Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:35, 20 May 2011 (Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 2d) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive223.). 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

WikiGuide RfCs

Would an admin (or admins) close the following RfCs CSD criteria for new articles, being templated, and socialising on WP? Crossposted to WP:VPP. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure these RfC's should be "closed". I'm not saying they shouldn't, but I am raising the question. Not all RfC's are closed (I think) and not all RfC are necessarily looking for a GO/NOGO decision -- they are just that, requests for comments and conversation about a matter. In the case of Misplaced Pages:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing for instance, the proposal is

"Misplaced Pages should allow some amount of non-article related socializing on talk pages and possibly increase the visibility of Misplaced Pages's IRC channels."

It's quite possible that this is designed to foment further discussion that might lead to specific proposals for specific changes. If a person were to close this RfC with a result of "accepted", how exactly would the person then implement "Misplaced Pages should allow some amount of non-article related socializing"? Changes to the WP:NOT page and other pages, writing a new policy, or what? Similarly, at Misplaced Pages:Wiki Guides/Minimize talk page templates, the proposal is

"When dealing with new users, we should discourage excessive templating and encourage more personal messages."

If a person were to close this RfC as "accepted", how would she then implement this? The proposal at Misplaced Pages:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts is more specific and perhaps is amenable to a close. If closed as "accepted", though, implementation would require some changes to Twinkle as well as text changes at policy/procedure. Herostratus (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think stuff like this needs more discussion, and if someone is going to close it, the close should mainly summarize the main points and arguments and not try to locate some consensus for something. –MuZemike 20:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Not every RFC asks for consensus; these seem more like organized discussions, and as such should be closed by summary and not by consensus. --Jayron32 20:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments that the closes should be summaries of the above RfCs, rather than than implementations. Cunard (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes a summing-up would be welcome. Herostratus (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), for closing Misplaced Pages:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts. Misplaced Pages:Wiki Guides/Draft RfC:Minimize talk page templates and Misplaced Pages:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing remain open. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles

Per the request at Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles#This RfC has officially "expired" -- could somebody please close it, would an admin close and summarize Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles? Cunard (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The bot runs on a 30-day timer, simply it's impossible for a bot to figure out whether a discussion is resolved. Most editors 'forget' to remove the RFC tag when the resolve the question, and if we don't automatically remove tags at some point, then they'll stay 'open' for years. Most RFCs are actually resolved within a much shorter time, so 30 days is usually enough. However, if any RFC discussion is still active after 30 days, then you simply change the timestamp in the RFC to let the bot know that we're still talking about it. There is no magic 30-day timer on discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The page's history shows very little activity over the past week. Because over 30 days have passed, and because the discussion has become inactive, the RfC can be closed. A summary of the RfC will allow editors to know the level of support for the proposal. Cunard (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC needs summary. It's a doozy...

Could an administrator who is previously uninvolved consider reading, summarizing, and closing Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles. Its a doozy, and one with potentially wide-reaching implications for Misplaced Pages, so it should probably fall to an experienced admin, especially one who is used to closing and summarizing long RFCs. This discussion has been open since April 3rd, so its going on 8 weeks or so, and has had endorsements or contributions from some 300+ editors. In the past 10 days, only 7 different people have added any endorsements or comments to it, so its probably reached the end of its natural life. If a daring soul could take the time to take this one on, that would be great. --Jayron32 06:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I asked Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) to take a look at the RfC. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, was not aware that you asked him. If he's doing it, that's great, since he's about the best person one could hope for in terms of experience and reputation at the project. Thanks for updating me on that. --Jayron32 06:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for new Dispute Resolution process

On and off in my spare time I've been attempting to draft a new "lightweight" dispute resolution process for contentious topic areas designed in part to help relieve the burden on AE admins and on DR processes in general. Right now, almost every process we have is like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, with endless reams of discussion being generated for what is often no more than a disputed diff or two. I think the project is in desperate need of a simpler method of dealing with day-to-day problems that arise in contentious topic areas.

Because it's obviously difficult to see possible flaws in one's own ideas, I am at this point inviting comment on my draft proposal in hopes of getting some useful feedback. I'm particularly interested in feedback from admins or from people experienced in policy development, but anyone is welcome to leave a comment.

The draft process can be read here, and comments can be left at the associated talk page, here. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What's DR? Surely not Deletion Review? Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:DR - Dispute Resolution. Rd232 05:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an eminently serious proposal that appears to me to have been thought through with extraordinary care. We certainly need something to help deal with the massive problem it addresses. I'd strongly encourage others to review it carefully, i.e. with the attention it merits.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bearian's closure of James Middleton Afd

Clearly a disruptive way of closing this thread, just like the previous one.. It was also an interesting idea to block the OP after all this involvement. Hans Adler 17:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Can I get some feedback on this exchange about this admin's recent closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James William Middleton. I am minded to take it to DRV, but I'd like further input as to whether people here really think that this admin is entitled to decline offering any actual details as to how he closed this Afd the way he did, ending the discussion after one reply with a simple "no". The only substantive info I received was that the Daily Mail is a "semi-reliable" source, whatever that might mean in terms of BLPs, and which is if you look at recent debates on Jimbo's talk page, pretty far from the current consensus. While DRV does exist to challenge closures, it's not there for admins to send people to automatically if they simply do not have the time or the inclination to justify closures at all. And I can guess just how such a filing would go - DRV is not AFD 2, DRV is not IDONTLIKETHERESULT, etc etc. If I did actually get some specific answers to the questions I raised, it's actually possible it wouldn't even need to go to DRV. But I find his conduct to be completely against the basic requirement for admins to communicate their logic as it relates to the specific decision, rather than simply repeating vauge assertions that he summarized the debate and linked to the (rather obvious) policies and guidelines at issue in the closure. Fair enough if he said 'this point outweighed that one', or 'user x made a particularly good point', or 'this argument wasn't relevant', then I'd have specific points to raise in the DRV if I disagreed, which is a hard enough venue as it is even when you do have tangible evidence of incorrect interpretation or flawed process, but I don't see how he's even come close to that by simply giving me a list of users he respects and suggesting that we could just wait a week or two and renominate (as if, you wouldn't be able to move for NOTAGAIN & NTEMP objections). While I have sympathy for his claims that he has more pressing matters to deal with in real life, this does not mean he can arrive at contentious Afds like this one, and do half the job. MickMacNee (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

An opinion: a) the AfD shows Borderline notability; the article could possibly be fixed and improved, rather than deleted - despite some sources being less than reliable. I do suggest just waiting a month or so, re-evaluate if this is a notable enough topic (especially when wedding news has calmed down a bit); if not, AfD anew. Meanwhile, by all means remove poorly sourced info, and/or discuss on the talk page. b) I think the admin has already gone to considerable effort to try and explain their judgement call (even if you don't understand, or accept, their logic); and has also agreed to an voluntary two-week break from clsures at AfD (sic). I think the point has been made, and can't see anything productive from pursuing it (personal opinion) hence I'd not bother with DRV; WP:STICK and move along; accept it's borderline but tipped the 'wrong' way (in your opinion). If you cannot drop the stick, then DRV. At least the admin seems aware of the concern, and open to discussion, which is a Good Thing™  Chzz  ►  03:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

STICK? Including my Afd vote, this will be just my 4th post on the matter. Do you really think that's excessive for issues over the BLP policy and basic admin conduct? The admin is not open to discussion (2nd reply was "no"), and I cannot fathom at all how you think he has gone to "considerable effort" to explain this decision. He has linked to (clearly outdated) discussions on RSN (and rather than for example the specific wording of the RS policy), and didn't even bother to summarize them (many if not all don't even support his claim that they show the Daily Mail is semi-reliable, or even what he thinks that means for BLP usage). He has given me a list of users he trusts (why?). He has told me he linked to the policies of concern in the closure (for what purpose? my request for clarification was predicated on it, and doing that is not something admins should be looking for credit for, it should be considered basic good practice in any closure, the issue is his lack of willingness to outline how the Afd debate showed with a clear consensus that these policies/guidelines had been met). And he told me there's better sources out there (why? is this just a request that I just take it on trust? bearing in mind the supervote concern, he is unwilling to identify what evidence in the Afd supports this belief, suggesting to me at least it doesn't exist at all. If he had summarised the debate properly, he would have no trouble giving this sort of info barely a few hours later - it would have been quicker for him to recall that, than write about some of the other rather irrelevant stuff that he did). And I certainly don't see what relevance this two week break has on anything. And why is it down to me to now try and clean this article up? Have you seen the grief people are getting for trying to get the other articles up to a basic standard? And by basic I don't mean quality, I mean not libelous or damaging. Not to mention the long term problems saddled onto the site with people trying to add all sorts of crap into them on the basis, backed up by closures like these, that these articles merely exist not to be biographies reflecting the in depth coverage that is apparently just being assumed to exist, but to be holders for all 'coverage' out there, whatever it says and whoever published it (and they are tempted to add it because without it, the article looks completely empty, as the proper coverage isn't out there). Given that this is the real long term impact of closures like this on the site, and that there were very many people arguing for delete or merge in the Afd, I don't think my requests for clarification to the admin who calls it as "keep" (not no consensus or even merge, but keep) are remotely unreasonable or STICK like, or can just be ignored on the (completely false) assumption it would be remotely possible to delete the article in 2 months should no other in depth significant coverage come to light, or if nobody gets around to fixing what is already there. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"...there were very many people arguing for delete or merge in the Afd..." I think Bearian acknowledged this. In the close he states "While the arguments to merge are colorably good, there is no strong argument to delete outright," and "I'm going to go with a keep, but this does not preclude further discussion about what to do next on Talk:James William Middleton." So basically he is saying that there is no consensus to delete outright (and I agree that there is no valid argument to at least turn this into a redirect, if not merge) and that keeping allows further discussion on whether to merge. Rlendog (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No, when an Afd is closed as keep, that is a declaration that the article is notable now, and forever more, unless there is a change in overall policy or consensus as to the whole concept of notability. That is per NTEMP and all the Afd closing instructions that I've ever seen. Where this has ever been deviated from as a general principle, those have been extreme exceptions, which this article would likely never fall into, unless of course the decision to keep it with large amounts of unreliable sourcing comes back to bite us on the ass. See Talk:Pippa Middleton#"Personal life" should be removed for an example of what can be concealed beneath the surface of these articles, when the Afd closer has never really had to show whether they really took a good look at the strength or clue of the various claims made about the sourcing that is either already in the article or is supposedly 'out there'. See WP:OTTO too for what might lie in wait if he isn't obliged to explain things like what "semi-reliable" means to him as far as the BLP policy goes and how it informed his closure, if the article never gets 'fixed' (i.e. stubbed in this case tbh). No, if the closer believes there was no consensus to delete or merge or keep, then unsurprisingly, the mandated closure is no consensus, which is still a default keep, but does not preclude further discussion without there needing to be any great change in policy. And while he may have sort of said he's OK with a merge discussion starting, if you close as "keep", then that's all that matters in the ensuing pile-on vote count - see Talk:Pippa Middleton again for a case in point (and to follow that bizarre example, Bearian would then be the one closing the merge proposal too!?!). "I'm going to go with a keep" is the only thing that would be recalled from the closure. That's why it is a fantasy for people to claim that closing as "keep" & suggesting an Afd in a few weeks, or a merge discussion on the talk page, is anything but pointless, both from a practical stand point and from a policy perspective. It's simply wrong. And if he meant it to be a keep, he should be able to explain why in real terms and with real reference to the actual debate. Anything else is also just wrong. You are admins, you weren't elected because you were super-beings, you were elected because you were trusted to make the right calls (wait) ... and you had the required temperament, ability and policy knowledge to be able to explain them to doubters in the way I've described. And you aren't super voters, period. MickMacNee (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the admin's conduct? They explained their reasoning, and based on the argument it's valid. Because they explained it well, why badger them? You don't think the person's notable, or that notability has not been established, WP:SOFIXIT, or AfD it again in a few months. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've laid out in detail what's wrong with his conduct, and how he hasn't explained his reasoning at all. Explaining isn't simple restatement and it isn't any of the other things he did either. And see above for my take on the ideas that it's my or any of the other delete voters responsibility to make this article appear notable if he thinks it maybe isn't but kept it anyway or thinks it is but cannot say how or why; and also on the issue of whether a further Afd has any chance of success or even legitimacy in current policy or practice. These are all conduct issues as regards the role and responsibility of an Afd closer. MickMacNee (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say no consensus was the correct closure for that AFD. As Mick says closing it as keep gives weight to its existence forevermore and a DRV to move it from keep to no consensus seems like an excessive waste of time, so unless the admin is willing to re-close we are stuck with it as keep. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure there will be some BLP or pokemon pages somewhere which had AfDs closed as "Keep" in the dim dark past and deleted in subsequent AfDs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it may get merged at some point when the issue is forgotten in a few months - I was laughing about the DYK it was on the front page with the hilarious factoid - . that James Middleton, the brother of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, baked 21 cakes for HELLO! magazine's 21st birthday? - Thats not even worthy of inclusion in the article never mind a DYK on the front page. The keep close was the death knell for discussion to merge - there were around fifteen clear votes for merge. No worries the wheels aren't dropping off but administrators need to take more time in closing and throw out any - I like it keep comment unsupported in policy and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I see that's up on the Main Page right now. I wonder how long it will take an admin to notice that the hook is cited to a Daily Mail "story" with the headline "How many MORE skeletons in Kate Middleton's closet?". Jesus wept. MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh for f***s sake, what next? Why are we putting brainless tabloid trivia like that into DYK? Is someone trying to make a point, or merely exhibiting gross stupidity? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the person who filed the DYK is also the person who created the article and argued in the Afd the the subject was "getting coverage for his business activities years ago" and had "notability in spades". He also happens to be one of the closing admin's 'trusted users'. He selected a Daily Mail source for a front page DYK hook, and the closing admin has stated he thinks the paper is "semi-reliable", whatever that means. Maybe that ultimately was the source of this failure. Who knows. Who cares. Not many by the looks of it. As you see, I remain unable to figure out much more about what went into this closure at this stage, or find anyone who thinks its remotely odd that I can't. Bearian has just pinged me on my talk, so maybe he's more willing to explain his logic now that he's seen it's immediate consequences. We'll see. MickMacNee (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you mean User:Colonel Warden. (Grin) Well, he's even more of an inclusionist than I am. I just said (a) I respect the Col. as an editor, and (b) that the consensus appeared to be that the article he created be kept. I never wrote that I like Middleton, nor that I agree to keep it. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Please read WP:NOTBATTLE. Bearian (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:ADMIN and WP:AFD. Also, get a WP:CLUE, and realise that I'm not interested in hearing a restatement of what you thought the consensus was, I already know that, I want to hear some sort of evidence that you know what you're doing when you close an Afd, that you know what you're talking about when you refer to policies and guidelines like BLP, RS, and BIO, and I would like some indication that you even read the debate for you to have been able to come to the conclusion you did. As you are required to do if you want to call yourself an admin. I'm not battling here, the only one battening down the hatches and playing a game of escape and evasion is you. The only one giving out the impression that they will do anything and everything except give straight answers to straight questions, is you. A recognition of your culpability in placing a massive BLP violation on the front page for 6 hours might also help. MickMacNee (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• A lot was said but when one boils it down, it split 30 Keep, 15 Merge and 22 Delete. There was therefore no consensus to delete. Bearian provided a reasoning in his close which was more than many closers do and has responded politely to further inquiries. Even MickMacNee seems to recognise that the close would stand up at DRV. Is there a point to this? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope you remember that consensus isn't supposed to derive from a vote. I didn't vote once in that thread, but I simply raised points and asked people to answer. To me, all too often the people who simply toss in "Keep - per Editor1" or "Delete - per Editor2" are really doing next to nothing. The point of AfD is to identify areas that need substantial improvement or make the article invalid somehow. If those areas are valid and not addressed, then why should such an article be allowed to stay? And if they are addressed, why should an article be removed? THAT is what really matters, not a vote. -- Avanu (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, taking a look at many of those Keep and Delete votes just now, a lot of the discussion was improperly focused on notability (which he has in spades) and not on inherited notability, which was the proper concern (and the one identified in the deletion request initially). Since most of the commenters went right off track from the get-go, a neutral observer could conclude that most the debate was largely noise. -- Avanu (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, another way to look at the discussion (if you like that vote perspective) is 30 - Keep in place, 37 - Content does not belong in this place. There are lots of ways to look at it, and simply declaring consensus in this case might have been premature, also I notice that Bearian made no mention of the 3 day lock on the article, so who knows if that was considered when choosing a day to close. Incidentally, I don't mind the outcome either way, but we need to be focused on good arguments, not emotional ones. -- Avanu (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Where did I way it wouldn't stand up to DRV? And why are you remotely pretending that this should have been a vote count? To hide the fact you made claims in the Afd that don't stand up, that needed an admin like this to be counted (infact, shit, we don't even know if he even counted your opinion or gave it any weight, such is his complete evasion here). MickMacNee (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the closure of this section by BWilkins, who's already stated a position and clearly thinks I shouldn't be asking questions of an "an admin who actually does work" (yes, and the issue is the quality of it). Leave it as is. If nobody else comments, and Bearian refuses to do or say anything else, then I'll see where that leaves me. Never mind Rfc/U, I think the unanswered concerns here are an arbcom issue frankly, there's some very basic principles that need to be reinforced here, or confirmed as no longer having any meaning. And DRV? Sure, maybe that will end in a result that can turn back time and erase the BLP violation from the Main Page. I can't say I'm enthusiastic for that, not least as I'm not a fucking retard, and know exactly what would happen if I turned up at DRV with what everyody will claim is just a dislike fo the outcome. I cannot dislike something I haven't even heard an explanation of yet frankly. What the hell would I even be able to say, other than he refuses to explain the decision at all? Someone please show me where he has explained the decision at all on which I can make a judgement as to the correctness of his closure. I'm not kidding when I say the only thing I've learned in these exhanges with him is that he considers the Daily Mail semi-reliable, yet how that related to the Afd I cannot even say. I don't know if he classed it as part of the SIGCOV, I still know fuck all about his logic process frankly, I could just as easily go to DRV and allege he's a personal friend of James Middleton for all the good such vague suspicions will do. Perhaps Bearian knows this and is banking on it. It's been alleged that he's an inclusionist by others, and he's not leaving me with anything to think that he isn't, with his continued refusals. Sure, I could write a whole detailed rationale stating my suspicions of what's occured here, but why should I have to do that when I can pretty much guarantee the first vote be from someone who will condemn me for coming to DRv with nothign but ABF, and thus won't even bother to read it, or if they do, will ignore it and endorse the closure on some complete irrelevance like the vote count or the "massive coverage". Fuck...that...shit. I'm seeking clueful input on an admins conduct and this is the admin's board. Just as Bearian has a right not to be suspected of being an inclusionist who will simply 'intepret' policies like BLP and SIGCOV to that end, he's also obliged to give others factual information about his thought process in specific situations and in judging real discussion threads discussing real cases, so that others can judge his calls of consensus fairly and objectively. I'm fucking disgusted frankly that these legitimate concerns founded on some very core principles like BLP are dismissed as "whining" by BWilkins. Not to mention the Bearian himself has said he thinks there's a 1 in 3 chance this whole complaint was a "joke". Unbelievable. When issues like basic editors considering the likes of the Daily Mail as a source at all, let alone evidence of coverage, are being said by Jimbo to be beliefs worthy of immmediate removal of rights, then this is not going to fly as "resolution". I'm not eating this sort of shit from someone who's done the exact same thing Bearian did and has a clear admiration of him, and presumes that having a bit means you don't have any obligation to explain your decisions as regards the specific issues and policies, and asserting that simple restatement is enough. It's not. MickMacNee (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I very much see this as an issue by which you, MickMacNee, are apparently unable to be satisfied by the fact that an AfD was closed with a result which you did not agree with and with a rationale that you think is insufficient. While that is your perogative, it is a concern that you are seemingly incapable of understanding that most of the community - those minded to comment, anyway - do not share your concerns. While you are a well regarded contributor to the project you are not the community, or even a spokesperson for part of it - you are just one account; you have made your point, and it is not one that most feel should result in either an overturning of the decision at AfD nor result in an examination of the closing admins ability to continue to use the flags. Time to let it go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If you really believe that's what's going on here then I feel sorry for you. I hope everyone who comes across admins like you and Bearian who feel this way, finds nothing but happiness and joy at being told that they clearly simply 'dislike' whatever it is they are disputing, and take the assertion that the are presumably just too thick to be given even the most basic of respect of an actual explanation that they clearly wouldn't understand, or otherwise are too insignificant as just one man to even deserve, in the heartfelt and collaborative manner it is surely delivered in. You can be happy with the outcome of his actions all you like, but please don't pretend to me you have the slightest idea how he came to the decision. If you think you do, you're fooling yourself. Try it - how about you draft a detailed breakdown of how you would justify the closure in policy, based on the the arguments & evidence that were actually made, and other admins can do the same. If all your drafts even remotely match on the same basic themes, enough to be called a clear keep, and if you can manage to get one out of Bearian, they match his too, then you can lord it over me all you like. Until then, just don't patronise me please. There's admins here who could have just as easily closed that as having no strong arguments to keep, that nobody offered any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. You will presumably think that's nonsense, a completely unjustifiable position, but the issue is your belief that just calling it nonsense or simply a 'dislike' is enough to prove your case, and your belief that others couldn't possibly see the reverse. It's not as bad as claiming a divine right, but it's getting there. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"You ever take that test yourself, Mr Deckard?" You miss my point - most everyone else has no issues with the close rationale. You do. That is fine. What is not fine is that you feel everyone should have the same issues with it as you do, and you will not stop pestering this board until you get a rationale that satisfies you (the exception) or everyone else agrees with your viewpoint on the one given. Nothing to do with your perceived deficiencies in the AfD close or the rationale given, but with your conduct and attitude. You are unprepared to accept consensus, which is far more contrary to the project ethos than any "questionable" action by some admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC) ps. Why on Earth would I want to "lord it over you"? I am quite insulted to be compared to a bunch of indentured sheep stealers...

You're misrepresenting me completely tbh. I've found an example of what I consider to be a good close on a very related article, and given it below. Perhaps you should start by telling me how I as a mere single user should not reasonably expect that same standard of close in this instance, before you start telling me I have a bad attitude or am just some bizarre exception. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You have found a close which you agree with, thus you term it "good". The one by Bearian you disagree with, which you likely would call "bad" - although other people think it good. I suspect that if some of those people who call Bearian's close good also agree with the example below that you would not be able to comprehend why. Until you are familiar with the concept that two different people may review the same or similar issues and come honestly to different conclusions, and neither are wrong to do so, then it is pointless continuing this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm realy getting tired of your attempts to paint me as some thick twat who cannot tell the difference between a closure I agree with and a closure I think is handled correctly. If these concepts really are one and the same to you, it's your issue, not mine. Your the one theoretically trusted to be able to close an Afd a way you don't personally like, if it was the correct outcome according to a clueful reading of the debate against policy. You're also trusted to be able to explain how it was a clueful reading if someone challenges it against their honest opinion that it wasn't. You seem to think the former can never happen, and the latter is just an irrelevance. On Misplaced Pages, it's not true that both can be right. Proper objective analysis will either prove one right or the other. There are few if any situtions where these sorts of disagreements can actually result in a true constitutional crisis causing 50/50 correct answer. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• I endorse closure of this string. There's simply nothing here that I can see that warrants its continued presence, despite the detailed postings.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
• Could someone please remind Mick not to use f-words? That is annoying. Adornix (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Another closure, for comparison

This closure of the related family Afd is an example of what I consider is an admin properly explaining his closure with respect to the actual arguments made in the debate, and how they stood in policy.

There is enough context specific detail in that closure for people to know exactly what he did and did not consider relevant, and how he deliberated over the rest. He has a clearly stated position on each major thread and theme of the debate as regards their policy compliance or weight, without resorting to pointlessly vague generalities. It's not perfect (it never hurts to name and shame the people simply throwing out JN/JNN arguments for example, but there's equally no doubt he didn't give them any consideration whatsoever), but it's good nonetheless.

He's also quite rightly dismissed the argument made by Colonel Warden that there was some 'black sheep' clause in BLP that could be invoked here (a complete irony given he was the person who selected the DYK hook above). That reassures me that he's fully familiar with that particular policy, and has not taken anybody's argument as read.

People who might want to disagree with that closure can clearly do so on specific grounds, and if still not satisfied, they will have a concrete stance with which to open a DRV, giving them at least a chance of an actual review occuring, rather than a tedious re-run of the Afd. Even if the admin completely refused to expand on his rationale on request, which I sincerely doubt given he clearly gave it a lot of thought, the fact that the close is so detailed straight out of the box means the DRV would not simply be a complete farce with people lazily claiming the filer clearly simply 'didn't like' the close.

I have asked nothing of Bearian than to do the same for his closure, which by comparison is so vauge it could almost be transplanted to many other Afd's on BLPs who get 'coverage'. So, what's the hold up here? Why am I being fobbed off as if I'm a lunatic, and my requests were completely out of the ordinary, not something any sane admin would ever do, or even believe was good practice. Is this admin just being too accommodating or over-eager, or is he actually following the guidance you are all issued with once you've been deemed to be cluefull & trustworthy enough to have the responsibility of closing Afds. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

MickMacNee blocked

Unfortunately the WP:DISRUPT, WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:POINT, and WP:SPIDERMAN through this entire process, especially this last post on his talkpage has led to a 2 week block. The length of time is due to past entries in the block log. Comments are welcome. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Two weeks? That seems excessive, given that the last block that wasn't overturned was 24 hours and that was nearly a year ago. Besides the duaration, I don't think the block is warranted. It's not preventing any imminent disruption and while he was obviously frustrated in that post, I don't see anything rising to the elvel of a personal attack and at least part of it was a valid point. Suggest unblocking or at the very least a reduction of the duration to be more proportionate to the "offence" and the most recent block that wasn't reversed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"Bad" block, HJ? More like awful block. Two weeks is ridiculous for that. The block in principle, yes, good block. The actual carrying out of it? Awful. Reduce to 24 hours, as is the standard NPA block, please. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thirded; 24 hours seems appropriate. --Errant 16:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Object. Sure, easy to support this because it is Mick and he's saying "fuck" a lot and he won't let the issue go - and that becomes annoying. But it takes at least two people to carry on an argument, and it only carries on if people feel the need to respond. The post of Bearian's he was responding to was outragious. An admin he was complaining about (albeit without much reason imho) told him not to reopen a thread on that same admin (COI) and then shouted at him because "non admins can't do that". Berian needs to grow a thicker skin and stop playing God. Of course a non-admin can open an ANI thread. This is premature and unnecessary block--Scott Mac 16:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Concur with Scott. A two week block for disagreeing with an admin is ridiculous, and just reinforces the us-and-them stereotype we're doing our damnedest to get rid of. – iridescent 17:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• As someone who rarely agrees with him on anything, I think the block was over the top. Reduce to 24 hours. RxS (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Bearian showed very poor judgement in an AfD and then became very defensive about it, apparently trying to stay as vague as possible on all points that could lead to overturning it at DRV. It's absolutely clear why MickMacNee was concerned and wouldn't let this go. Now this edit by Bearian shows that he believes that his formal admin state gives him certain extra rights that in reality are tied to cluefulness and good sense (which he appears to lack, judging from this incident). It's also an explicit invitation for MickMacNee to insult him, apart from the obvious baiting inherent in the attitude. Then, after the predictable reaction – on MMN's own talk page, where we are generally quite lenient – an involved admin reacted with a draconian block. Bwilkins needs to undo this pronto with an apology. Hans Adler 17:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • For the record, after reading that diff I've posted a message to Bearian about it and asked him to retract that ridiculous claim. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Reduced

I've reduced to 24 hours. There seems to be an overwhelming consensus that two weeks is ridiculously long. I've left the 24-hour block in place for the "civility" element; while I personally disagree with applying the civility policy when a user is expressing stress, rather than clearly setting out to be offensive, I nonetheless can see that most people feel that this kind of block is valid. Note that this amendment is in a personal and not an Arbcom capacity. – iridescent 17:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledged, and no issues with the reduction: it's easier to reduce than to increase. I was merely going on the concept of escalating blocks, and acted accordingly. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• While I think MMN has really pushed it in terms of WP:CIVIL (especially in light of his RFC/U) I concur with the reduced block. Personally would have gone for 48 hours though--Cailil 17:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• I am glad the block has been reduced, as I feel that these types of sanctions are simply signposts of the communities disagreement with MickMacNee's conduct rather than a meaningful way of moderating same. Whatever period of sanction, I would suggest that the same behaviours would restart at their expiry. I suspect that it will require an ArbCom case to properly put in place measures to resolve these issues, and it will be MickMacNee's own actions that will provide that opportunity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Refusing to drop the stick and saying "fuck" a lot is about all tha Mick is guilty of. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• In part I disagree in turn, since I believe the failure to drop the stick is a symptom of the underlying malady of MickMacNee being incapable of accepting a viewpoint contrary to his own. Of itself that may not be an issue, even though it flies in the face of WP:Consensus, but it is when it becomes disruptive - as it did above. Much like any purported failure by Bearian in the closing of the AfD, it is not an issue if there is no pattern or perceived habit - but there is a perhaps unfortunate perception that MickMacNee is party to frequent issues brought to the Admin boards. As for the swearing, though, I don't give a shit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

...as the kids today would say: "fuckin-A, dude!" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the kids in the 80's, today they might say "bangin'" or "kickass". -- Avanu (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think he's incapable of accepting views that aren't his own. I defend him a lot in these boards because for some reason or another I 'get' Mick. I can't even put my finger on what about it it is, but I have a feeling I think in much the same fashion he does. It helps to know that while it seems personal its really not. He doesn't drag up the past unless others are, or if he really does believe theres a systemic issue. And if you speak cluefully about how his behavior in whatever circumstance is actually detrimental (beyond just 'i dont like it') he is more then capable of acknowledging it. See the most recent section on my talkpage for an example him taking advice and backing away. Mick just... doesn't suffer what he sees as bullshit. It's not so much a 'fuck you' but a 'I dont have time or energy for this shit'. Or at least thats what I see. -- ۩ Mask 10:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think the initial block should have been of indefinite rather than definite duration, to be lifted only after the community is positively convinced that such disruption will not reoccur. (I increasingly tend to think that this should be the case for all blocks, as thinking in terms of "appropriate" block lengths encourages a punitive rather than preventative approach to blocks.) The comment at issue is not problematic because it contains the word "fuck", it is problematic because it is a series of massive and inexcusable personal attacks. The presence of a person who talks to others like that in the professional environments that I'm familiar with would not be tolerated longer than a few minutes, and neither should it be here. The block reduction by Iridescent was unnecessary at best and encouraging of further disruption at worst, as it reduces the incentive for MickMacNee to convince us that he understands the problem and will not repeat such conduct. (Sidenote: I notice after looking at the block log that I once blocked MickMacNee indefinitely for similar disruption, and Scott MacDonald unblocked him against consensus because MickMacNee had "given assurances". We now see what these assurances, and Scott MacDonald's judgment, were worth.)  Sandstein  21:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm reading all this after a break of a few weeks, and my perspective is somewhat different. What I see is a dispute where MickMacNee was (and is) largely right about the underlying principles, but where others started to arrive once they saw it involved MickMacNee. While reading through this thread, I noticed that both you and LessHeard vanU appeared to take the opportunity to attempt to change the discussion from one about this specific incident into one about MickMacNee's broader conduct. Which doesn't seem quite right. For the record, I agree with Iridescent's reduction of the block length. This seems a classic case of people looking at the contributor (MickMacNee), rather than the actions in question and the surrounding context. Probably best to focus on the articles in question here (the content), rather than the editors. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree; Sandstein, take the hint. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Flexibility

Wouldn't it have just been simpler to address the concerns that the editor raised by simply having another admin reopen the AfD and then reclose it with some further rationale? I see a lot of willingness to say "well, i agree, but what can you do?" It seems much simpler to just do it over, but correctly, than to argue about it so much. It was kind of clear from the AfD thread that there wasn't real consensus, so policy says to leave it running or relist it until the consensus becomes clear. It just seems a bit unflexible to acknowledge something that is a legitimate concern just because something is a "done deal". Personally, I took no strong position in the AfD, because I was interested in seeing if people would provide encyclopedic rationale if encouraged to do so. The admin closer did not acknowledge the concerns raised by the AfD nominator at all, but went off track, like many in the discussion to general notability, which was never in question. So instead of us being flexible, we get hard-headed and an editor loses patience. Not a pretty outcome. -- Avanu (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD isn't about consensus building (or voting). It's about laying out a case for or against deletion and then allowing an administrator to review the case and make a determination based upon its merits. Thus, all the Me Too "votes" are pretty much worthless and the keep/delete notes with their unique rationale's are what matter. This helps mitigate the effects of canvassing, puppets, and the like. Rklawton (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. OK, so in this case, did the admin review the rationale? It doesn't appear he did. Like I said, a LOT of the editors got sidetracked with the General Notability Guideline, when that wasn't the question. -- Avanu (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, before I get accused of actually caring whether this article lives or dies, my point is simply that it might save drama if even a minor issue is raised, that it just be done over, and done closer to guidelines. Not my dog in this fight, I'm fine either way, just suggesting alternatives. -- Avanu (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• comment and people wonder why some folks have this "admin vs. editor" mentality? Pro-tip: Check your ego at the door, and just edit in a way to improve the damn pedia. — Ched :  ?  16:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Ched. But the problem is there are too many people who can't agree on what an improvement is. BarkingMoon (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposing community ban on HarveyCarter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm technically closing this about 15 minutes early, as community ban discussions are supposed to last 48 hours, but the consensus here is clearly in favour of an indefinite community ban. Should he wish to, HarveyCarter may appeal by contacting any editor in good standing and asking them to start a discussion at AN, or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Until and unless any appeal is successful, HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is to be considered a banned user, to whom all the relevant policies apply. As such, any edits identified as being made by one of his sockpuppets are subject to reversion and editors reverting such edits are exempt from the 3RR when doing so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), previously discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive220#Proposing indefinite block for dynamic IP hopping editor

HarveyCarter is a prolific sockpuppeteer, with over 200 tagged suspected and confirmed sockpuppets, with many more IPs that are not generally tagged due to his high turnover of dynamic IPs. While nobody is unlikely to be unblocking him any time soon, his activity in the Israel/Palestine area makes it difficult to deal with him. The area is subject to a one revert per day restriction, and while reverting edits by sockpuppets of banned editors is exempt from the restriction reverting edits by sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked editors are not. Therefore I believe a formal ban should be imposed on HarveyCarter. O Fenian (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support I thought he was banned already. He without doubt should be. DrKiernan (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support It is strange that it is possible to wikilawyer that blocking socks of blocked editors count toward XRR while those of banned accounts do not, but if that is the case then banning a blocked long term abuser of alternate accounts is appropriate. After a couple more instances (or is there any historical examples?) we could then amend whichever policy has this loophole, per the consensus indicated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  It is in Misplaced Pages:Edit warring, which came up in this discussion regarding a previous sockpuppet. Obviously you would hope common sense would dictate that there is no real difference between a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor and a sockpuppet of a banned editor, but I try and avoid being put in situations like that in the first place. O Fenian (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  There is already a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Edit warring#Sockpuppets, to which I have added my proposal to include socks of indef blocked accounts, in case anyone wishes to comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support a lifetime ban on this puppetmaster.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support I also thought he was banned already. Can't be done too soon. MarnetteD | Talk 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Better late than never. RashersTierney (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly the best course of action. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new redirect

List of lists redirects to Portal:Contents/Lists, so I propose Category:Misplaced Pages categories should redirect to Portal:Contents/Categories. Shrug-shrug (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to redirect categories that way. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That redirect actually already existed as "List of categories" but it got deleted in 2007. We've also got CAT:CAT (or just simply CAT:) as a shortcut to Category:Contents and CAT:WP goes to Category:Misplaced Pages administration. WP:CATS used to go to Portal:Contents/Categories but it got retargeted to Misplaced Pages:Categorization and WP:WPCATS goes to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cats, so I made a new shortcut, P:CAT, to Portal:Contents/Categories using the handy P: pseudo-namespace, meanwhile CAT:P redirects to Category:Misplaced Pages policy and CAT:WPCAT to Category:WikiProject Cats. Is that all clear now? ;P -- œ 15:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Editnotice templates

There are now a few WP:Editnotice templates, and there could surely be more. So I've created a navigational template to help organise them:

Since most of the edinotice templates need to be actively placed in relevant editnotices as required, people need to be aware of their existence; and since currently only admins can edit editnotices, I'm posting here. Hence this message. cheers, Rd232 01:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

only admins can edit editnotices - That's true of some of them, but not all of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Account creators can edit editnotices too, but it is not intentional. —GFOLEY FOUR— 02:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

They used to be able to, but this ability was removed recently. 28bytes (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Silly Prodego! :P

Rd232, is there a category for them, too? I thought there was, but I'm not sure if that also includes inactive editnotices (in which case, they'd be blanked, I'm guessing? or deleted?) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

True, it would be helpful to link them from the {{Editnotice templates}} template, and I've now done so. You're probably thinking of {{Active editnotice}}, which should be placed within pages using an editnotice to categorize them within Category:Articles with editnotices or Category:Pages with editnotices. (Actually there's no obvious way to know how underused it is; adding it to pages that have an editnotice might be a job for a bot.) Rd232 03:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What? Didn't hear about that. —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Should {{Troubles restriction}} be added to the navbox? Mjroots (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, because it's not an editnotice template. Possibly a navbox for talkpage arbitration templates would be helpful... Rd232 19:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

i digress unless there was to be some "background" context. to itws hsitoerical noteLihaas (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

AWB access

Could an administrator help with recent requests for AWB access? It's developed a backlog of several days. Thanks. Chester Markel (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland

I've placed this article under {{Troubles restriction}} following an editor asking on he talk page whether or not it would fall under such a restriction. The visit is contentious to some, and there have been complaints of bias on the talk page of the article. I'm sure that it will be bashed into shape over the next few days at the visit takes place. A few more sets of eyes on the article probably wouldn't come amiss. Mjroots (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Word Sliver reported by User:Cunard (Result: )

Would an admin review Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Word Sliver reported by User:Cunard (Result: )? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Spartaz (talk · contribs), for semi-protecting the redirect. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 2#Obama bin Laden

Would an admin close Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 2#Obama bin Laden and the other discussions listed on that page? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Thehelpfulone (talk · contribs), for closing Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 2#Obama bin Laden. Thank you also to Crazytales (talk · contribs), Thryduulf (talk · contribs), and Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) for closing the other debates on the page. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

you're welcome :) —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A little help

How can I reopen the merge discussion at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis? B-Machine (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin) This isn't really the place for this, but you can either follow these instructions or if you'd like I could help you open one (ask on my talk page). Don't just reopen the old one however. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Before anyone else gets sucked into this, I should point out that a centralised discussion on this issue has already taken place at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis#Clarified requested move / merger proposal and was recently closed as "no consensus" after an nearly equal split between editors (six for, five against (note that the final "support" actually puts forward a proposal that is the opposite of the one under discussion, so it can't be counted)). B-Machine appears to be unhappy with this result but that is not a good reason to re-open a discussion that was closed only ten days ago. Endless re-litigation of failed proposals is not helpful. Prioryman (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

...yeah, I got sucked into a few renaming ones on the plain old Cote D'Ivoire article too... back to back to back to back to back ones. Bah. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me guess, people wanting to rename it "Ivory Coast"? Prioryman (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have reverted Prioryman's revert of Bob House 884's opening a new merger/move discussion on the behalf of B-Machine, as Prioryman was involved in the last merge discussion. If nothing surfaces in a week, I will close the new discussion. – AJL 02:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As I've said on Bob's talk page, I'll accept this reopening but B-Machine cannot expect to reopen it yet again if it doesn't go the way he wants. That would be unreasonable and disruptive. Prioryman (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

B-Machine also opened a thread on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Africa on 16 May. Since the previous merge discussion was initially fragmented & confused (and this fragmentation is being cited as a reason to open a new discussion in the hope that it will yield the right consensus), I'd recommend that any further comments are directed here. bobrayner (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As I've said above, it's wrong to say that the previous discussion was fragmented and confused. A discussion before that one did suffer fragmentation and confusion but I went to some trouble to start a fresh, centralised one. That's why I'm annoyed that false claims are being made about that discussion to justify re-opening it only 10 days after it was closed. Prioryman (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Complex merge

Okay, so we've got a situation here:

1. I afd'd Major Moves for lack of notability.
2. After two relists, consensus seems to suggest merge/redirect to Indiana Toll Road.
3. However, I would also like to move Major Moves (album) to Major Moves once the merge is done, because it will now be the only thing with that exact title.

Is there a way that the merge can be performed and free up the Major Moves name at the same time? Histmerge of some kind? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 18:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• ETA: I think I might've found something that'll work. Move Major Moves to another title, then merge/redirect to Indiana Toll Road. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 18:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I can histmerge it with Indiana Toll Road no problems, and that frees up the Major Moves title. --Errant 18:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Changed my mind (mid-process). Moved it to Talk:Indiana Toll Road/major moves - you can then merge and attribute content to that page the normal way :) --Errant 18:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
      •  Done Talk:Indiana Toll Road has a tmbox at the top, explaining the unusual merge and linking to the subpage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I added {{Copied}}s to supplement the custom box. This subpage method is rarely used, but not entirely novel: WP:Merge and delete#Move to subpage of talk page. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Modify the edittop gadget

Hi. At the moment, the edittop gadget adds the edit link at the end of the top header. I would like to propose this to be changed to look like the edittop gadget in Meta, which adds the link after the site's tagline. The reason is right now when you want to select the title of an article, the edit link text is also selected occasionally (try triple-clicking on the title of an article while having the gadget enabled). This change will not affect the functionality of the gadget in any other way and although this is a slight enhancement, there's no reason not to do it. huji—TALK 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This request should go on WP:Village pump (technical) But you could change it for yourself with your own version of the javascript gadget in common.js. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think changing it's location will alter the selection problem. In any case, having different locations for the top edit link and the other edit links is not desirable; not until the other links move to the left as well. — Edokter (talk) — 21:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I find that feature useful, it reminds me that I will be editing the lede only and not the whole article. There is a gadget to move other edit links to the left - Preferences > Gadgets, then under "Useful interface gadgets" tick the bottom box marked "Moves edit links next to the section headers". This moves all edit links apart from the lede to appear immediately at the end of a section's title, instead of at the far right of the line. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

History merge needed

History merge needed from Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Sustainable Wildlife Enterprises to Talk:Sustainable Wildlife Enterprises. Thank you. – AJL 04:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I just copy-pasted with an edit summary for attribution. Usually AfC talk pages aren't deleted, so that should be good. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the comments are ~~~~ signed right on the page, it's less important to follow WP:Copying within Misplaced Pages rigorously. Flatscan (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please delete

Not a picture File:Altoona2.jpg--Musamies (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember what I said at User_talk:Musamies#WP:CSD? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC closure request

• Talk:Political activities of the Koch family#RFC: "the nation's most prominent funders"

Could an uninvolved admin please summarize the views at this RfC? It ended a few days ago.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Requests for permissions backlog

There are some requests at Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled which have been waiting for 5+ days; if someone has a moment could they take a look? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 22:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC Closure Request

Could an uninvolved Admin take a look at the RFC Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Are Bus Routes Encyclopaedic? it's expired twice now although further comments were made after the first expiry. The points made need a neutral summation and proper close. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

US Senators

Someone named "CreatureKawa" done a series of vandalisms in about the one quarter of the articles about current and former US Senators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.11.88 (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any vandalism. I spot checked a random sampling of his edits, and I see an innocuous change to an article link, an innocuous change in a template, and a change to a different type of infobox. I don't see anything I would call vandalism in any of those, this appears to be someone who is trying to fix things, and people acting in good faith should not be called vandals. If you have some specfic changes you found that I did not, perhaps you could list those here? --Jayron32 05:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards