that SpaceX announcements of the launch's Objectives should be specifically and intentionally ignored, and must be superseded by the reactions of experts published by the media. He claims that since the media he quotes are reliable, the POV of the article should reflect the reactions regarding marketing. Dennis went as far as making a formal proposal to rename/move the article name to Tesla space ad (2018) (). The marketing value is already mentioned in the article, but this is beyond an edit request, he wants it to be the only focus and even delete the other reactions such as "Art" and "Space debris" sections. It is a fanatic's POV I have rarely seen in Misplaced Pages. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog