Misplaced Pages

I don't think I can support that, Floquenbeam. I have very serious concerns about this person's attitude. Unless I see an acknowledgement that his swaggering arrogance and contempt towards O'Dea and his block of O'Dea were unacceptable here, we should relieve him of the bit. As it stands, I can't trust him to deal fairly with borderline spammers and vandals. I don't trust his judgement at all, and it amazes me you're willing to. Can I recommend taking a look at his three RfA's? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I am just giving my opinion, Anthony, I'm certainly not telling you what to do or what to think, i hope I haven't given that impression. Yes, I just finished looking at the three RFA's (including, in RFA #2, a promise to be open to recall if that RFA passed. but it didn't). Yes, I would have opposed all three. Yes, this incident gives me great pause, and if there was a reconfirmation RFA today with no agreement to stay away from this kind of block, I'd oppose. But there is a lot of good work he's done over the years, including good admin work, and I'm hoping some kind of trajectory other than the SchuminWeb or EncycloPetey cases can be worked out, so that we (Hex, and Misplaced Pages) don't mutually burn all our bridges. This does appear to be the only area I see problems in; if I could convince myself he won't do that one particular thing anymore, then I would consider his adminhoodness a net positive, and move on to find other more pressing problems more in need of solving. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a page somewhere that lists the blocks he's made? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Try this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Or, more elegantly as a wikilink: Special:Log/block/Hex. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's prettier (I just looked at my own and then changed the URL) ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional: Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt). However usernames that contain such names are sometimes permissible; see under Usernames implying shared use below. usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as 'Mark at WidgetsUSA', 'Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", 'WidgetFan87', 'LoveTrammelArt', etc.

Two inappropriate blocks in ten days. Hex, can you explain the rationale behind this block, and why you didn't discuss it with the editor first? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the username block and the 2008 block Flo references above I do think we need to hear from Hex or push this to ArbCom. NE Ent 14:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My thanks to Floquenbeam, who is the only person to have had the common courtesy to alert me by email to the current status of this thread. I happen to be on vacation. My reply will be presented tomorrow. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I alerted you on your talkpage when I un-archived the thread on 29 December 1 January. But if you're not interested enough to enable the "e-mail me when my talkpage is changed" functionality when you go on holiday with something like this pending, then naturally that's somebody else's fault (just like everything else). Bishonen | talk 21:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC).

Hex edited after Bish's notification so they should have seen the orange message bar. NE Ent 21:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This just keeps getting worse. KillerChihuahua 05:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply

I'll start by addressing the two blocks mentioned above.

1. At the time of the 2008 block I didn't fully understand about avoiding tools when involved in a content dispute. Subsequently, I did. You may also notice that I managed to accidentally pass 3RR on the same occasion. I've not done that since, either.
2. Looking at it again, the user name block was in fact incorrect. It should have been a spam-only block. Twehringer_thesociety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s only contributions were to a spam article, The Society of Leadership and Success, an organization that they are the director of communications for. That article itself is, I now notice, a copy of the user space page User:NSLS92617/National Society of Leadership and Success, itself deleted as spam. That user name clearly alludes to the Irvine, California branch of this organization, and is a clear promotional name. I'll let somebody else deal with that. In this case, I evidently managed to conflate two block reasons — one of which I obviously misremembered. I'm not sure that I recollect ever making a user name-based block before, for that matter. I've now corrected the error on the user's talk page.

Now I'm going to have my say about what's been happening on this noticeboard. Whether you read it or not is up to you — if it's too long for you to bother with, that's fine with me.

Some of the participants here appear to think they're running a drumhead court martial. They're not. This is a kangaroo court; trial by auto-da-fé. It's certainly the first time that I've encountered somewhere that people are put into the stocks in the village square and then expected to account for themselves while being pelted with rotten fruit. Someone above uses the word bullying; what breathtaking hypocrisy. To pick another metaphor, shooting fish in a barrel is easy because the barrel is full of fish. This venue has managed to create the complete inverse by putting one fish in a barrel and surrounding it with gunmen.

I've been called out on mistakes before. When people have talked to me on a one-to-one basis — that's why user talk pages exist, in order for direct and efficient communication — I've always been more than happy to talk through and consider my actions. If the responding administrator had chosen to leave me a message (perhaps "I believe the block was bad and wrong because..., can you explain yourself and are you willing to lift it before I do?") then there would have been the almost complete certainty of a diametrically opposite conclusion to events in every respect. However, he chose the single most dramatic course (including instantaneously undoing the block with the marvelous comment "WTF?" - how indicative of a bona fide attempt to resolve an issue) and parachuting me into here.

With the exception of Floquenbeam emailing me, as I mentioned earlier, nobody has attempted to talk to me outside this obloquious vipers' nest. That does not include Anthonyhcole — the self-appointed Torquemada of this particular inquisition (who, incidentally, left me a talk page comment insulting me and calling other editors "morons" before deleting it a moment later — class act). Who is Anthonyhcole? Who knows. I'm not sure why someone that isn't an administrator would choose to hang around on what is ostensibly the administrators' noticeboard, unless they derive some sort of pleasure from having fights. It certainly isn't due to any formal role. Some people might respond to that kind of thing by digging through his record to try and have a mud-slinging match - much as he's decided it's somehow appropriate to present my RFAs as some kind of bizarre "evidence". I shan't descend to that level.

My penance is also apparently expected to contain replying to massive slabs of mistaken accusations based on conjection and assumption, long after the fact of my actions being undone and judged and my being given a public whipping. Even if I did, whatever I said can and probably will be challenged by every drive-by Joe McCarthy wannabe that feels like taking a pop because they're convinced they know the contents of my own mind better than I do. What a great use of time and effort. Not to mention the presence of people who apparently choose to latch onto discussions in this space in order to use them as a springboard for presenting their own personal conspiracy theories.

This environment appears to attract the officious in droves. Some are even so astonishingly self-important that they think, wrongly, that they can demand my immediate participation in this rotten caucus. Even after I've pointed out that I'm on vacation. And even threatening me with going to ArbCom if I fail to respond to their demands, in whatever pressing timescale they've conjured into existence. Presumably these threats of ArbCom involvement without prior formal dispute resolution are making the claim of the necessity of exception 1, "emergency action to remove administrator privileges"? That would presumably put me on a par with EncycloPetey, who Floquenbeam mentioned. I looked up the details of his desysopping, and frankly I reject the comparison.

I've only had the administrators' noticeboards on my watchlist for a few months, but have barely looked at them in that time. I now understand why I frequently see them referred to as "the drama boards". As of right now I'm joining the growing number of administrators that choose to ignore them. My talk page, as always, remains open. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that username you blocked was not a promotional username. Please read the quotebox just above. You got it wrong.

The kangaroo court above involves ten admins and ten editors in good standing. All we've been waiting for is an acknowledgement from you that your block and your treatment around the block of O'Dea was inappropriate. That's all.

I don't think you have the right temperament for adminship, I'm afraid. So I'm filing a request at RfA that they desysop you. I think this is such a clear case that it would be detrimental to the project to waste time on other processes. Perhaps ArbCom won't see it that way. We'll find out. I'll let you know when I've filed it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If I was one to block for personal attacks, which I'm not, you'd find yourself blocked now, Hex, for the way you speak to Anthonyhcole above. Do you take WP:AN to be some kind of free zone where you get to say the first thing that comes into your head no matter how shitty it is? Or where you can express any amount of rudeness, contempt and ABF to anybody as long as they're not an admin? Because I notice there's a bit of a difference in the way you address the different categories of users in this thread: you speak reasonably civilly to the admins — within shouting distance of civilly, anyway — or, well, you avoid attacking them individually, anyway — while there's apparently nothing you won't say to a non-admin, from TL;DR to Torquemada. Therefore, I'm also beginning to think we should let ArbCom look at this. They may not indeed want to remove your tools for basically one bad use of them; but they should get a chance to sanction you just as a user, for generally appalling battleground behaviour. Then you can call them Joe McCarthy wannabes and tell them they must derive some sort of pleasure from having fights. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Request_to_desysop_Hex --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Twehringer thesociety is not a promotional name. It's a personal name. The person's name is Tracy Wehringer, and xyr electronic mail address, given on press releases by the organization concerned as a contact, is twehringer@…. It's rather sad to see a person who straightforwardly uses xyr own name and the organization that xe works for suffering for supposedly having a "promotional name". I hope that this doesn't apply to account names like Okeyes (WMF), too. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

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

Could an uninvolved admin look at Talk:Conversion_therapy#WP:ARBPSEUDO? In short there is discussion to see if this article can be considered as part of the Arbcom decision and edits placed under 1rr restriction to limit the edit warring. Thank you. Insomesia (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

See also the still open discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conversion therapy. Monty₈₄₅ 20:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't know that was going on. Insomesia (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:RM

What the heck is going on with this page's backlog? There are discussions from November that haven't been closed yet.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

October even (one of mine). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No snark being slung at Ryulong for even suggesting something should be done about this? Guess being an admin (or at least not being TenPoundHammer) gets you more leeway when it comes to signposting excessive backlogs. 31.6.19.194 (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey look! This here edit above is 31.6.19.194's first and only edit? I wonder who he could be? It couldn't be an editor who comes here and demands that things be done, could it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin?—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A pertinent observation! Backlogs happen, this is the holidays -- perhaps the ping will help, but in end, it'll all get done eventually. Salvidrim! 09:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Shhh. What 31.6 clearly knows is that the first rule of the drama boards is to never let the truth get in the way of some good snark; applying this rule by alleging that other editors have prioritized snarkiness over constructiveness is just for bonus points. — Francophonie&Androphilie 17:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The backlog at WP:RM has been horrendous for months. On October 24 it was "only" 20, and climbed to over 120, which is where it is now. There just have not been enough users closing them. It likely has been years since it was cleared. We did make it worse for ourselves by encouraging more page moves to use WP:RM instead of just moving the page. Technical moves though - non-controversial ones, gets cleared out every day. We just need someone to step up to the plate and commit to clear out the back log every week, if not every day. Apteva (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to see if there are some good candidates for NACs, but these require clear and unquestionable consensus, as well as the non-existence of the target page... so hardly a majority, I'd expect. Salvidrim! 03:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't been years, but it is usually quite backed up. Every once in awhile it seems someone goes nuts there and closes them all. There is great rejoicing, and then a week later there is a huge backlog again. RM just doesn't get the attention it needs. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's a bit of a drag. I just did three old ones, and it took me more than half an hour, including reading, closing, moving, a notification here and there. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• I am happy to report that the backlog is down to "only" 89 today, that is a reduction of 32 in only two days. Great work! At this rate it will be cleared out in less than a week. Apteva (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin attention to an RFC/U, please

I want to highlight this RFC/U for admins' attention: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Apteva.

In an attempt at strict compliance with closing instructions, a motion to close was drawn up on the talkpage: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Apteva#Motion to close. The RFC has been open since 30 November 2012 (that's 33 days, as I write). Nothing important remains unconsidered, and the trickle of new contributions simply aligns with opinions that are already well exposed. The motion to close has revealed overwhelming consensus; the delay in implementing this consensus with a formal closure (and an accurately detailed summary of that consensus) perpetuates uncertainty on the Project (notably at WT:MOS).

Would an admin who is experienced in these processes please take care of it? I request an admin, specifically. The consensus is clear, but the details need to considered with care. Several comments mention an approach to ArbCom if the matter is not settled with finality.

Thank you!

Noetica 03:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, that RFC/U cannot be closed. You appear to be looking for option 3 under instructions which is a motion to close. However, you miss the general explanation over option 3 at the very top which says "The parties and/or participants to the dispute agree (via a motion on the talk page of that RfC/U)." Although you have a motion that has consensus, not all of the parties have agreed. So this cannot be closed yet. I might be reading this too strictly, I've only closed a handful of RFC/Us, but that's what I am seeing.--v/r - TP 13:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)--v/r - TP 13:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tom that generally user conduct RFCs are not closed except by the subject user's consent. Generally, user conduct RFCs either fade away and are delisted or are escalated to Arbcom due to the subject user's refusal to consent to consensus. It's also worth noting that while it cannot serve as the sole basis for administrative sanctions, such as a block, a user conduct RFC can be indicative of behavior which could result in an administrator blocking the subject user. MBisanz 15:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If Apteva doesn't accept that consensus there, or at least abide by the spirit of the ban by stopping the disruption (which he seems to be continuing as we speak), then I'm told that a good next step is to request a community ban here at WP:AN. Is there some suggested process for that? Dicklyon (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course there is the option of requesting a topic ban here at WP:AN. Remember? That's what happened with PMAnderson, though that ban was later trumped by more stringent sanctions.

I have reviewed the rather confusing provisions for closure of an RFC/U. Option 3 includes this text (my underlining):

However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past.

Well and good. But in the present case, the summary at the first motion to close has vastly more acceptance than any other. So how could any other summary supplant it? And why would any radically different new summary be seriously proposed? Yet I see that Hasteur has attempted another, much weaker summary, and has sought to impose it as somehow superseding those already in place. (See Motion to close (5) at the talkpage, which until I refactored for conformity with the established structure purported to be in a special category, somehow standing above the preceding motions.)

Hasteur seems to have unusual views on the closing of these things: different from the guidelines, and different from views expressed above. I have asked Hasteur to give an explanation, here in this section.

Again, if things do not proceed according to the guidelines, it may be necessary for ArbCom to settle the matter. Let's hope it will not come to that.

Noetica 07:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This has already been at Neotarf (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

*COUGH* Noetica, since you seem to be out for blood please place yourself in the guillotine first.

1. You have failed to follow the instructions of this page. You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. It's a big yellow box.
2. The proper location to request closure of a RfC is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, a subsection at the very top of this page.
3. If you had shelved your bloodlust for sanctioning Apteva, you would have seen that the proposed closure I make is weaker only because that's a neutral summary that doesn't impose any next steps. RfC/U is not about making next steps, it's about informing the subject of a significant problem with their editing.
4. You'll see that I've "propose closed" contentious RfC/U's in the same manner before and been thanked for it .
5. Finally, your request here is what caused me to come look at the RfC/U again. Finessing the rules is how these lower closes can happen while at the same time leaving tracks for future disruptive behaviors to roll forward on.

I question if you, Noetica, might benefit from a vacation from the area around this RfC/U as you seem to be heavily invested (both mentally and emotionally) in seeking sanctions. Let it go. Hasteur (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Serious, guillotine? blood? I don't hear Noetica suggesting anything like that. He's just frustrated, as I have been for months, that there doesn't seem to be a way to get Apteva to stop the disruption. I thought that after a few months and warnings my request to AN/I would have been enough to get an admin to give him a firm warning with penalty of block for continued disruption, but it was ignored. Now that we've got a huge consensus that he needs to stop and avoid this area where everything he has tried to do has been firmly rejected as disruptive and against consensus, we're still nowhere in terms of a process to get him to stop. Can you help instead of trying to make Noetica the bad guy here? Dicklyon (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, Hasteur did say this: AN or RfArb, but first see if Apteva will take on board the viewpoints (Apteva hasn't. or at least has not agreed to stop what is being asked to stop). HaugenErik (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur, I answer your numbered points:

1. Do you mean Apteva? If so, that is explained at Apteva's talkpage. The discussion was not started about Apteva, but about the state of an RFC/U and how to close it according to settled procedures. If you mean I have failed to notify you, please note: You are not the subject of the discussion. The discussion is about how to proceed in a case that cries out for closure when there is already a very strong consensus established, and you have sought to act administratively in the case. Anyway, you were notified of this discussion, at the talkpage of the RFC/U.
2. A request for closure was indeed posted at the location you suggest. I sought action on that request, and that seems to be fair and normal. I also sought clarification of some very obscure closing instructions. Obviously people interpret them differently, so I feel perfectly justified in making this approach here.
3. The neutrality and utility of your attempt at an administrative summing-up are seriously questionable, in the face of a clear expression of opinion from a great majority of the participating editors. Your immoderate language against me does you no credit: "since you seem to be out for blood please place yourself in the guillotine first"; "if you had shelved your bloodlust for sanctioning Apteva". By itself, that is a good basis for action concerning your conduct. In particular, for a request or sanctions aimed at excluding you from intervening administratively in any RFC/U.
   I now formally ask you to withdraw that wording, which I say is inflammatory and abusive, and does not reflect the facts.
4. I know that you have been thanked for your actions in the past, and I don't doubt that they were well intended. I am concerned about the present very serious case, in which there is a plain consensus – one that your actions might possibly nullify, despite your good intentions here also.
5. My request here was specifically for an "admin who is experienced in these processes" to deal expeditiously with an important case where a clear consensus has emerged. It was specifically not for a non-admin. It is disappointing that you still intervened. No one is trying to "finesse the rules", except perhaps you (I regret having to say). I came here to get action, but also clarity about Byzantine rules that I am now convinced need re-drafting. (I might take some part in that, because I have experience with clear unambiguous drafting.)

Last, I note your condescending remarks about my taking a vacation. I could make similar remarks about you, with at least equal justification. I am a style specialist, with more edits at WP:MOS than any other editor (mostly to tidy things, and to guard against non-consensual or ill-documented changes), but believe me: I willingly absent myself from there for months at a time. Almost a year, in 2010. It is impertinent of you to make suggestions about my mental and emotional well-being, when I pursue the normal business of assisting to deal with disruption in a WP area that is my specialty. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I now formally ask you to withdraw that wording also.

♥

Noetica 23:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

@Noetica: You said

However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past.

Well and good. But in the present case, the summary at the first motion to close has vastly more acceptance than any other. So how could any other summary supplant it?

You yourself quoted the most important aspect of closing an RFC/U. All participants, including the target of the RFC/U, must agree to the close. RFC/Us arnt meant to have teeth. They are a discussion that are meant to get the target to see what their poor behavior is. If they fail, then they fail and you move on to higher dispute resolution. However, ignoring the line that you underlined because you have 28 v 4 votes in favor of your preferred close doesn't mean squat and is completely against the purpose of an RFC/U. Sorry, it's unfair to you, but that's what they are. Hastuer gave good advice, I suggest you take it.--v/r - TP 17:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur, this is nothing against you personally, but the instructions do say specifically that an admin can be requested for the close, and this was done. While non-admin closures of RFCs are often appreciated elsewhere in the interests of clearing backlogs, in my experience, any editors who wander into the area of MOS, myself included, quickly find themselves trying to walk on quicksand. Non-admins who have tried to close MOS-related RFCs in the past have deeply regretted it. A non-admin closure simply will not be seen as legitimate. In addition, you will not be viewed as "uninvolved" since you participated in the RFC/U yourself, here: WP:Requests for comment/Apteva#Outside view by Hasteur, recommending that hyphens and en-dashes be replaced by spaces. The sky is blue, the pope is Catholic, and Noetica is Noetica. Let it go.

So we are back to Dicklyon's original question. Is there a suggested process for requesting a community ban here at WP:AN?

Neotarf (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Most people who wander over to MOS make one or two edits, almost 300 in the last couple of years, while less than half a dozen made over 50 edits, and only two over 100 edits each (one of whom quit editing WP because of being tired of "arguing with about trivia"). Not sure about it being quicksand, but it has not exactly been what anyone would call welcoming, although the talk page header says "Be polite, and welcoming to new users" (it was missing for part of last year). On the talk page almost 500 editors made one or two edits (about half), and just over half a dozen made over 500 edits each. Apteva (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, twenty-eight editors have just signed a statement saying they want you to change your behavior, and you are babbling about numbers of edits???!!1! Do you have any clue about what is going on here? Are you willing to pay any attention to them? —Neotarf (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for topic ban for Apteva

Based on the RFC/U and discussion here, and User:Apteva's rejection of all relevant findings and advice, I propose that we declare a community ban for Apteva, from engaging in pushing anti-en-dash and anti-MOS theories, including the theory that MOS and TITLE are in conflict. After the clear consensus at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Apteva, summarized in Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Apteva#Motion to close with 28 editors' endorsements, and considering Apteva's rejection of those findings and continued dispruptive pushing of these theories in the New Year, I see no alternatives (since the RFC/U can't be closed without his agreement and bothering the Arbcom with this seems unnecessary given the clear community consensus).

The consensus RFC/U summary says:

Apteva's persistent pushing of the theory that en dashes are never appropriate in proper names, such as the names of wars, comets, bridges, and airports, has been disruptive. Respecting the wishes of the community as represented by an overwhelming majority of responders at this RFC/U, Apteva will refrain from any further advocating of this position, or any position against en dashes or against the MOS being applicable to article titles, and will not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories. Violation of this topic ban will be grounds for a block and/or a request for arbitration.

And the continued disruption is evident in Apteva's WT:TITLE discussion, including these 2013 items:

• WT:TITLE diff – holding out for his idiosyncratic view with "The very core of using consensus is that even if 6,000 agree with something and only one disagrees, that one just might be right."
• WT:TITLE diff – continuing his long-lost case of Comet Hale–Bopp being incorrectly named.
• contributors data – showing Apteva dominating discussion at WP:TITLE in this new year, in spite of months of being told by many that this behavior is disruptive.

Rephrasing slightly for the context, I propose the following ban be enacted:

Apteva's persistent pushing of the theory that en dashes are never appropriate in proper names, such as the names of wars, comets, bridges, and airports, and his pushing of the theory that the MOS does not apply to article titles, has been disruptive. Based on the consensus reaction of the community, Apteva must refrain from any further advocating of these positions, or any position against en dashes or against the MOS being applicable to article titles, and must not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories. Violation of this topic ban will be grounds for an immediate block and/or a request for arbitration.

I believe any uninvolved admin can close and approve this ban here based on the existing discussions linked, especially given the existing AE discretionary sanctions in place concerning MOS and TITLE; I suggest we get Apteva's response here, and then not bother to repeat the reactions that are so richly represented already in the linked RFC/U and elsewhere. Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• A topic ban and community ban are different things; may want to clarify. --Rschen7754 21:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  WP:CBAN says "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Misplaced Pages, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute." I'm referring to a community-imposed topic ban. Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Ok, that's a topic ban. When you say "community ban" or just ban in general, you're talking about an indefinite block that can only be overturned by consensus or Arbcom and is usually the result of long term abuse. A topic ban, however, is...well you know.--v/r - TP 22:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The topic ban needs to be defined broadly though, the area of disruption has been wide. —Neotarf (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I've been monitoring this from a distance, and the fact that Apteva does not understand what she is doing wrong is quite disturbing and disruptive. --Rschen7754 22:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  While I occasionally miss these, that is he or she thank you. Or xe. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This should be at ANI, not AN. I have been watching the progress of the RfCU and I must say that a topic ban on hyphens and dashes is long overdue. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a ban proposal rather than discussion of a specific incident, so is entirely appropriate at AN. KTC (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This was already taken to ANI. WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive777#Apteva disruption —Neotarf (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • And if no action was warranted then, and my behavior has changed, which it has (but not my beliefs, which I am entitled to express appropriately), why would any action be warranted today? I would ask that I be allowed to read over the reams of accusations at the RFC/U and correct my behavior on the basis of those accusations. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The difference now is that you haven't stopped beating the dead horse despite the advice from the last ANI. We know you want dash/hyphens in titles to be used a certain way. Repeated consensus has decided against this, and yet you continue to push your agenda, including to the point of disruption of talk page functionality. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
        • It is false that I "want dash/hyphens in titles to be used a certain way". It is a fact that dashes and hyphens are used in a certain way, and I would like to propose that we use them appropriately. What we do is not under any one editors control, and wanting something a particular way is ludicrous. Apteva (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
          • It's called a "house style", where consensus has decided to uses dashes and hyphens in a certain way, because other style guides have conflicting advice. You don't like what consensus has decide and/or you believe you know what's best for WP - both attitudes are ones that lead to disruption and eventually blocks. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Question: Does this propsed topic ban on hyphens v dashes extend to article content and article titles via the RM process or does it just apply to the  MOS guideline? I think this aspect should extraordinairly clear in the propsal. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC) 
  • We have also seen disruptive refactoring discussion, archiving, resetting of bots, tampering with templates, etc. None of this was a problem when Apteva was editing only in article space. —Neotarf (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I am actually one of the very few editors who knows what a dash and a hyphen is, and knows when they are correctly used, so not editing dashes and hyphens and not expressing a view on them is pointless. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The proposal includes "must not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories". I have not noticed any disruption in article content, but if the dash aversion makes itself felt in articles, too, then the provision "Apteva must refrain from any further advocating of these positions, or any position against en dashes" ought to be enough to keep the disruption down, I would think. I'm not into trying to wikilawyer the details; I'm sure xe can be warned if the behavior seems like it's near the line, so xe's not going to accidentally get ximself blocked. Propose a clarification here if you think one is warranted. Dicklyon (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support the strongly expressed consensus, and the topic ban as a regrettable necessity. (I have closed the RFC/U, though I was involved. It was just a technical matter, since the transfer to this page.) There is no need for a new round of voting here, of course. Everything has already been thoroughly gone over at the RFC/U and its talkpage, with a convincing outcome.
  Noetica 23:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Which I reverted - no involved editor can close a non-consensus RfC. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Not helpful to your cause or to anything else, Apteva. I have reverted your reversion. For one thing, you are centrally involved. For another, it is highly disruptive for you to revert a technical closure (fully explained as such), which any editor in good standing may perform, regardless of involvement. Nothing in the closing instructions for RFC/U provides otherwise. I call on editors to assist in keeping the RFC/U duly closed; the discussion is now correctly transferred here. Noetica 00:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Typical. I trust that an uninvolved admin will revert the above action and post a warning appropriately on the above editor's talk page. How many times was the RfC closed and reverted at MOS by the same edit warrior? Edit warring is prohibited. Apteva (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Uh huh. A quick and dirty link to a complex matter that was thoroughly dealt with at ANI, with no action against any of a whole bunch of parties including some shady old hand posting as an IP? Sorry – no more straws to clutch at. Move this along now? Noetica 02:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, now I remember that sockfarm-infested RFC. Apteva/Delphi234 admitted to being one of the IPs, that resolved to central England, even though Apteva is obviously American. But nobody ever copped to the rest of the IPs, also in central England, but writing in American English.—Neotarf (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• support Whatever it is. I'm happy with an indef site ban by now, after it has gone on this long. Rarely have I seen an editor so clue-resistant. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support with broadly defined topics. —Neotarf (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support – even here, well into the 11th hour, ban looming, Apteva seems intent via yet more ill-judged remarks upon depriving Misplaced Pages of the one editor who knows an en—dash from their elbow. (I seem to recall that Socrates did not choose his last words optimally.) Oculi (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban, and Oppose Community ban. Just in case, I'm gonna make it clear: A topic ban may be useful, because the user can still edit and enjoy the good parts of the pedia; also, the virus that infects his desire of changing things and all the drama is gone. I oppose a community ban because whe've had enough of that. I don't want another Jack Merridew case here. Let's just cut it simple, remove what has been bugging the community, and give the user the free will to edit elsewhere and being harmless. — ΛΧΣ 02:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional Oppose for now, see my comments at the Opposition to a topic ban section. As I said below consider my !vote to become support or partial support if Apteva does not keep to that. PaleAqua (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support a ban along these lines, broadly defined—I think we've had enough of this. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose RFC/U is a form of dispute resolution. As of right now, the RFC/U has been closed for 9 hours. Give the editor time to reflect on what has transpired. He/she now knows that the community has found their behavior to be disruptive. If they are wise, then they will learn from this. However, if in a week or two the disruption has continued, then we can revisit a topic ban. Right now though I feel such a topic ban would be preemptive rather than solving a problem that may well have been at least partially resolved through the RFC/U. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  That close was to bring the conversation here, after Apteva had rejected the consensus summary of the RFC/U and continued the months of disruption into the new year. Dicklyon (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Obviously the purpose of all of our dispute resolution mechanisms is to help us learn to work harmoniously together, and not call for blocks and bans. It is certainly reasonable to wait a week and see if the RFC helped. But just to be specific, that close was allegedly because of the conversation here, not to bring the conversation here. But this is the "Admin attention to an RFC/U, please" thread, and an admin was specifically requested, and rejected, as the proper close was to just let it finish, which it has, but it is not correct to close it by anyone involved, and that should be reverted. Apteva (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, per proposer, and on the further basis that Apteva's continued efforts to argue this tedious nonsense about lines that our readers can't tell apart, and wouldn't care about if they could, even as the ban is being discussed here. Nothing short of an outright ban is going to shut him/her up, self-evidently. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

His attitude on his talk page would suggest otherwise. If you think about it, the concern he raised was legitimate. One's keyboard has a dash, yet articles use em dashed. It is a bit odd to say the least. There is a redirect from the dash version anyway, so ultimately the debate isn't worth much, but it is still a valid point. However, he took it too far and argued his point too long after consensus was reached. This resulted in an RFC/U where the community established that continuing to debate the topic was causing disruption. With this in mind, Apteva has two options. He can continue to debate the issue and end up with a topic ban, or he can let the issue lie and go on with editing articles. It's really up to Apteva, does he want to receive a topic ban due to the fact that he debated how many pixels a line should have in a title?

The RFC/U was used as dispute resolution in this case. It has run it's course, the community established that and his continuing the debate was disruptive, and Apteva now knows his options. So far, Apteva has ceased performing the actions that led RFC/U. Providing this remains so, the RFC/U served it's purpose and resolved the dispute. If it continues in the future, then we can revisit a topic ban discussion. Right now, a topic ban would simply be a punishment for causing past disruption. Let the past remain in the past, topic bans are not intended to be punitive, but rather preventive. There is no disruption to prevent at the moment due to Apteva having ceased. So let's lay this to rest. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"There is no disruption to prevent at the moment due to Apteva having ceased". If he/she had, you might have a point - but Apteva is still arguing the case for whatever-length-lines-wherever, even in this discussion. A ban will (hopefully) prevent any more of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What he is asking for in the section below is cooler heads when discussing MoS topics. Yes, this is not the place or the time for it due to the fact that this is a topic ban debate concerning him, but it is a reasonable request. MoS debates can quite quickly degrade into heated exchanges. Followed by editors attempting to topic ban another group of editors or one specific editor. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Whereas, the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia. This is fostered by creating and maintaining an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors.

Whereas, Misplaced Pages editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, gaming the system, and using Misplaced Pages as a battleground, is prohibited. Administrators and other experienced editors should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.

Whereas, Misplaced Pages exists only because of the community that creates and maintains it. Disagreements between editors on a wide variety of issues frequently occur. The airing of disagreements in a respectful and sincere manner for the purpose of resolution is normal and indeed desirable in any such collaborative project. Where disputes cannot be resolved amicably through the ordinary course of editing and discussion, the project's dispute resolution mechanisms may be used.

Therefore, appropriate dispute resolution shall be applied, such as discussion, DR, RfC, and mediation to resolve any conflict that may exist between or within the WP:MOS and WP:Article titles.

Furthermore, to remove the incivility that currently exists at WP:MOS, both the MOS and its talk page shall be treated as a Dispute Resolution page, and not edited unless a DR volunteer is present. There shall be no discussion of other editors, no discussion of how to apply the MOS (those questions shall be referred to the WP:Help desk), and no discussion or reference to violations of the MOS anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Discussion will be civil, and consist solely of improving the MOS. Anything else will be deleted or removed to the relevant users talk page. This sanction shall remain until either removed by Arbcom or the end of 2013.

--Apteva (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• oppose MOS isn't the problem, you are. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:IDHT. --Rschen7754 00:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose—A lot of these whereas clauses are good, but the but the proposals are pretty far out in the weeds. How can we improve the MOS if we can't discuss whether it lines up with style that is in use? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Those whereas's are all Arbcom motions that all passed unanimously, so I would hope that all of them are good. What we are supposed to be doing, in my opinion is writing an encyclopedia. We write a few articles, write some guidelines, and go back to working on the encyclopedia. A better place to discuss style issues is at the help desk. Doing that has the added advantage that those who do not know a period from an asterisk can learn too, instead of the present method where only a few MOS specialists hang out. If you come upon something that is not in the MOS and you think it should be, then that can be brought up at the MOS talk page and if others agree added, or even just added to the MOS and if others disagree it can be discussed. But unless it is obvious vandalism it is better to discuss instead of edit warring, which is what is being done now. The above proposal I believe will go a long ways toward improving the current incivility that exists at the MOS. Apteva (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose a thicket of strange transplanted verbiage, in which we discern yet more ducking and weaving from Apteva. We've seen all of this before. These smokescreens were a great part of the problem; how do they now get to be a solution? Noetica 09:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, per put a ****** cork in it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Opposition to a topic ban

I realize that there are valid viewpoints on both sides of this argument. The consensus definitely appears to be in favor of resolving this dispute as quickly as possible, and while doing so ensuring that it does not continue. Is it really necessary, though, to topic-ban Apteva? Yes, his role in this dispute has engendered controversy and resulted in general commotion in various places here on Misplaced Pages, but I think that merely resolving the dispute in accordance with consensus should suffice. This should be done without the additional imposition of a topic-ban or associated threat of a block. Instead, discussion on this topic should be limited or even entirely restricted for a given time; when it is allowed to resume, it must be done in a way that only discussion, and not related alterations to Misplaced Pages, ensues. dci | TALK 01:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I no longer care about the baby, but this bathwater is getting cold. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is old, and the discussion a mite tiresome; but is a topic ban really appropriate, given circumstances? Based on a recent conversation I held with Apteva at his talk page, I can say confidently that he really does have reasonable intentions at heart. Why not give him a chance here, and move along? dci | TALK 02:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Give Apteva a chance? Give us a break. Has any editor been given more chances to step back from egregious widespread disruption? Apteva has squandered every such opportunity, and continues to do so. Let's move along. By all means. Noetica 02:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

When the editor in question has agreed to consider stepping aside from such topics for a time, I believe we can afford to give him a break. At any rate, we can all benefit from withdrawing ourselves from the rather minute details of dash length, and the least we can do is request a cessation in pressing this matter, from all parties. That way, we can wrap things up without burdening users with topic bans and the like. Personally, I don't like the idea of forcing someone to stop propagating their opinions; I think it's perfectly fine if Apteva does so, as long as he doesn't undertake overly controversial actions in the process. dci | TALK 02:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There is the presumption of a right to express opinions, and then there is flagrant interminable and widespread abuse of that presumption, perverting it to disrupt work at half a dozen major development sites across the Project and innumerable user talkpages and pointy RM discussions. No glimmer of insight in evidence, and no hint of any reform.
There are limits. We reached them about eight weeks back. Noetica 02:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Apteva's has made a few comments like recently, and I haven't seen much new in the way of move requests or the like. With my !vote changing to partial support of the topic ban if he or she makes another such move requests or reopens a new discussion on horizontal lines. As mentioned in the RfC/U I do think Apteva should be allowed to make terse / brief comments in discussions started by others on dashes, hyphens and the like, though would probably be best to hold off for a while on those as well. PaleAqua (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  A comment of "That sounds fair enough" is a far cry from committing himself to stopping the disruption. At many other places he has essentially promised to keep it up. If he wants to take a voluntary respite from disruption, let him propose that here. His proposal above is hardly in the right direction. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  PaleAqua, I'm confused. What exactly are you supporting here? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Basically I am as sick of this nonsense as everyone else, and have agreed to back off, or recuse, as indicated above. I only hope that all of us have learned something from this, and will all have a great and productive new year. Apteva (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Being sick of it is understandable. But you still haven't said you've heard the problem, nor promised to stop it. So a topic ban is needed, it seems. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Apteva, in the last few hours just above you said It is a fact that dashes and hyphens are used in a certain way, and I would like to propose that we use them appropriately and I am actually one of the very few editors who knows what a dash and a hyphen is, and knows when they are correctly used, so not editing dashes and hyphens and not expressing a view on them is pointless—are you sticking by those, or what do you mean here by "as indicated above"? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Lets back up a little, what was proposed, as I understood it, was a temporary "recusal" from the dash-or-hyphen dispute, which I agreed to. This is, of course a voluntary recusal.

Most of the books written use hyphens and dashes in a certain way, is what I was saying. No one can change that. It is a fact that per WP policy it would reasonably be expected that WP would do whatever the majority of those books do, per the well established policy of common usage, instead of doing what only one out of 50 do. That is the crux of the problem. But that can wait for another day, year, decade or century. Misplaced Pages does not have a deadline.

I do a lot of RCP and WP:RM, but for the time being will ignore any that involve hyphens and dashes. Apteva (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose any such bargaining, with no prospect of anything clear at all as a solution. We are dealing with an editor who once advertised intended candidacy for admin at RFA, for bureaucrat at RFB, and some other high office, in a random order. When Apteva did in fact go for RFB, the ensuing time-wasting and contemptuous game was taken seriously. (!) See an archived response at Apteva's talkpage. It makes fascinating reading. That was preceded by an RFA attempt, and followed by another. The quixotic campaign we are now having to deal with is the latest in a long series, and one that has drained most energy as the community attempts to absorb its impact. What on earth can we expect next time around? If there had been any frank statement of regret or contrition, we might reasonably give Apteva another chance. But there has been none. It's time for action, not foot-shuffling and setting ourselves up to be hoodwinked yet again by an experienced trickster. (Strong and strange language? Well, I can think of nothing more apt for this extraordinary situation.) Noetica 09:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC

Could an admininstrator please close Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st. TFD (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There's been almost no comments there. It's fairly inactive. I would have a hard time summarizing any consensus from the small number of comments and endorsements there. --Jayron32 04:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it really should be closed as without merit in regards to community opinion as only a couple of the involved in the disputes have commented , so there is not community interest or assessment of the situation and that RFC should not be considered as a reason to allow escalation to Arbitration - It does need to be closed though as its been open long enough as per guidelines , hasn't it? - certified on the 20th of November , open for 6 weeks - and as such I second the request for closure - I am uninvolved imo and willing to close it myself if no admin wants to ? Youreallycan 07:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Darkstar1st - Youreallycan 07:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• update - my closure has been reverted by User:RolandR diff - with the edit summary, Reverted to revision 530915559 by RolandR: Undoing closure, since this did not meet any of the criteria in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. (TW)) - Youreallycan 14:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It should really be something left to an admin to close. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • YRC, you said that you were willing to close "if no admin wants to" and yet waited less than half-an-hour before doing so? GiantSnowman 15:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I closed it 24 hours after the un-actioned request here - also tarc - there is no requirement for an admin only close - I was uninvolved in the rfc user and with the user in question - I am not seeing any dispute with the details and rationale of my close? - Youreallycan 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't a requirement but it is one of those things that's usually a pretty good idea. If someone sees an admin closure they're far less likely to slam the undo button, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The closure was clearly invalid. According to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing, "Certified disputes may be closed under any of the following circumstances: If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped. From the main page, such RfC/Us are typically "delisted due to inactivity.", The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration, The parties and/or participants to the dispute agree (via a motion on the talk page of that rFc/u)."

It is evident that none of these applies: the dispute continues, and further complaints are still being made; there has been no move to another method of dispute resolution; and the parties have not agreed to a closure, certainly not on the RfC/U talk page. In these circumstances, even an admin closure would have been inappropriate, let alone one by a passing non-admin. RolandR (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You really should strike everything following the comma in that last sentence. There's always more to read, it seems. --Nouniquenames 05:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Cyberpower678

I am currently applying to be a member of BAG and input is greatly appreciated.—cyberpower _Offline 13:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There really aren't many admin who have the technical knowledge to express an informed opinion. We generally just wait for things to go wrong.©Geni 18:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

BAG pages are not really that visible, and so it has been part of the policy since time immemorial that nominations have to be broadly spammed all over the place :D Snowolf 21:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Time immemorial = July 3, 2008. MBisanz 19:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That the time it has been in the bot policy, it was required way before that despite not being in the policy. Snowolf 01:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Time immemorial means since April 2007 which was when the concept of spamming boards started out :) Snowolf 01:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Usurping accounts with a large number of edits

There is an ongoing discussion at Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Large usurp, regarding the appropriate way to handle a request to usurp an account belonging to a now-banned editor with a large number (5500) of edits. The bureaucrats have asked for additional input. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick read on an unblock request

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

Now comes Ranger1991 (talk · contribs), who was blocked indef in May 2008 as a vandalism-only account. The account's history largely bears that out - 17 edits from August 2007 to May 2008, all the sort of juvenile kids-screwing-around flavor of vandalism we've all seen before. Good block, to all appearances. Now, over 4 years later, the editor has come back requesting unblock. They acknowledge that they screwed up and that they were deservedly blocked, but note that it has been a long time - they have changed. If unblocked, the editor plans to correct grammatical and spelling errors. I can see a case here for unblocking, but am not willing to pull the trigger on such a gamble without getting some further input. The blocking editor (User:Gwernol) retired in June 2009. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Support unblock People can change a lot in four years - give him some WP:ROPE and see what he does with it. If the vandalism does reoccur, reblocking is no big deal. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. No evidence of socking; seems like a good WP:OFFER case. From the username, I'm guessing that the user was 16 when the vandalism began and that he's 21 now, which can make a huge difference. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Though I did not ask about the user's age, your analysis matches my own - and is precisely why I raised the issue here. God knows what a douchebag I would have been had I been an editor here at 16. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Four years is a long time. I say we give em a chance. AIRcorn (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - seems easy enough to monitor if it's not genuine. Jauerback/_dude. 14:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock (Non-administrator comment) - 17 vandalism edits 4 years ago... Excellent candidate for a standard offer without prejudice to reblocking if vandalism re-occurs. Salvidrim! 14:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock per standard offer. KTC (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Indeed, 4 years later is well beyond the standard offer. — ΛΧΣ 14:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Sure. I guess he must really like the username; I'm sure no one would ever have noticed if a user with a couple of dozen edits from half a decade ago created a new account, even if it would technically have been block evasion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - as someone who began his own Misplaced Pages career as a 17-year-old IP vandal, I can understand the editor's regret & maturity. GiantSnowman 15:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Aircorn.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support absolutely! and we can always reblock him later if issues arise Snowolf 15:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support indeed someone can change allot in 4 years. ·Add§hore· 15:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Note - I've unblocked Ranger based on the discussion above. Here's hoping we gained a productive contributor today, as opposed to losing yet another. Ed  15:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification: Global Lock of User:Fête

As requested by a Steward, I am notifying enwiki that User:Fête has been globally locked from editing all Wikimedia projects, following persistent abuse across frwiki, frwikt, enwiki, enwikt. I am unsure which template(s) should be applied to his userspace, so I will leave that for someone here to take care of. Salvidrim! 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

{{Indefblocked-global}}, I think.--ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Placed. It should be replaced if we have a globally-locked template, but I don't know of any. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

{{Locked global account}}. Legoktm (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"And there was much rejoicing!" --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

User and talk page protection required

Hi, can someone please place a protection on my user and talk pages? I seem to have attracted the attention of a complete idiot and I've no doubt it will go on even though I've warned him that I'll go to the police if it continues. I suspect the problem has arisen because I twice challenged an IP who was attacking another user. It looks a safe bet that it's the same person. Relevant diffs are this, this, this, this and this. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. --Old Lanky (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of those diffs are by you. I only see two IP edits on your user page and talk page. That doesn't necessitate protection yet.--v/r - TP 21:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Violations of WP:NLT don't help either. Rutebega (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite. Frankly, Old Lanky, looking at the comments you've highlighted what I see is you starting by assuming bad faith and then accelerating far past the level of propriety. Ironholds (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates

Hey, everyone! We're about to come out of our holiday period, and could use a little more participation while people are still trickling back, particularly as we're ending the extensions on the candidacies we were doing around the Christmas.

It's a fairly relaxed process, so long as you've read the WP:Featured picture criteria and like looking at artworks, it's worth giving it a try!

Adam Cuerden 21:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman

http://en.wikipedia.org/Moshe_Friedman Need help because the editor there continues cursing and using foul language. The indidivual Friedman is a radical extremist and they keep saying cannot refer to him as bad simply because he's alive. Well that isnt what wiki rules are. Please assist. Tellyuer1 (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks as if Tellyuer, having unsuccessfully tried to get the article deleted, is disputing the situation with everyone else at the article; most of the recent edits have been them undoing him, typically referring to WP:BLP or WP:RS, or saying that the revisions are unsourced. Nyttend (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)