Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Writegeist (talk | contribs) at 05:04, 8 September 2011 (→BLP topic ban for La goutte de pluie: oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

Request for admin to close a merger discussion

May I ask for an admin to take a look at the Akita Inu Discussion page for the merger proposal between Akita Inu and American Akita and decide if a closure is due. It would be great to be able to get back to work on the article. Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I was referred here from a help request on my user talk page. If this is the wrong place or wrong way to flag for an admin to look at closing a merger discussion could someone please say so, either here or my talk page? (and preferably tell me the right place to flag for it) Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a cromulent place to request an admin close a discussion. Convenience link: Talk:Akita Inu#Merger proposal: July 2011. –xeno 18:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Merge done and article embiggened. SilkTork 14:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, SilkTork! Cunard (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou so much :) cheers, Keetanii (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Request to close a guideline proposal

Could an admin please review the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Romanization of Russian and close it? A fair warning—there is a lot of reading involved, but hopefully I was able to summarize the discussion in the Motion to close section (apart from a few minor points, the proposal has support, and the last comments of any substance were made in the beginning of July). Thanks in advance.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 23, 2011; 19:12 (UTC)

P.S. Please note that a part of the discussion has now been archived by the bot but should still be considered during closure. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 24, 2011; 13:31 (UTC)

Ezhiki (talk · contribs), would you restore that part of the discussion that was archived by the bot? Then remove that discussion from the archives. Please also combine the related sections (including the archived section and the motion to close section) and provide a direct link to it. This will allow admins to clearly see which discussion should be closed. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent suggestion; thanks. I've unarchived the relevant portions of the discussion and placed them under one header. The link to the portion that needs to be reviewed and closed is Misplaced Pages talk:Romanization of Russian#Convenience header.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 29, 2011; 13:36 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm looking into this. SilkTork 16:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Main Page features

Would admins close the various proposals at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Main Page features? Started on 14 July 2011, the discussion has occurred for over 30 days. RFC bot (talk · contribs) removed the expired RfC template on 13 August 2011.

Perhaps admins can use Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Account security as a template for closure. Admins close the different proposals on the page with summaries of the consensuses, and when the all the discussions have been closed, the entire RfC is closed with an archive template. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, MER-C (talk · contribs), for closing many of the proposals. Many of them remain open. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Comment needed: What should we do about processes (such as XfD) created in violation of banning/blocking policy, but had at least a handful of other valid supporting views of nom?

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Comment needed: What should we do about processes (such as XfD) created in violation of banning/blocking policy, but had at least a handful of other valid supporting views of nom? has received substantial input and was listed on Template:Centralized discussion. Would an admin close and summarize the consensus in the debate so that editors will know how XfDs created by banned or blocked editors should be treated? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), for closing and summarizing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

the transfer and merger history

transfer and merger history of Khormuj to Khvormuj please. -- Hamedvahid (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Although the two articles do appear to be on the same topic, they should not be history merged. The two articles are not the result of a cut-and-paste move, but have unique and parallel histories. See WP:HISTMERGE#Parallel versions for why articles with parallel histories should not be history merged. Instead, if there is anything of value in the Khormuj article, then the articles should be text merged (see WP:MERGE for how to provide attribution if you do so). If there is nothing of value in the Khormuj (seeing as there are no references, doesn't look like there's anything mergeable to me), then simply replace that article with #REDIRECT ] to make it redirect to the correct article. Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks. Hamedvahid (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for the Creation of 2011 FIA GT1 Race Reports

Was told to come here to request for the creation of race reports for the latest and future events of the 2011 FIA GT1 World Championship season. At the moment, only administrators can create these pages and I would like to create them as I have done so before with all the results from the qualifying and race as well as background to the event(s). --Danny 93 (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I might be missing something here, but there appears to be no reason why you, or someone with knowledge of that event, could not create the articles. 2011 FIA GT1 Ordos round, for instance, is not under any protection level. Did you get an error attempting to create this article? Resolute 19:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Who or what told you to come here? I'm not sure if you mean that another editor told you or that you got a software message telling you. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps something to do with the title blacklist? Graham87 01:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh, what do you know? This is in there:

# ATTACK TITLES AND/OR PAGE MOVE VANDALISM TARGETS
.*2011 FIA.*

I guess that would do it. Presuming that entry still needs to be there, perhaps it would be useful if Danny 93 starts the articles in their user space, then requests a move to article space? Resolute 02:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am still puzzled though as to why "2011 FIA" was added to the black list because I have gone through the history of most of the "2011 FIA" titles and I haven't seen much vandalism, either that or I haven't looked closely. Hopefully somebody could explain. --Danny 93 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Because of persistent disruption by indefinitely blocked user SebastainTorres (talk · contribs), who has socked for the past several months to keep repeatedly adding the same hoax over and over and over and over again. –MuZemike 04:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't open a page to delete it

How does one delete User:CommonsNotificationBot/tracking log.js? It crashes my browser (presumably because it's so large, 889,514 bytes) whenever I try to open it. I know that I can go to http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:CommonsNotificationBot/tracking_log.js&action=history and click the delete tab, but there's no way for me to know what criterion is being claimed for speedy deletion, let alone whether that criterion applies. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the reason claimed is as I can't spot a tag or claim but a c&p of the start of the page is as follows:

Timrollpickering (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the cause of the deletion request is, but I can find no such request on the page, nor can I find anything in the history where anyone requested deletion OF that page. You may want to buzz the botop who runs that bot to see what's what. --Jayron32 22:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• The template {{speedy delete}} appears somewhere down below the halfway mark, which I assume is causing the issue. I buzzed the botop on his talk page to see what he wants to do about it, but I trust that us admins who patrol C:SD are smart enough to realize that there's something off before we delete that page in the meantime. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding CFDs need a closer

There are two discussions still open at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 25 and due to involvement most of the regular CFD closing admins are unable to close them due to being involved in the discussions:

• Category:Alumnae of Cheltenham Ladies' College (Declaration of interest: I am supporting the proposal)
• People by school parent categories (Declaration of interest: I am the nominator)

If any help is needed with implementing the closure decision please let me know. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Both closed by Vegaswikian. Jenks24 (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Request review of move closure

Hi. I closed a move earlier today (), and my decision has been challenged (). As per my usual policy, I'm posting here to request review from the community of my action, and to accept any necessary correction. Thanks in advance for any input. -GTBacchus 04:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the almost unanimous opposition to the move, I really don't see how you could have closed it any other way. Your expanded rationale seems perfectly sensible to me. 28bytes (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

While I personally would have !voted in favor of moving the article, there was certainly no consensus in favor, and I doubt more discussion would have changed that. I think the close was clearly reasonable. (though I can see an argument for no-consensus as well) Monty₈₄₅ 05:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly within the bounds of administrator discretion, and I probably would have close the same way. The Wordsmith 07:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Echo all above. I'd prefer to lose the Swami but the consensus seems resoundingly clear to keep it. Closure and rationale both seem fine to me. --160.39.17.21 (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Since I raised the question, I suppose I should clarify why I did so. While I'm sure GTBacchus acted with the best of intentions, it was not evident from the edit comment on closure why it was necessary to close an ongoing (albeit somewhat frustrating) discussion or which arguments were persuasive. We don't know if it was a procedural matter (such as some prescribed amount of time having elapsed without establishing a consensus), or whether the arguments against the move were in some regard more convincing than those in favour. I simply sought clarity in the reason for closure. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your comments.

I didn't think the discussion was ongoing. There hadn't been any new posts for over 24 hours. I guess I could have waited another day or two, but there's a large and growing backlog at WP:RM, and I was looking for discussions I could close. If I was premature, I apologize, and I'm glad you asked for an expanded rationale, LeadSongDog.

I'm wondering, though... Would it be better if we were to set a certain amount of time that must pass in order for a move discussion to be considered no longer ongoing? If that were written down somewhere, then it might obviate some misunderstandings, and it would give people something to fall back on. -GTBacchus 17:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That's probably not a good idea. A move discussion could then be kept open indefinitely as long as comments keep coming. I think the consensus was clear in this case and the move closed correctly and at the right time and that should be good enough for now. No sense in getting overly bureaucratic with the process. --rgpk (comment) 22:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. For future, though, I'd suggest that holiday weekends may not be the best time for making such closures. Editors are not expected to remain online 24/7/365. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Why "we should care about copyright"

(This is intended for all established editors; AN is the best approximation of that I could think of.) You may all be interested in a piece published in yesterday's Signpost entitled "The copyright crisis, and why we should care" (by User:Moonriddengirl) about instilling a respect of copyright within the community at large. Since established editors are often in the copyright enforcement front line, it should make for a particularly interesting read.

The Signpost is a weekly community publication modelled on traditional print media (I am its current, interim, editor-in-chief). If you would like to subscribe to it (as many hundreds of Wikipedians do in some form), seeMisplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe . - Jarry1250  09:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this here. -GTBacchus 05:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

86.128.16.180

(moved to ANI) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Multilingual Admin needed.

2.224.12.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been temporarily blocked here (heading for an indefinete) and is on a longterm block on the German Misplaced Pages for deliberately inserting false or crystalball information about local government issues (districts/municipalities). He/she is apparently on a statice fastweb id and it looks like the same beahviour is occuring accross several wikis. Sofar I have checked frWiki and can see similar edits so I suspect other language wikis are effected too. As his edits superficially look legit and the activity field is rather unwatched I would need someone who has knowledge of procedures on those wikis where he is active who can alert the relevant projects to doublecheck his edits. Agathoclea (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this is then a case for http://meta.wikimedia.org .. there are admins there who can lock the IP cross-wiki, and you are more likely to be able to find one there who speaks those languages (I can do Dutch, and some German, my French is not the best, and I am not able to lock the account cross-wiki anyway). --Dirk Beetstra 14:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The place to request a global block is at m:Steward requests/Global. --Jayron32 16:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree, request a global lock at meta. In future, if you need someone speaking a certain language, you can look at Misplaced Pages:Local Embassy, which lists a lot of users speaking certain languages. Regards SoWhy 17:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on this listing of contributions and blocks the IP is currently blocked on all the individual Wikipedias where he is currently active (in the last two weeks). If someone wants to take the time to study their contributions perhaps the block here on enwiki should be extended to at least a month, possibly six months. Being blocked in so many different places suggests they are up to no good and are not listening to any feedback. I would have no objection to a six-month global block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of requesting it at Meta. Regards SoWhy 18:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks blocked now. I just cleaned up edits on simple. Leaves the other languages. Agathoclea (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Per this list a global block was issued but only for two weeks. I've extended the local enwiki block of this IP to three months, but anyone can modify that if they want to change the duration. The latest block on the German Misplaced Pages was for three months, and there is no sign that this editor is changing their behavior over time. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to note this for the archive. There is a second (now dormant) IP 94.88.178.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with similar behaviour dating back to 2009 Agathoclea (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Strange world. In June no one at meta cared. NNW (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Another 2 Italian IPs 84.222.42.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 195.62.170.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) the latter vandalizing as far back as 2008 and still active this July. There must be some sort of connection as this is a very specialized "anorak" subject. Agathoclea (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Strange behavior of Siddhant2010

At the first he made an unconstructive edit onUser talk:Prasannjit.gondchawar, then he apologized me for his "mistake". Then, he repeated similar edit again, and also apologized to Tide rolls (who didn't reverted his edit) by the same text he posted to me. If you ask me, that's a little strange, he made the same error twice in a row, and (what is probably even stranger) same apology for us both... Alex 18:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything nefarious going on. The editor is a member of Misplaced Pages:India Education Program, a project that gets students as Pune University in India to work on Misplaced Pages articles, and is experimenting with technical Misplaced Pages features that he doesn't really understand. (Trying to give a fancy welcome message to another student.) Looie496 (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP topic ban for La goutte de pluie

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie, consensus is to ban La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from all BLPs widely constructed. This includes talk pages, and deletion discussions. Since RfCs are non-binding but with a community discussion; but WP:AN or WP:ANI community decisions are binding. It was 7 days since the proposal arraign. The ban will be 3 months, but will become indefinite if problems persist. ~~Ebe123~~ (+)
_Contribs 19:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Per my comments in this part of the RFC. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support: As proposer here, and as supporter there. ~~Ebe123~~ (+)
  _Contribs 20:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The above user may not be the most impartial editor to start the RFC, and has yet to elucidate his or her own arguments, other than pursuing a witch hunt against me. See such comments that Ebe has made like this one and an Ebe's attempt to cover the comment up. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 06:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I had the right to remove it, WP:TPO permits it. ~~Ebe123~~ (+)
_Contribs 21:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I was the one who suggested this at the RfC, but I suggested it for 3 months, to be changed to indefinite if the conduct in question resumed after that. I also suggested that since the editing in question involved the deliberate and persistent addition of negative material, it be interpreted to include talk pagers of articles on LP, and deletion discussions about those articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  I am adding that.

  I seem to be attracting opposition based on the intentions, rather than actual behaviour. Can someone inform me where they have reverted me (or raised concerns on a talk page) because of such concerns? I am puzzled because the talk pages -- which I am often the major poster on -- remain empty of the supporters of the proposal here. Have they attempted to use a) article discussion b) and on that matter, why prohibit discussion? This seems to go against the spirit of the project. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 21:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support along the lines of DGG. Agathoclea (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning oppose as I stated on the rfc, I'm not convinced that LGDP is actively adding inappropriate negative information. She did some inappropriate stuff with the tools, and has voluntarily given them up after recall. She has voiced an opinion which does not represent the spirit of WP policy and Jimbo himself has weighed in pointing this out. As such, I'm concerned that there will be a pile on support - where it may not be correct. I'm already concerned that some of the rfc contributors are "out for blood". I'd prefer that we make it clear that we do not "punish" good faith editing, even when it does not meet our standards, and revisit if issues reappear. Worm · (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

  After a short conversation with LGDP, and her clarification below, I am confident that whilst she may hold an opinion regarding COI, she will edit in accordance with policy. Wikipedian's are not banned from areas based on the opinions hold, only if they edit tenditiously. I do not see evidence that she has edited BLPs in such a manner. Worm · (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  Really, though? How about "(adding) tribute to govt resume-style" by stating "Government officials are eager to point out that all Singaporeans should hold this obviously highly talented minister in the most greatest esteem"? Is that not tendentious editing to "punish" COI on a BLP? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  Yep, really. I agree, the edit you point out is not a good one - introducing a definite POV statement where it was previously a resume. If I'd seen it, I'd have reverted it. But even so, a topic ban on all BLPs broadly construed appears excessive for the level of issue. Worm · (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  I agree with Worm. Except that to the extent it matters, I would oppose a ban right now. My76Strat (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  That's assuming that she still makes such edits in good faith. What I've seen does not indicate such, in my view. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  I have never opposed or sought to "punish" good faith editing. Though frequently we can observe (with certain exceptions) that people with undeclared COIs generally edit out of bad faith. For that matter, I have always sought to comply with WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V. You could explain point out which edits (not opinions!) of mine have warranted this ban. I am curious, because so far all of this seems concerned about what I may do, and not what I have done. I reassure everyone that my editing will comply with policy, and I will collaborate with anyone concerned. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 23:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This has been a long-term issue and needs to be dealt with with a long-term solution, and this is a start. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You have never explained your support for talk page restrictions, nor are you actually addressing any of the arguments here. Consensus is not a vote. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 23:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for two reasons. First, I'm increasingly seeing BLP being used not for its intended purpose, but as something to bludgeon opponents in an argument with. That meta-point aside, I too am not seeing any evidence that she's added negative, unsourced information to articles. She's removed some positive information from some people's biographies, but in the main area of contention (Singaporean politics), there is a very real problem with IPs adding overly promotional material to these articles as well, and while some removals may not be good it's not hard to see how she could make a mistake sometimes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support 3 months is a fair amount of time to allow the community to discern the real issues in the topic area and protect it from what amounts to "reverse vandalism": Over-zealousness in this case turned out to be as disruptive if not more than the actual issue being dealt with are/were. 3 months is a relatively mild topic ban, specially in the background of the continued combativeness of LGP and her seeming inability to get the point, so arguments that people are "out for blood" are simple exaggeration. I see nothing punitive in this. --Cerejota (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you point out which edits of mine have been disruptive? How can edits that comply with policy be disruptive? Where have I been "overzealous"? I am sorry for my repeated entreaties, but people here have cited my opinions on COI editors and not my edits. I do not think I have been obstinate, as you allege. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 23:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support, and I agree with Cerejota. Virtuaoski (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, and I have reason to believe you are jumping on a bandwagon simply because I have opposed you in the past over such things as COI tags and clarifying the premed system for Tony Tan Keng Yam. Could you present some form of argument, perhaps explaining which edits you found warranted a ban? elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 00:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have already stated my views in the RfC Q&A, and described your use of inappropriate sources, and your use of original research, which I now view in the context of your desire to "punish COI editing". In my comments in the RfC, I referred to my comments in the talk page for Tony Tan Keng Yam, pointing out your edits that I found problematic: your putting words into Tony Tan's mouth to "fight some of the promotionalism on this article", driven by your view of the other editors. I was disturbed by your baseless accusations, your weird edits, and refusal to admit consensus. I found your edits to "fight some of the promotionalism" in that article, followed by your insisting that you were editing in accordance with policy, most disruptive. I note that despite my many efforts to explain my views in the RfC and the various talk pages, you are right now accusing me of "jumping on the bandwagon" and insinuating certain motives to me because you 'opposed' me (whatever that means), and further that you are asking me and other editors here for clarification despite these issues being well described in the RfC. I have already read your response to the RfC, and I think the issues raised in the RfC still stand. Virtuaoski (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose conditionally. Elle absolutely needs to acknowledge that "punishing COI" or "eradicating COI editing" by unsound editing are not appropriate goals on Misplaced Pages. However, adding relevant content and especially balancing articles with a strong POV are not inappropriate, and much of what she's done may fall into that. Which in my mind is not truly "punishment" since the next good editor should have come along and done something like that anyway, without any special point in mind - more a diplomatic failure than anything else. But if she doesn't acknowledge that, eventually harsher action is inevitable. Wnt (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support. The idea that we should 'punish' people for conflict of interest editing by adding negative information to their biographies is abhorrent. While Elle has partially backpedaled from that view, the backpedaling has only been partial, with weak claims that we should do it only by adding information to make the articles neutral - the motive of punishment has not been rejected, and indeed continues to be defended. That view, if held generally by Wikipedians, would be incredibly destructive - and rightfully so - to our reputation. We must always been ethical and above reproach, sensitive, supportive, loving and kind to all, and this vindictive spirit has no place in our work.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Jimbo, perhaps you have not substantially edited an article for long, long time. Perhaps it's been a really long while since you have directly dealt with aggressive, anonymous COI users who repeatedly come back across in different incarnations and across a wide range of unblockable IPs, and try to masquerade bad faith edits as good faith ones. In this case, blocking can only do so much as a deterrence against such behaviour. I am all for Wikilove for editors (and yes ones with a COI) who seek to cooperate with the project. It is entirely a different matter for those who wish to game the project's policies at every turn. As Misplaced Pages's importance increases, the incentive to subvert the project by those with no real interest in "noble editing" will only increase. I propose other remedies too -- expanding the scope of CheckUser to investigate such abusers' real life identities in especially egregrious cases, and attracting the attention of the press -- see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/United States Congress, which I myself started. Many people were of the opinion that more active actions than mere blocking should take place. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 04:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

    • I am an active editor, doing content edits almost every single day. My primary area of interest as a content editor is the UK House of Lords, and so I run into COI editing with some regularity. My experience tells me that WP:AGF works - approaching people with kindness and professionalism and respect changes their minds in most cases, and that most COI editing starts with a valid grievance that can be addressed with neutrality. It is a shame that rather than reconsidering what the community is telling you, you are attacking others, including me. As others have noted: the goal of resolving problems with COI editing is a noble and justified goal. But your combative approach is not the right way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support, the three month time limit seems about right. The comments about "punishing" people with a conflict of interest were made only a few weeks ago, which IMHO is still a fresh attitude. When the ban expires, it would be helpful to see a more collegial attitude. --Jayron32 04:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • After I expressed my opinion here, La goutte de pluie's comments above have only strengthened my opinion that she be banned from this topic area. It is clear that her "us vs. them" mentality isn't conducive towards collaborative editing. Yes, people do frequently misuse Misplaced Pages for promotional purposes, but her attitude evidenced above is NOT how we fix that problem. --Jayron32 04:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I have a reconciliatory approach to most COI editors -- please see the many articles tagged for speedy deletion which I saved with my own research, and my many friendly advice I gave to the innocent users involved, even those with COI. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 05:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support - this returning user has been a train crash since the very first returning edit. Desyopped and now apparently on a mission to rid the project of promo COI additions.Off2riorob (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  We can certainly debate the methods which she has used, and I too have misgivings about some of it, but are you seriously telling me that removing promotional material from biographies of living people is a bad mission to have? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support I was on the fence about this, but the below 'Previous consensus to punish COI' sub-discussion started by La goutte de pluie indicates that this is an ongoing, and serious, problem. Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you point out this problem in my editing behaviour by citing a few articles or diffs instead of guessing what I will do based on my opinions? I am merely proposing more aggressive means of dealing with COI -- I intend to start a Village Pump proposal when appropriate -- and I intend to refer all contentious matters to the community. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 05:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Oppose. Reason: I have changed to Oppose the ban, because I think this user is discussing the issues in a relatively calm, thoughtful manner, across multiple WP languages. This ban gives a 3-month delay from BLP-punishment rewrites, until other users can decide (consensus) how to deal with WP:COI users who have written vanity pages, resumes, and company-factsheets with only glowing (not NPOV-neutral wording). However, user LGDP can help matters, more, by being an active member in BLP discussions. Yes, COI articles need the negative text (to balance positive), but that must be done without WP:UNDUE weight of negatives. For the May 2011 Dominique Strauss-Kahn case (now dismissed in New York), I tried 3 times to emphasize how the hotel-maid allegations might be a faked, conspiracy, but other editors kept deleting text to make the article seem more negative than the actual reports of a set-up to frame a wealthy, famous person (DSK). WP needs to be careful pushing negative bio-data, so this 3-month break gives time to discuss pros/cons of how to deter COI editors who are pushing their glowing vanity pages, how to give those pages neutral+negative balance, and to avoid a "witch hunt" against COI editors, many of whom seem to be helping WP in other ways. However, the ban should allow discussions and editing lists of troublesome BLP articles. Let the discussions continue. -Wikid77 06:04, revised 16:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I never edited Dominique Strauss-Kahn. I did post on the talk page and encouraged editors to work with the French Misplaced Pages to discourage systemic bias on both projects; the French have their own version of the article, with the "French point of view". I am amenable to more fruitful remedies. All any person has to do is use the article talk pages. So far, except for Singaporean politicians, no one has opposed me in article talk pages or through reversions for making COI-related changes to a BLP.

Why do you assume I would be out to frame a wealthy, famous person? I simply wish to write neutral articles (I have never backpedaled on this issue). I do not witch hunt COI editors.

P.S. I am in fact rather sympathetic to the idea that the whole thing might be a setup, but you need to use reliable sources. Some French newspapers however, have echoed this view. Where were you opposed? I have no opinion on DSK, other than that BLP is being invoked excessively to suppress reliably-sourced criticism. At the same time, statements from French sources alleging a conspiracy (which I heard first hand through an esteemed friend at the Sciences Po) should be allowed, provided they are from reliable sources. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 06:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have reversed my decision, and now Oppose the ban, to support you in continuing to discuss and resolve these COI issues. Thank you for your patience: it is a complex situation to see what has been happening. -Wikid77 16:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support The attempted cherypicking from a 5 year old RFC (below) sealed it for me. LGDP has gone from the sublime to the absurd in one apparently easy step. Any concept of punishment has absolutely zero place in this project. Agreeably COI is a problem, but this is never a solution. As such, it's best to keep LGDP away from areas where their concepts of punishment have been problematic, and apparently will continue to be problematic. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support per RfC, the discussion here, and the editors responses to both; unless La goutte de pluie indicates that they have an understanding of consensus, and its application, and specifically where they disagree with said consensus, I feel it would be disruptive to allow them to edit any area where they disagree with the other editors - they do not seem capable of editing to any other viewpoint on an issue other than their own, and are prepared to vigorously argue every point and to ascribe motives other than good faith and dedication to the project for any contrary viewpoint. I would not have supported if there had been any indication that the editor was prepared to accept the consensus of others, even while maintaining their position within discussions and dispute resolution processes, but there is no evidence of it. I would adjust the language of the proposed ban, in the light of my observations, to that of "Indefinite, to be reviewed not before a period of 3 months." but will accept the language proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I'm completely uninvolved in this issue as far as I know, but having read the RfC, the current RFAr, and the statements made by Elle on this thread and elsewhere, it is clear to me that she is not willing to surrender the idea of "reverse POV-pushing" to punish COI. Despite her assurances that she edits according to policy, she also seems to be saying that as long as her "punishment" technically toes the line of policy, she feels she's in the right to carry it out. No, that's not ok. We're an encyclopedia, a neutral one, not a black-ops organization. We don't punish for the sake of punishment, we don't hurt, and we don't violate the spirit of our policies just to get back at someone who annoys us - whether that person is operating in bad faith, good faith, or just ignorance. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)
• Oppose. I sympathize a great deal with Wikid77 below; we sanction disruptive behavior, not untenable viewpoints. Although the idea of using article content as a direct and deliberate deterrent is utterly wrong-headed (for reasons outlined many places elsewhere, and which I shall not repeat here), the proper response to that is for the community to reject, rather than penalize, those ideas. I will strongly urge Elle to drop the argument here, and keep in mind that continuing to argue for an idea after it has been rejected may be considered disruptive in and of itself. However, I don't see that Elle is causing any harm to the BLP articles themselves, and so I feel this topic ban proposal overreaches. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose- Misplaced Pages has always defended itself against spam and vanity, which is proper, but LGDP has probably gone too far in enforcing it. I do not like the idea of using mainspace content to punish or deter people and I've said so elsewhere. However, I have not seen any evidence that LGDP has damaged the encyclopedia in doing so. We don't ban people for holding unpopular opinions. I oppose this proposal but I think LGDP needs to drop this line of attack. Reyk _YO! 21:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, instead impose 1RR on all BLP articles. Looking at the issues here, I tend to agree with Reyk's and The Blade of the Northern Lights's comments. I propose an 1RR restriction for edits originally made by other editors and a 0RR restriction for edits originally made by herself. This will allow her to edit freely, remove edits by others that she feels are inappropriate, but playing tactical games won't work well under this restriction. Count Iblis (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support on article page, but allow her to continue on talk pages - Elle still seems to be in a state of denial and has not demonstrated the ability to accept feedback on her "Punish COI" mentality. I note that the extensive list of people giving her this feedback even includes Jimbo Wales. That makes it hard for me to believe that she would be receptive to other feedback on COI editing. Fighting COI by removing said COI and introducing opposing COI does not help the article. Article stays unbalanced, just swaying in the opposite direction. Either both go, or both stay, within wiki policy of course. Her idea of punishing COI hinges on twisting the article in the opposite direction to compensate for past COI means any COI issue will never go away, as we keep looking at the past rather than looking for ways to make sure how the articles can be improved for now and the future. She seems unable to edit objectively on articles relating to Singapore politics, as evidenced by the attention she drew to her questionable edits from international editors and admins. But seeing at her edits elsewhere are more objective, a topic ban would reduce the damage she may do with her COI edits to Singapore Politics (ironically, which despite her denial, a number of admins and editors have identified her as hacing personal COI issues), while still allowing her to contribute to other articles, and still can draw attention to what she feels needs to be corrected on topic she is restricted from directly editing. DanS76 (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The views of e.g. Wnt, Reyk, Count Iblis, Sjakkalle, Northern Lights and Worm strike me as products of more highly evolved, more enlightened thinking than the reactionary tut-tutting from the opposers. Also I have warmed to LGDP's candor. I like that she has stayed engaged here and explained herself. I like her brain. Overall, she's a great asset to WP and she's done no harm to it. The proposed BLP ban is absurdly excessive. We should all just get over ourselves and move on. The goddam project isn't so flimsy (yet) that it'll fall over if we do. Writegeist (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Evidence required of "punishing COI" edits

Since the subject repeatedly requested evidence showing her editting to punish COI, I suggest a separate list be set up for this.

• My first incident encountering her "punishing COI", or "punishing promotionalism" as she puts it back then, was in the Vivian Balakrishnan article. LGDP made , of which I specifically reverted and edited . The discussion on Talk between me, her and another editor (iirc it was Strange Passerby) resulted in the first instance I saw LGDP make the comment about needing to punish COI and to use the article to make a point. Somewhere around the June 23 period. Unfortunately that article had some serious BLP copyvio issues around the same time, so one whole chunk of Talk history was removed (not even archived I believe) and I cannot pull out her specific reply. If I had access to those old Talk entries, I would have put her reply here directory. Maybe some admin with access can help here, its an entry by her on Talk for slightly after June 23.Zhanzhao (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing evidence of "punishing COI" in that diff. The image she removed was deleted as a copyvio, and the piece she rewrote read like a thinly veiled resume; it had all his achievements in separate, one-sentence paragraphs, which is a strategy used to emphasize awards/achievements on a resume. Her rewrite seems more neutral than the original to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That depends on your opinion of her insertion of the following line Government officials are eager to point out that all Singaporeans should hold this obviously highly talented minister in the most greatest esteem given it was only 18 months later that he became Chief Executive Officer of etc etc which alleges that the govermnent is attempting to glorify the subject. Not exactly something that would put the subject in the best of lights, considering her assertion that all prior positive content were made by same government bodies/representatives. As I mentioned, LGDP herself best explained her motive for the edit in the removed talk history, which I have no access to now. Zhanzhao (talk)

After the umpteenth reversion by a sockpuppet to a non-neutral, copyvio, plagiarised version, without any action from an administrator -- I of course, could not semi-protect the article -- it was my attempt at invoking editorial compromise by including a greater mention of the government's point of view, and the source of that POV. It was a temporary measure to be later modified through the Misplaced Pages:Bold, revert, discuss cycle. However, the IP editors simply skipped the "discuss" stage. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 08:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not allege that "all positive content" were made by government representatives. Actually I believe I represented Vivian Balakrishnan's personal stances pretty well and quite neutrally if I may so myself, using his own blog. But much other content was copied or closely paraphrased from a copyrighted, non-neutral government biography, and the IP editors' constant reversions to that content kept on being un-noticed. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 09:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Previous consensus to punish COI

The idea is hardly new. See these comments from Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/United States Congress, which I started:

• clearly if we dont punish this, its just going to egg on more public figures to hire PR firms to regularly POV push on WP. ALKIVAR™ 08:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• We need to make every effort to point out these disinformationists, embarrass them and their employers publicly, and point out how terribly wrong their actions are. Sukiari 09:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• I concur. A one week block is not sufficient. Forever? While that's a nice, feel good idea, I think in practical terms, they've already got PR Boiler rooms ready with botnets to eventually get around the blocks. (My 2011 comment in retrospect: blocking would be impractical; other remedies are required.)
• I especially agree about the threat of organized misinformation. There must be some sort of system we can used to oppose that threat. ZendarPC 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• I wonder if it is possible to obtain the names of vandals who are assigned these congressional IP addresses through the Freedom of Information Act (United States)?
• I hope the staff responsable for this are found and listed. GinsuGuy585
• I endorse this summary on the grounds that there is undeniable evidence (in a rather overwhelming amount) regarding the misbehavior of these individuals. Although a ban would probably be the wrong way to go about these things, they deserve whatever they get.
• humiliate them in the media. Let's get this into the New York Times. (Baldghoti)
• And I am afraid to say that more drastic actions is necessary. SYSS Mouse 04:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• While I endorse this blocking, I'm not sure how much it will do to curb this problem.... Punishment is necessary. I don't think we should block all government IP's. To do so would be irresponsible. sohmc 15:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• "However, it is unlikely you will dissaude for long those who are determined to edit articles in their favor so long as they can remain anonymous and go virtually unpunished...Since the correction of biased attacks articles does require time and effort, I don't think it's unreasonable to require a financial donation from abusers." (2011 comment: I do not recommend this either, but it reflects a previous consensus to punish.)
• "A more effective "punishment" would be to permenently retain, on the relevant talk pages, notices of past attacks by congressional staffers." User:JeffBurdges
• An excellent general principle is that in order for abuse to be controlled, there MUST be consequences for abuse. If Congress fails to control the abuse from its network ITSELF, wikipedia MUST defend itself by imposing consequences. User:Elvey

This is just a sample of the 126 people who endorsed the statement I wrote in that RFC, many of those who agreed that punishment is necessary in the face of organised threats to the project. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 05:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That rfc is from over five and a half years ago - things have moved on a lot since then. Off2riorob (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand a lot has changed in the last five years, but perhaps we should have a new RFC on the general matter of aggressive, organised, hostile COI editing -- currently the harshest we can go is to implement blocks, and we are prevented from doing much further with CheckUser data. From what I understood, my actions were backed by consensus. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 05:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that it is an issue in 2011 - other policies have been strengthened rendering such a position without value. Off2riorob (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

These policies were not useful in preventing astroturfing from government ministries and government-linked users with apparently very privileged access to a wide range of commercial networks that were impossible to block without widespread collateral damage. (Commercial broadcasting and telecom companies are government-linked in Singapore -- see Censorship in Singapore). Had these astroturfing incidents occurred in the US, rather than in the less well-represented nation of Singapore, the massive outcry would be on my side -- and the abuse the US Congressional staffers did was comparatively mild compared to the massive edit warring that these anonymous editors pursued. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 05:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have not known this RFC to be superseded. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 05:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the smattering of comments there as a consensus support for the idea of "punishment". What Michael Snow said there is remarkably close to what I was just saying: "This should not be about punishing anyone; the only issue should be how to improve Misplaced Pages articles and/or prevent harm to them." Certainly edits to mainspace articles can be "punishment" in only two ways: a) by being good editing that should be done anyway and needs no vengeful explanation, or b) by being bad editing that shouldn't be done. Wnt (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The people who endorsed the statement were supporting the idea of blocking the whole US congress for an extended period because of a dozen bad edits. Even this idea --which I think would get essentially no support today--is not quite as destructive as punishing them by inserting negative material in their bio. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Dangers of Punishing COI

I am basically copying e points I raised in another area against punishing COI by editing in the opposite direction:

LGDP, your insistence on "punishing COI" is not helping your case, as pointed out by Jimbo. You may not have realized it, but if your behaviour was allowed, it could set dangerous precedence. I'll take this chance to highlight the less than obvious dangers of allowing the "punishment of COI". Lets say I have something against a particular person. Instead of doing the obvious like adding negative comments about him/her, I would instead pose some positive glowing comments. Then, I either wait for an editor like you to come in to turn the article negative as punishment, or use an alternative account and do it myself, then claim that the negative parts must stay for a certain period of time as a punitive measure. Instead of taking the proper action of just neutralizing the COI edits. I feel this is a large can of worms we cannot afford to open.' I cannot imagine how Talk pages could devolve to with such "punishing COI" allowed. Will we be arguing on points like how much "punishment" or how long the "punishment" should last? Or may we even need to impose a "punishment" on the original "punishment" writeup? Where does is end? Its clearer to just neutralize the COI content.

If anyone has a better idea of preventing the problem I raised against punishing COI, please enlighten us, I am sure we are all interested in finding out. Else I am against anything that makes the jobs of admins and editorial policers unnecessarily tougher, more complicated and even more vulnerable to subjectivity than it already is. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The corrective measures will always be based on sourced, reliable content. Ideally, what would happen is that "naming and shaming" in the case of abusive COI editing would occur prominently on the talk page (as proposed in the United States Congress RFC) or referral to CheckUser or the press for real-life sanctions. You seem to imply that such punishment would be mutually exclusive with "neutralising COI edits" -- it is not. They go hand in hand. If significant negative sources exist on a subject that has seen mostly promotionalism, they should be included for neutrality and to balance the article. Significant negative information, if existent and sourced, should in fact should be included for all articles -- as per WP:NPOV, but we are of course slow or unmotivated to add them or "fix" the issue most of the time. Articles with COI simply get greater priority and motivation for rapid correction; this is partially as a rapid remedy to solve years of abuse, and partially as deterrence. Perhaps User:Jayron32 might understand this analogy best. The thing that COI affects is "kinetic" motivation for the edits, and their rapidity; not the ultimate ("thermodynamic") "long-term outcome" of an article. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 08:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that analogy doesn't work. What would work is if you treated every single editor at Misplaced Pages like an individual, even those who misunderstand Misplaced Pages's purpose. Furthermore, the fact that you keep bringing up concepts like deterence, motivation, and punishment shows that you have the wrong attitude altogether. --Jayron32 15:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

LGDP, if articles with COI gets greater priority for rapid correction, that is easily addressed by a COI tag, and/or following up with a notification in the relevant board. I see you have argued for/against the use of COI tags in different articles in the past, which means you are familiar with such tools. What you are doing, by adding FURTHER COI to the article to attract attention, is akin to setting new fires to new areas when you feel the fire department is not coming fast enough to put out the first fire you see. That is not right. Zhanzhao (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent analogy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Punishing user for trying to punish COI users

Although the claim has been that a topic-ban of 3 months is "not punishment" (some say), it can have that effect, and thus the intention to topic-ban User:La goutte de pluie ("LGDP") is much like punishment for trying to punish COI users (subtopic above: #Dangers of Punishing COI). Instead, we should WP:AGF that user LGDP can faithfully reform the recent actions, and as expected of COI users, change attitudes to ask users politely to improve their editing activities, for more-balanced results. An experienced manager once reminded me, "If you want a person to do something, then be prepared to ask them (politely) 3 times". Fewer people get the message when asked only twice. In telephone tag, 71% (over 2/3rds of calls are missed): try reaching a person at least 3 times.
Full disclosure: I am currently in my second topic-ban (this time, indef topic-ban) for the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" and "Amanda Knox" (and all related "institutions"). Considering that the first 3-month topic-ban was wp:snowed against me, by claiming I violated WP:CANVAS for notifying 2 pro-article editors while only notifying 1 anti-article editor of a WP:AfD of "Amanda Knox" then I would have thought that additional discussion, in my case, would expunge the false claims of improper canvassing, but instead, that false charge was used as "gunnysacking" of blocks to increase the next topic-ban against me as being indefinite (over 3 months so far). The overall effect is "punishment" of me, because I am hardly a danger or disruption to the project, with over 30,000 edits in numerous tedious articles and complex templates. Plus, let me note, how difficult it is to discuss issues when every crime article, or place in Italy, or college-student arrest might be considered part of the topic-ban. Similarly, BLP concerns are found in numerous articles, so a BLP topic-ban would almost certainly exclude participation in over half (1.8 million) of all articles. That shutdown, of article editing and talk-page discussions, is in effect a punishment against a user, who is being noted for trying to punish COI users. Beware, "Violence begets violence" and the vicious circle stops when someone offers an olive branch to cease the hostilities. Stop this proposed BLP topic-ban against User:La goutte de pluie, and, instead, try to reach a peaceful consensus. -Wikid77 17:04, revised 17:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect Request

Please redirect TNA to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling article on Misplaced Pages instead of the TNA Disambiguation page that comes after I search for TNA on Misplaced Pages,the Total Nonstop Action Wrestling article is one of the most viewed on wikipedia and is being constantly vandalised by semi autoconfirmed users who want to make it look bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.206.77 (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the wrong page to make such a request. Furthermore, three-letter abbreviations are generally almost always redirects on Misplaced Pages. For example ATP used to redirect to adenosine triphosphate (the most well-known ATP by far), but no longer.. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 06:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations and Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal: date formats in reference sections

Would an admin (or admins) close Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations and Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal: date formats in reference sections? Both discussions are listed at Template:Centralized discussion. The first one is a stale discussion, having not received any comments since 22 August 2011. The second discussion has lasted for over 30 days.

If either of the RfCs result in "no consensus", a closure like that in Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, where the opposing arguments are summarized, will be helpful to the participants. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible POV Pushing on David Irving

Can I ask an administrator to take a look at the edits that are happening on David Irving? I don't want to get into 3RR territory, but feel the edits made by 84.203.66.161 are pushing a non-neutral POV on this BLP. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor, 84.203.66.161 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 48 hours for violation of WP:BLP. If the problem recurs, consider asking for semiprotection at WP:RFPP. This IP has never participated on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the primary topic of China

This shouldn't be a particularly difficult close, but as its apparently been contentious for about 10 years it should be closed by an impartial admin. Cheers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fairly contentious... if no-one else cares to tackle it (please! <G>), I guess I could - just need to mull it over a lil' longer. Tabercil (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the RfC turns out to be relatively straight-forward... but there's a Talk:China#Requested move August 2011 which I'm stuck with and could use some advice. On reading the arguments it seems to me like the suggested move should be done. The problem is the article China has at least 10,000 incoming links, more like more (I gave up counting when I hit the 10000 mark). Assume for the sake of argument 10% of those link break as a result of the move - that's over 1000 broken links and I'm gun-shy about deliberately doing that. Any advice? Tabercil (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards