Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mkativerata (talk | contribs) at 07:24, 24 September 2011 (→Proposed topic ban of Jespah: Enacting indefinite topic ban). 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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Main Page features

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Declined speedies

Would an admin close and assess the consensus in Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Declined speedies, which I've combined with Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Restore disputed section?. The policy page was subject to an edit war over a disputed section and was protected. There has been no further discussion since 23 August 2011. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, SilkTork (talk · contribs), for closing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the primary topic of China

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

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

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

Perhaps a triumvirate of admins can close Talk:China#Requested move August 2011? See the January 2011 discussion at User talk:Mkativerata/Archive9#Triumvirate, where Mkativerata (talk · contribs) wrote:

Here's an informal proposal that I'm minded to take to WT:Deletion process for approval to proceed on a trial basis.

Proposal: An administrator closing a highly contentious XfD may choose to refer the closure to a panel of three administrators. Highly contentious XfDs usually mean XfDs with an exceptionally high number of contributors, where it appears to the closing administrator that different administrators could reasonably close the debate with different outcomes.

The closing administrator is to refer the closure to a panel by posting at WP:AN to solicit the input of two other uninvolved administrators. The three administrators will then discuss at the talk page of the XfD how the debate should be closed. The administrator who referred the close to the panel shall act as the informal chair of the panel. After a reasonable period for comment (preferably within 24 hours), the chair shall close the XfD on the basis of the discussion and give reasons for the close that reflect the discussion. If the administrators on the panel disagree on the appropriate outcome and there is a clear 2-1 majority in support of one outcome, the majority view is to prevail.

I think for this proposal or something like it to win community acceptance, it would have to:

• impose as minimal bureaucracy as possible;
• make a convincing case that there is a problem to be fixed; and
• make a convincing case that it will help fix the problem. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mkativerata said that this is a "very good candidate for a triumvirate" but that he was involved and had already taken a stance in the debate.

Tabercil (talk · contribs) agrees with this proposal, so would two uninvolved admins be willing to join him in a triumvirate to close Talk:China#Requested move August 2011? Cunard (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been a participant on that page, albeit as a (hopefully) impartial mediator. I'm not sure if that makes me too "involved", but if not, I'm willing to be one of the three. -GTBacchus 14:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What truly makes an admin "uninvolved" or "impartial"? If we cannot answer the question to that, then what would make a "three admin panel" be any different? Moreover, how is this "minimizing" bureaucracy when this is doing the exact opposite? –MuZemike 15:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've relisted the move discussion. The topic appears to be contentious and keeping it open longer than the 7 days is probably a good idea. No hurry there. I'll be happy to join the triumvirate or whatever of 'uninvolved' admins to close the move. --rgpk (comment) 15:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks folks. As I said earlier, I'm thinking the move ought to be done based on the initial arguments on it but the sheer number of links in-coming makes me pause just simply because so many of them will be broken after the move. Since it's been relisted for another week, let's see what happens... Tabercil (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The hope of such a panel would be that if the 3 agreed, it would be much less likely to go to deletion review. Of course, if it was 2–1, it would be almost certain to go to deletion review, and that would probably balance out. We might as well use Deletion review as it stands, where considerable more than 3 admins as well as non-admins will look at it. But if the admin thinks the community is unable to reach consensus, we already have a way of handling that, which is a non-consensus close. But in any specific case where an admin asks for help, we're NOT BURO and can IAR to help out. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect anything to go to Deletion review, because we're not considering a deletion here. It's a titling question. -GTBacchus 18:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Broken links?

I don't see why we'd get broken links. A redirect would be in place. I'm willing to bet a sizable proportion of them come in via templates, too. Each template that you update could be 100 links done in one stroke. Between that, and work done by bots and OCD Wikipedians, I don't think links present enough of a problem that they should influence our decision. They do, however, mean that it's a decision we shouldn't take lightly, but I don't think there's much danger of that either. There's not something I'm missing, is there? -GTBacchus 03:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposed moves are:

• China → Chinese civilization
• People's Republic of China → China

I think Tabercil is concerned that if these proposed moves are implemented, many of the links will be incorrect. I don't know if bots have the technical ability to fix these links after the pages are moved. They might have to be manually checked. Cunard (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Triumvirate

Restored to AN from the archives so that the triumvirate of closing admins can discuss the closure. Cunard (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, since I seem to be the chair of this thing, let's lead this sucker off. We have a roughly split group of people here: 32 for versus 29 against. And yes, I am aware that it's been canvassed so the numbers might be skewed. Even if I toss out the IP addresses, we're still left with 26 opposed and 28 supportive. As I wade through the arguments, both sides bring up valid points and I don't see any obvious sense of consensus here... Tabercil (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, who composes the triumvirate? Apparently I'm one of the three? -GTBacchus 03:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Tabercil (talk · contribs), RegentsPark (talk · contribs), and you comprise the triumvirate. Cunard (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The key question I have is how does the current situation meet WP:AT? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what was passionately debated - on the one hand it was shown earlier that the topic of China does refer to PRC; on the other hand, there's history on the "oppose" side in that there's 4 prior requests to move the article which resulted in two "non consensus", one "not moved" and the most recent one being closed out as "consensus against status quo, otherwise unclear". Tabercil (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

At least the merge discussion quality looked fairly poor to me and far less policies and evidence were mentioned than this time and the disambiguation page discussion was fairly confused as it talked about lots of topics. To me this decision should be moderately easy. If the current situation meets WP:AT even given the sources found then it should be closed as no consensus or not moved. If the closing admins feel that the sources show that the common name applies and WP:POVTITLE comes into play then the articles should be moved. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, shall we come to individual conclusions, or deliberate as a group? If it's the latter, then in what venue should that happen? I'm assuming there's not a convenient café where we can just meet and hash it out... -GTBacchus 19:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't care which way we run the debate, but I'm guessing since you live in Oregon and I live in Ontario (the province, natch) it'll be kinda hard to find a Starbucks that's local to the pair of us. <G> Tabercil (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) A convenient cafe sounds like a good idea :) But, more seriously, perhaps we should first close the discussion with a decision pending note. Then, perhaps each of us write up a decision and post it somewhere (user space?). And then hash it out somehow if we don't all agree. That's one way. A straight vote would be another but that wouldn't be the wikipedia way. Any other ideas? --rgpk (comment) 19:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Another option (I've just started looking at the page) would be to list support and oppose arguments (support/oppose for PRC --> China) and try to decide amongst ourselves which ones are more valid and which are less. Looking at the lengthy discussion, I think a 'no consensus' is not the right way to go. We should try to settle it one way or the other. --rgpk (comment) 19:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually in Texas now, which is no closer to Ontario... well, maybe in spirit. I like the idea of listing arguments for careful weighing. -GTBacchus 21:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A table listing the arguments for the various options already exists, which can be seen at Talk:China#Pro-Con_table. I'm not going to paste it here as it's fair sized. Tabercil (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that thing. That was made before this recent RM; there might be new arguments to add to it. It's definitely a good start, though. -GTBacchus 14:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are I didn't spot any. From I could tell the points raised in the current round are referenced in the table. Remember, this isn't the first move attempt, it's the fifth. And I do think rgpk has a valid point in that we ought to try and see if we can't settle it one way or the other. Tabercil (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a note from an involved editor, I think there have been many many more RMs for China and the PRC than the five listed in the notice at the top of their talk pages. The discussion archives are extremely long and debate about moving the pages goes back to 2002. There may be dozens of move discussions, I just found 4 recent ones and made a little template to help people keep up with the debate. Looking at the shear volume of the text about titles and such, its important that the process be advanced a little bit. A "no consensus" result is worth avoiding if you can. - Metal lunchbox 21:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I started a page at User:RegentsPark/China listing the arguments. The arguments are listed neutrally for now. Perhaps you (GTBacchus and Tabercil) would like to modify or add to it. --rgpk (comment) 02:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

On re-reading through the arguments last nite (again), I've pretty much decided on moving as it would reflect the practical use of the name which is the point of WP:POVTITLE. Yes, the whole PRC/ROC thing complicates things, but it's also a distraction from what the current everyday use of the word "China" (when referring to geography) is in the English language. English changes over time, and it has changed so that currently "China" = PRC much as gay now means homosexual and (going for an much older shift) meat came to refer to the "flesh of land-dwelling animals" as opposed to the older definition of simply "food". We can address the PRC/ROC either via a "see also" at the top of the article and/or a clarification in the text of the article body. Tabercil (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reached a decision as well. I'll post my decision and explanation either later tonight or early tomorrow. --rgpk (comment) 21:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at the discussion now; soon I'll post with my opinion. -GTBacchus 02:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

My decision is also to move so that China points to the current PRC article. The reasoning is straightforward. The main argument against moving is that, by choosing to point to PRC, we will end up being non-neutral. However, the essence of neutrality on wikipedia is that rather than being conscious neutral by giving equal weight to all viewpoints in deciding on a title, we leave the decision to usage (If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased (from Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Naming). It is clear that, in current usage, PRC is the primary topic for China and China is the common name for the entity known as PRC, and reliable sources overwhelmingly confirm this. Therefore neutrality requires that we move PRC to China. At best, the China article should contain a reference to the fact that the ROC also claims to be the legitimate China (assuming that they do that). --rgpk (comment) 16:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we're all on the same page. The arguments against the move are serious and deserving of the full consideration that we've given them, but our policies are clear that we achieve neutrality by following sources. I would support an expandable hatnote in which we make it clear to readers that there are two countries whose legal names include the word "China", and that they both have claims of sovereignty over the same territory. However, one of those countries is commonly called "China", and the other is commonly called "Taiwan", or "ROC". The unadorned word "China" refers overwhelmingly to the country currently administered as the PRC.

I'll be more than happy to help fix links after the moves; they are numerous. -GTBacchus 22:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Tabercil, RegentsPark, and GTBacchus, for reading through the lengthy, contentious move discussion and providing rationales for the decision you three made. Will one of you move the page and officially close the discussion with "The result was ..."? This was a novel way to close a difficult debate, and I am glad you were willing to try it. Because three admins came to the same decision, I hope this close will be more accepted by the participants of the discussion than if only one admin came to this conclusion. Cunard (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The decision is not at all complete without a mention of whether these moves imply Taiwan is not a part of China. It seems that the above three administrators were selected by convenience—i.e. the first three to come were to read through the discussion (and it seems clear that they unwittingly missed the strongest opposing point). We all know "convenience polling" is not scientific. Please randomly select at least 5 other administrators to do what the triumvirate has done above.  The Tartanator  02:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We came to this with open minds and looked at it afresh. Given your edit here where you are calling the RM a "ill-formed move request" and advising that "we will need to form a rapid response to reset the configuration or make China the disambiguation page", I'd say you have already made up your mind what our decision should be. Tabercil (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the physical move itself, If anyone else wishes to make the move go ahead. I'm going to hold off on doing it myself for 24 hours as I suspect there will be an appeal to the triumvirate's decision and thus would like to give it a chance to occur. Tabercil (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Tartanator, hi. Thanks for your remarks. I'd like to make a couple of corrections. First of all, I was not on this committee by "convenience" as one of "the first three to come". I don't pay much attention to this page, and never would have seen this in passing. Rather, I was approached and asked to be a member, specifically because I have a long history of closing literally thousands of move requests, and I've got a lot of experience with particularly contentious ones. Did you know that? Do you consider that a form of "convenience polling"?

Secondly, you assert that it's "clear" that we "missed the strongest opposing point", namely, whether or not Taiwan is part of China. That's actually the only point on which I had to carefully deliberate. Everything else was clear as day, so the point you say it's "clear" I missed is actually the one I thought very carefully about for more than 24 hours - actually for more than 24 days, because I've been aware of this move request and the related RfC for a long time. This move request has been on my mind for weeks.

These moves do not imply that Taiwan is not a part of China. They imply that the common name for the PRC is "China", and that the overwhelming use of the word "China" is to refer to the PRC. It is abundantly clear that the issue of whether Taiwan is a part of China is the only reason that this move was contentious. That's the only thing that actually required deliberation. Without that consideration, this all would have been trivial and obvious.

I, for one, will be following up on this move, and intend to be active in post-move edits, ensuring that the ROC/PRC issue is adequately addressed, very first thing in the China article, before the lede section. I think the idea of a custom-made, expandable hatnote is a good one, and I hope I have a chance to help implement it. The situation with PRC and ROC - the issue of cross-strait relations - is extremely important, and must be addressed in our China article at the top of the page. The history of this move proposal makes that abundantly clear.

Now Tartanator, have I addressed your concerns, or would you like to hear more details about my thoughts on whether these moves imply that Taiwan is or is not part of China? I will be happy to go into more details, if you like, because it is literally all I thought about in considering this move request. -GTBacchus 05:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

All of that said... I would encourage you to select five more admins at random and ask them to review our decision. I'd be very curious to see what they'd say. It's more likely to happen, of course, if you do the selecting, than if you simply request or demand that an indeterminate "someone" do it. None of us is paid to take orders from arbitrary members of the editing community. -GTBacchus 06:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Something tells me there will always be arbitrary procedural complaints so please randomly select at least 100 admins to evaluate the RM. I'm being sarcastic. I'd just like to recommend that the three of you stick around for a while to help sort out appeals and interference. There are some very passionate political views involved in this debate and there's a group of editors that's likely to feel they got railroaded somehow. A little warning, it seems likely that as soon as the move is completed a long and complicated discussion will begin about whether and how to merge China and PRC. We might need a little help moderating that discussion. - Metal lunchbox 06:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to help with content. But for the next week or so I'm busy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure I'll stick around. Said passions are exactly what I had in mind when I said I'm holding off on the immediate move myself - to give folks a chance to digest what's occurred. As well, there's been an expansion on the Talk:China page showing the history on the topic going back to 2002 - there were three actual moves of People Republic of China to China that occurred in July 2002, May 2003 and October 2004, but were disputed and (obviously) reversed. So why should this RM be any different all of a sudden?? Tabercil (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize but, in transcribing my closing comments, I inadvertently dropped an addendum that I had intended to add as a 'small' note. (I had prepared the notes the previous evening and copy pasted them at work the next day, forgetting about the note.) Since the small note directly addresses the Taiwan argument, here it is: On the other arguments. (1) That the term 'China' cannot be precisely pinned down and so we shouldn't either: This is solipsism. No nation can claim a precise permanent boundary or definition. (2) That this implies that the PRC is the legitimate government of China or that Taiwan is not a part of China. Article titles don't take positions but reflect usage (disputes or alternative viewpoints are typically presented in the article itself it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the thing in question is the main topic being discussed WP:NPOV)--rgpk (comment) 13:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Tabercil and GTBacchus, thank you for elaborating. The point of contention, is, of course, a point of contention, and is thus a matter of interpretation. To me, titles also affect content, and in the interest of building an encyclopaedia that represents reality, we would have to state that Taiwan is definitely not part of (i.e. controlled by) China because we are making China and PRC interchangeable terms. Also, exactly the same arguments were made in the last pushes to move PRC to "China", so it is difficult to believe that three administrators can have mirrored viewpoints.

Tabercil, there is nothing implicitly wrong if anyone who opposes the move request does what I have done: to consider an appeal. And I expected a "no consensus" close yet again, not "not moved".

RegentsPark, the solipsism argument is a non-argument. Nothing political is permanent. We are describing current boundaries, and so the boundaries of most nations, especially those without territories, is definite. Also, consider WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, as explained by Benlisquare.  The Tartanator  16:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Tartanator, thanks for your reply. I disagree that we're "making" PRC and China interchangeable. We're reflecting that sources use "PRC" and "China" interchangeably. We don't decide these things; we reflect these things.

Also, I disagree that article titles are some form of content, except in the most superficial sense. We have articles called Holy Roman Empire, Seven deadly sins, No Child Left Behind Act and War on Terror. Those titles do not mean that we're asserting that one can wage a "war" on "terror", that no children were left behind by Mr. Bush's policy, that sloth really is a "sin" (much less a "deadly" one), or that the Holy Roman Empire was "holy", "Roman", or an "empire".

Titles are labels, not content. Assertions about reality occur in the article content, after the title, and they often show the problems with any apparent implications of the title. The article content of our China article will make cross-strait issues very clear, from the very start; I'll personally be there to ensure that happens. Perhaps you can help us be careful that we don't misrepresent the issue or leave out important perspectives. That would be awesome. -GTBacchus 19:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I've moved the articles. A move was requested and all it needs is for one uninvolved admin to close it. Here, three uninvolved admins closed it the same way, so the procedure is entirely proper. Please feel free to use other avenues of dispute resolution if you feel that the articles are at the wrong titles. --rgpk (comment) 15:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like those involved to comment here. This is not an ordinary move - it requires a change in the naming conventions, which requires further discussion, to be properly implemented. A decision was made, and thousands of links need to be manually reviewed - I'm not sure what's the rush here. --Jiang (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy this evening, but I'll be commenting there before long. Thanks for the link. -GTBacchus 19:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

History section

I hope that all have noticed that the history section of the PRC article starts with "Prior to 1949", and one paragraph to cover 3 thousand years of Chinese history. Compare with the History section for France. This needs to be fixed preferably before, or immediately after moving PRC to China. --LK (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

wp:SOFIXIT Yoenit (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a content issue, not relevant here. There is already a discussion on talk actually. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Feedback about the triumvirate approach

Well done on bringing this one to an end! It would be interesting to hear from editors, whether involved or not, about the trimvurate approach itself. I understand this is the first case in which it has been applied on the project. The rationale for it for highly contentious discussions, a triumvurate strengthens the legitimacy of the final decision, reduces the risk of error, and avoids one admin being personally lumped with the outcome. Has it worked well in this case? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• The triumvirate approach worked very well in this case. Despite being in different time zones, the three closers deliberated and came to a consensus in a timely manner—in under four days. Although the close was criticized, that the closers were unanimous in their judgment likely lessened the controversy that may have occurred had only one admin closed the debate. Had there been a 2–1 split in opinion, though, the close would have been more controversial than if there had been one closer. I recommend trialing the triumvirate approach with several contentious XfDs before deciding whether it is a positive. I also recommend ensuring that there are several XfD closes in which the closing admins are in a 2–1 split to gauge the community's response prior to formally proposing it as mentioned at User talk:Mkativerata/Archive9#Triumvirate. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Cunard's assessment there. I'm very pleased with the way triumvirate closures seem to be helpful in shutting down controversy. I do suggest that triumvirate closures should be reserved for exceptional cases: highly contentious DRVs or RFCs where there is genuinely no consensus across the wider community, but which seem to call for a decision rather than a compromise. I don't agree with the suggestion of five randomly-selected admins--I think that the only situations in which a triumvirate would be inadequate are matters for arbcom.—S Marshall T/C 22:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Interesting, thanks. Perhaps one way of circumventing the 2–1 problem identified by Cunard would be solidarity: only the three admins would know whether it was unanimous or 2–1. Of course, the drawback is that is is less transparent, and would require off-wiki communication. On S Marshall's point, I fully agree that this should be reserved for exceptional cases, like the China naming controversy.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
    • A proposal that included off-wiki discussion among the admins likely would not pass. I think there would be accusations of back-channel dealing were admins to deliberate in private. Second, an admin who didn't support the majority opinion would be forced either to disclose their stance or defend a close they didn't support. It's better and much simpler to keep everything out in the open. Cunard (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with Cunard - I think part of the reason why this worked so well is because we were open in the discussion with no back channel communications, and also because we came to a unanimous decision (even if the exact reason why seems to be slightly different for each person). I think three people work best - if it's five, it'll take longer and you run the risk of awkward 4-1 splits - a strong consensus on one side and a significant hold-out on the other which will probably not result the original problem being conclusively closed out. With a triumvirate, if it comes back as 2-1 you know you have something which probably should be looked at at a higher level - i.e. arbcom. Tabercil (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I would generally concur with the two above comments, in particular, that transparency is essential to the success of this approach. As I keep working in requested moves, I'll keep this in mind, and when another monster of a request comes through, I'll consider coming here to suggest this strategy again. -GTBacchus 05:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SFD

Can some admins please come and help out at Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion? The backlog there is out of controll again. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Would admins close the following SfD discussions:

1. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/6#Cricket-admin-stub
2. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/11#Czech-*-stub templates
3. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/11#Category:Northern Ireland election stubs/Template:NI-election-stub
4. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/18#Rail -> Rail transport
5. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/20#Retail companies
6. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/21#Template:US-transport-company-stub
7. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/28
8. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/2
9. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/6
10. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/8#Madagascar province categories
11. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/8#Old German district categories - already handled

Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of Jespah

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.

Jespah (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing or discussing the articles John Prendergast, Unlikely Brothers, Satellite Sentinel Project, Enough Project, Not On Our Watch, and The Enough Moment. Jespah is also prohibited from editing or discussing articles insofar as the edits or discussions concern John Prendergast, Unlikely Brothers, Satellite Sentinel Project, Enough Project, Not On Our Watch or The Enough Moment.

Jespah's 24 September comment is noted. The best way to have this topic ban lifted -- "indefinite" does not mean "permanent" -- would be to edit collaboratively and in accordance with site policies on articles in other topic areas. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I propose a topic ban on the user Jespah (talk · contribs) per this report which was written solely by me, an uninvolved party. The report is large as I try to be as thorough as possible about these sorts of things. I ask that the report not be altered and that any new discussion take place here.

The report concludes: Jespah has been editing since December of 2008 and, as of this post, 98.1% of her 1121 non-deleted mainspace edits (I can't see the deleted ones) have been made on 7 articles. These 7 articles are John Prendergast, Unlikely Brothers, Satellite Sentinel Project, Enough Project Lisa Shannon, Not On Our Watch, The Enough Moment and are either about organizations or people who do humanitarian work in Africa. Of the other 1.9% of her edits, all of the 21 edits are in regards to humanitarian work in Africa and/or the subjects covered in the top 98.1% of her edits. In short, I see not one single non-deleted mainspace edit that doesn't have to do with humanitarian work in Africa. While this isn't an issue by itself, when paired with Jespah's ownership issues, strong personal interest in these subjects, POV pushing, and extreme lack of ability or willingness to work with other editors to improve her editing patterns, it currently makes her a detriment to WP. Not only is she directly a detriment to the content of WP, she has tied up several other editors for an excessive amount of time which effectively impedes their ability to improve the project in other areas let alone the stress it causes them. I can only speculate on their stress; I'll refrain so that those editors speak for themselves.

I propose that Jespah be banned from editing the articles John Prendergast, Unlikely Brothers, Satellite Sentinel Project, Enough Project, Not On Our Watch, and The Enough Moment as well adding information about those topics to other articles. I'm not overly confident in this scope and ask that we use it as a starting point with the goal of allowing Jespah to edit subjects in which she is not so personally invested. I started with what amounts to humanitarianism in Africa but I feel that it's far too broad.

This is the first time I've ever proposed a topic ban so please let me know if I've missed anything. OlYeller 17:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note - we might want to include a prohibition on the creation of new articles related to this topic. The Interior (Talk) 23:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ol Yeller lays the case very well. I do think we've reached the end of the trail for this user. There is a continued inability to acknowledge the issue or effectively change the behavior. I think part of the issue is Jespah's belief that this is an incredibly worthy cause, it causes her to be unable to view the issues from an encyclopedic perspective. I support the limited topic ban proposed and hope that Jespah can try her hand at other areas and possibly come back to these topics in the future when she has gained a better understanding of encyclopedic goals. --Daniel 18:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the proposed topic ban. (I am, for the record, an involved party.) OlYeller has pulled together a lot of material in admirable fashion. The matter does, however, have a fairly voluminous history and any editor who is interested in going beyond OlYeller's report will find what I *think* is a comprehensive set of pertinent Talk page and other links on the Talk page of the report. JohnInDC (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

informational only - the deleted contributions from this editor match the pattern described. Many of them are image files created by this editor (supposedly as own work) and depict John Prendergast, who is inevitably first-named as merely "John" in an intimate/casual fashion. There's also a dead article on yet another organization working in the same field and for the same worthy cause. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban, this looks very much like vanispamcruftisement but given the subject I suppose we should write it off to mistaken crusading zeal. Whatever, it needs to stop. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• It's been a year since I first crossed paths with this editor, and, I'll admit, I'm a bit sad that it has come to this. I had really hoped that this editor would "see the light" and realize that Enough and Prendergast could have nice, informative Misplaced Pages pages that conformed to policy. But that is not the case.

Jespah has insisted that Enough's press be hosted on Misplaced Pages pages, and sees no reason why it should not be. She has shown little interest in finding any other sourcing, and in fact sees the group's PR as perfectly neutral and reliable. No amount of discussion has made any difference. So, in the interests of moving on, I reluctantly support a topic ban as described above. (and thank you to Ol'Yeller, who has put a lot of time into his report.) The Interior (Talk) 01:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I have followed the issue for six months after seeing a report on a noticeboard, and have reluctantly concluded that Jespah will never accept advice on how articles should be written (NPOV, RS), and will never avoid an opportunity to embellish one of these articles to promote the Good Cause. It's a difficult case because the user is civil and I don't recall seeing a single edit that stands out as a clear problem (although some copyvio claims were made here). The issue concerns relentless advocacy for the particular group—advocacy that results in considerable wasted time as other editors attempt to clean up. Johnuniq (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• I would point out that if you're going to topic ban a user from editing the only articles they edit, then that's pretty much tantamount to banning them entirely. fish&karate 08:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't - because like any wikipedian, they can leave their personal crusades at the door and pitch in to help with *our* goals. If they don't want to do that, then they effectively exclude themselves and frankly it's no great loss. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban - In one respect, I admire this editor for their tireless work on behalf of their cause. However, this isn't the place for it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. I do believe it is worth assuming good faith here, but the user evidently is at best an enthusiastic proponent somewhat lacking in judgement and detachment when editing with a tenacious intent to force inclusion of these organisations' promotion. The user, a single-purpose editor, is evidently hell-bent on support for a noble cause but lacks understanding of how this attitude is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. Sad, indeed, due to the article diaspora here, but true. --Tristessa (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Question - Is there any need to alter the proposed scope of the topic ban? I worry that another organization may pop up and immediately fall outside of the topic ban and the issue may persist. Perhaps that's a problem to deal with if it actually occurs. Also, are there any other areas that we can request that editors review the situation? I think a review of the situation by as many editors as possible would benefit everyone. OlYeller 15:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well - further up, TheInterior suggested that in addition to the 7 existing articles (or whatever the figure is), plus inserting them or referring to them in other articles, the ban could include the creation of new articles in the subject area. That would solve the problem you've described, though it does leave us with the issue of how to describe the articles that can't be created. "Humanitarian or human rights organizations relating to Africa"? It's hard - we don't want to be too broad but we also don't want to just push the problem (potentially) into a closely-related area that the language doesn't technically cover. On the other hand, if the problem re-emerges, I would think that expanding this ban could be accomplished fairly expediently. JohnInDC (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about limiting new article creation of orgs./people/books that are directly related to Prendergast/Enough. There could be some confusion and time wasted for Jespah if she puts together a big new article for Enough's latest initiative. The Interior (Talk) 02:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse - I've tried many times to work with Jespah in the past. I believe that Jespah has good intentions. But I also think that she just cannot accept that it's not okay to promote worthy causes on Misplaced Pages. She seems to me to be a perfectly competent editor and I hope that in other topic areas she can prove to be more productive. -- Atama頭 20:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for taking so long to respond and thank you all for the time and thought you have put into editing my work and considering what to do. As I think I said somewhere, I looked at Encyclopedia Britannica online and didn't find any differences in what they post and what I have posted. I am sorry that I seem to have a block, as I just don't get it, which isn't to say that I don't want to understand, as I truly do. If you feel you can give me another shot at this, I will be very appreciative and also will understand if you decide against that. --Jespah 02:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

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

William H. Steele / legal threat

Sorry, I have to run out the door in a few minutes but I wanted to post this. The Truth Angle (talk · contribs) has posted on his/her talk page that the William H. Steele article is inaccurate and should be taken down, and "Liability for libel is a real possibilty". User says they know the subject and are working on a book.

The user's edits (I'm including the IP's edits in this diff as obviously related) are mostly adding unsourced information contradictory to the sources, and messing up formatting.

I reverted to the version before all the changes.

Also of note is an editor who was blocked earlier who did nothing but edit the article Truth-Driver (talk · contribs)

Thank you. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've left a warning on their talk page. I don't see this as a blatant legal threat and considering they're a new user, perhaps the links in the warning message will serve to educate them. TNXMan 14:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It has long been my feeling that if we blocked editors with "truth" in their username on sight, we wouldn't lose any constructive contributions. My feeling has once again been reaffirmed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I can remember a good number of problematic editors whose usernames fit that pattern, and can't think of a single positive one. But even given that, imagine the bad PR if Misplaced Pages were to disallow anyone creating a username with "truth" in it. That gives a lot of ammo to snarky folks who don't care for this site. -- Atama頭 19:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The accusation, of course, would be that we can't handle The Truth™! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Account Creation Ban at Georgetown University

Georgetown University is currently under a wide IP block for account creation due to historic sockpuppet/abuse issues. Lately this has been causing some minor headaches with regards to GU's participation in the U.S. Education Program as it makes it difficult for participating students to create accounts during training sessions on campus. It was suggested to me by User:Dcoetzee to bring this issue up here for discussion. While there are some work-arounds, such as use of WP:ACC and using IRC to request immediate Admin assistance, this block will have to be resolved at some point in the next 9 months (i.e. before Wikimania 2012). MyNameWasTaken (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a full list of the Georgetown IPs that are currently blocked? Deryck C. 19:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Using ACC and it's related IRC channel #wikipedia-en-accounts which are normally monitored 24/7 could be the answer. An ACC admin is also usually present to deal with any unforeseen issues. Mlpearc powwow 20:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course if there's a rangeblock involved, a checkuser is required. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• If there's a list of IPs, we could think about enabling account creation, but whenever you put hundreds of teenagers together, give them access to the Internet, and a way to amuse themselves without any consequences, the result is inevitable, so I would be inclined against unblocking altogether. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, ban all universities, not. Georgetown University owns 141.161/16. I notice 141.161.133.0/24 is currently blocked by a checkuser. If you can find the block in question I'd suggest first going to the blocking admin. -- zzuuzz 20:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that checkusers made rangeblocks in their capacities as checkusers. What's the reason — is it to prevent the creation of socks by known sockmasters who use those ranges? Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between a checkuser block and a block by a checkuser. But when a checkuser blocks a range for "Abusing multiple accounts", you can be sure they checked the appropriate block settings at the time. Presumably someone was abusing multiple accounts, but I have no idea of the history. -- zzuuzz 21:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between a checkuser block and a block by a checkuser? I understand the rest of your comment. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

A {{CheckUser block}} is a block explicitly marked as being based on privileged checkuser information, warning non-CU admins against overturning it without particularly careful prior consultation with the CUs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

and a block by a checkuser is like a normal block, though they may or may not have used the checkuser tool to research it. The block mentioned above falls into the latter category. See also this statement. -- zzuuzz 21:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• This has been a situation at other universities also. I think blocks like this except for a very limited period are wrong in principle. As HJ MItchell says, vandalism is common among university users.This is a particular concern as residential colleges, where the students may not have an account outside the university range except on vacations. Much of our range blocking practices date from before the time when we had effective edit filters starting in 2008, and we should try to use that more specifically targeted approach. The existing ones should be reviewed. If we mean everybody can edit, we have to deal with the side effects in some way other than not letting large groups of people edit. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to remove this range block. Before we blocked it - this guy was creating half a dozen different accounts almost every week - after the range block he still surfaces periodically - but only with one or two accounts every few weeks. --Versageek 03:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The sockpuppeteer who's using that range is still getting through, but not as much/easily. There are other Georgetown ranges, but they don't appear to blocked. When I block a sockpuppet with autoblocked enabled, there is no autoblocked issued. This means that sockpuppet is editing through a blocked range/IP. It's common for this sockpuppeteer to still edit in this range, but he/she hasn't been as active with creating accounts. We don't have the manpower to deal with persistent abuse, especially from this user. Elockid 03:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

you re seriously proposing we ought to block half a university to deal with one person? 6 accounts a week we can't deal with? 6 Accounts an hour, I'd understand it. If this is the best we can do, a few dozen active jackasses could put us totally out of operation. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A /24 range is not half a university. Georgetown has a much larger /16 range. It's not 6 accounts a week. It was like 6 accounts a day at times (not including IP edits). Elockid 04:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is also a cross-wiki sockpuppeteer, the accounts I mentioned are just the ones in English Misplaced Pages. Elockid 04:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A note regarding the spectrum of the ban on campus: we have been unable to find any IPs used for general connections that are outside the ban. It affects all wired and wireless connections on the main campus including dorms, offices, the libraries, and hospital. While GU may have a larger range, portions of it must not be in use or be in use elsewhere. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What's really needed though are example IP addresses; there are very clear instructions in the block message which provide this information. However, assuming the sockpuppeteer referred to above is responsible for the block and still active, the block is probably not going to be adjusted soon. One option is for the GU network admins to take some responsibility for this user. Otherwise, it looks like WP:ACC and IRC are the best options for now. -- zzuuzz 19:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is evolving but, if someone from here is in contact or going to contact someone at GU and if the WP:ACC option is looking good, it should be noted that we have a shortage of CU's at ACC. We have two who stop by as much as they can and one is a newly ordained 'crat (who prolly has a full plate) so request might not be handled in a timely manner. FYI. Mlpearc powwow 00:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well since the university would like to have access to edit for their students there should be more motivation from them to do something about the sockmaster. They could identify the person and rescind their computer access, or take some other preventative action against them. If we could get an offer like that then the block could be dropped. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Rescinding the user's access is probably the only effective way of dealing with the sockpuppeteer on GU's side. This guy has been abusing the encyclopedia for years and based on other sockpuppets, abusing GU's network for years also. He/she has also promised that he/she will not stop until he/she gets the justice the topic they're editing deserves. I can forward the university with this info. There are sockpuppets blocked this month with a couple I'm monitoring. Elockid 02:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Some Georgetown faculty members could be given WP:Account creator rights, so they could make accounts for students in whatever numbers are necessary so long as they are logged in. This would not require lifting the /24 anonblock, which only prevents creating an account when operating as an IP. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

ACC has done something very similar to that recently but, wouldn't we still need the checkuser done on the effected IP's ? Mlpearc Public (Talk) 02:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The checkusers ought to support giving out the Account creator rights to these teachers, since the chance that the sock master would enroll in one of these classes appears small. In any event the misbehavior of a student who socked would get fed back to the teacher who personally knows the holder of every account. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I need to say that I do not investigate sockpuppetry, nor do I work at AIV, & only block the vandalism I happen to come across, so I am in the very uncomfortable position of saying that other people should do possibly considerably more work in order to do it with fewer side effects. I think no matter what we do or don't do, maintaining open access is critical. At a university, unlike a high school with a limited number of computers and access points, it is not necessarily practical to identify particular users, which is basically a good thing, because users at a university need & deserve some degree of anonymity from their administration. (And the administration needs to be able to truthfully respond, just as we need to respond, that they cannot necessarily identify individuals.) And, as a practical matter, there's no particular reason he should limit himself to GU; so it won't even help if they throw him out; it may just make him even harder to detect. I'm told above that the speculations of some Wikipedians that it only affects a small part of the university were not correct. We need to protect our contents, certainly, but the balance here is wrong. If I were one of the Ambassadors there, I am not sure I would be willing to continue under such difficulties. I remember for one class in NYC I ended up having to substitute a different lesson at the last minute because there wasn't time for me to figure out account creation. Of course I could if it were to be needed again. But we have an obligation to potential users who are not taking classes also. The entire point of Misplaced Pages is openness. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Having someone with WP:Account creator rights locally would go very far in alleviating the problems that we're running into. The most obvious candidate wouldn't be a faculty member but rather the DC Regional Ambassador, Pongr (Talk). While it is theoretically possible to contact GU SysAdmins to try and isolate the sockmaster, but my guess is that its unlikely the University would take any action, if not only because the cost/benefit ratio isn't there for them. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should have someone from Abuse response get involved in the correspondence ? (if that's whats going to be done) Mlpearc Public (Talk) 16:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to consider unblocking this IP range, then we need to also consider unblocking the disruptive user in question. If we cannot prevent this user from evading his block by creating more accounts, then the block on him is worthless. –MuZemike 17:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move needs closure

A request on Talk:Tenedos to move the article has been open since August 19. The discussion has stalled long ago, with many of them same arguments starting to be repeated over and over again. The votes are 5 for, 7 against, and that ratio is unlikely to change significantly. At this point I would like to request closure of the request. Athenean (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  07:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 10#Yael Meyer

Would an admin close Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 10#Yael Meyer? It will fall off the DRV log soon. Cunard (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Closed. NW (Talk) 14:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, NuclearWarfare. Cunard (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Need a closer at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paul Hopfensperger

Hello fellow admins--could one of you have a look at this AfD which has been open for three weeks? I think there is a consensus. If you don't see one, that's fine; perhaps it could be relisted. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RfC on adding future fights to fight record table

A request at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RfC on adding future fights to fight record table by Fayerman (talk · contribs) has been unanswered. Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#Adding fights to records months in advance? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic ban of Jespah

Also, would an admin close Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic ban of Jespah and log the editing restriction at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Misplaced Pages community? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards